Google Chrome

Burnsy2023 said:
I think they have a right to put ads on their websites, just like I have the right to ignore them or block them.

Burnsy
Click to expand...

Absolutely...

But to somehow suggest that because you pay a service provider to gain access to the internet, should somehow mean that every site on the internet should somehow managed to run itself for £0 is madness:-

platypus:-
Quite frankly, I find it obscene that given that I'm paying a monthly fee for broadband I'm expected to happily sit by whilst garish adverts consume my screen space and bandwidth.​

This comment suggests every website owner should be claiming money off ISPs to cover their costs? :rolleyes:
 
NeilFawcett said:
So you're happy that the cost of the newpapers and magazines you buy tripple or quadrupple in cost for example, so the adverts can be removed? Just like the internet, I'm happy to flick past/over a few adverts, if it means a cheaper experience...
Click to expand...
I don't buy Newspapers or Magazines. However, due to its transient nature, I'm not sure advertising models apply quite in the same way.

NeilFawcett said:
platypus:-
Quite frankly, I find it obscene that given that I'm paying a monthly fee for broadband I'm expected to happily sit by whilst garish adverts consume my screen space and bandwidth.​

This comment suggests every website owner should be claiming money off ISPs to cover their costs? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I've already said it but I'll say it again for you. I don't use services I don't deem valuable. If websites charged for content, I'd be happy to pay for ones I use.
 
dirtydog said:
It is a mystery why people do, to me :) It is okay and all, but if it wasn't for the fact it was a google browser, and with google being generally liked, what's the big deal really?
Click to expand...

I suspect it's the fact maybe it's faster than the usual suspects (FF & IE), and generally gives the same if not better functionality...

For your average user, what's not to like...
 
NeilFawcett said:
Absolutely...

But to somehow suggest that because you pay a service provider to gain access to the internet, should somehow mean that every site on the internet should somehow managed to run itself for £0 is madness:-

platypus:-​
Quite frankly, I find it obscene that given that I'm paying a monthly fee for broadband I'm expected to happily sit by whilst garish adverts consume my screen space and bandwidth.​
This comment suggests every website owner should be claiming money off ISPs to cover their costs? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Like it or not, ads subsidise many goods and services - look at The Metro, City AM etc for example.

If everyone turned off and adverts thus created no tangible benefit to advertisers then you would end up with prices going up for items you pay for, be it a newspaper, website etc.

The so called professional economist which called me a wannabe amateur claims that websites can run off negative margins :D
 
Last edited:
platypus said:
I've already said it but I'll say it again for you. I don't use services I don't deem valuable. If websites charged for content, I'd be happy to pay for ones I use.
Click to expand...

Let's say you use 5-10 big websites regularly, all of which say have some adverts down their right hand sides in places. I bet if they removed those adverts and all started charging £10 a year membership two things would happen:-
1) Most people wouldn't pay, even though they say they would. Why would they, they're already paying to access the internet and would find it obscene to have to pay more to access some sites.
2) Most people would go to an alternative free versions of the site, probably which has adverts covering its costs.

Maybe you'd pay, but most people wouldn't. You're sites would end up being expensive to join and low on usage/members. Or just close down...
 
rafster said:
I was not arguing about wether it's your right our mines to turn off or view ads.

My argument is purely on the basis that I do not mind displaying ads for websites that clearly run off advertisement income.

Like it or not, ads subsidise many goods and services - look at The Metro, City AM etc for example.

If everyone turned off and adverts thus created no tangible benefit to advertisers then you would end up with prices going up for items you pay for, be it a newspaper, website etc.
Click to expand...

that is why they are addons, meaning adverts still create income.

and middle click and scroll isn't a feature, I've never used it anyway, it used to just annoy me.

No personal attacks
 
rafster said:
Like it or not, ads subsidise many goods and services - look at The Metro, City AM etc for example.

If everyone turned off and adverts thus created no tangible benefit to advertisers then you would end up with prices going up for items you pay for, be it a newspaper, website etc.

The so called professional economist which called me a wannabe amateur claims that websites can run off negative margins :D
Click to expand...

I completely agree!

The problem is people believe the internet is free, where in fact it is not. Every page/site you visit is costing someone something. Busy sites need to cover their costs in some way, and advert at the moment seem a good method of achieving that...

The problems is if advert blocker become to common it could cause a real problem!
 
rafster said:
I love it how everyone on the internet makes assumptions.

BSc Economics and MSc Economics with Distinction. I also lectured Econometrics/Microeconomics to UG 1st years. I now work for an Investment Bank.

Maybe I should clarify. I do not want to rob sites from ad income.

Also under your "simplistic model" (if it's even worth that) you make the assumption that websites make moves irrespective of pay offs (i.e. profit). If we are talking about websites which do not sell items and depend purely on adverts....
Click to expand...

I did not make an assumption, I asked a question, one that you didn't actually answer, despite 2 business economics degrees. Believe it or not, not everything is based on profit...
 
Shoseki said:
I did not make an assumption, I asked a question, one that you didn't actually answer, despite 2 business economics degrees. Believe it or not, not everything is based on profit...
Click to expand...

I answered your "model". Profit can be negative. if you have individual A who runs website X who makes +ve profit monthly, then suddenly no advert and makes -ve (through a multitude of variables, from hosting costs to opportunity costs of running the website) then under "economic theory" why should he still create? The only way to say he may is if the utility he gets out of running the site is measurable and greater than the costs, then he may continue. But this is not going to be the case always.

If you want to continue patronising me, then email me and I'll give you a simple lesson on game theory, utility and microeconomics (which is what you are hinting it, wether you realise it or not)
 
rafster said:
A website browser by definition is one which browses the internet and shows the website as it should look.
Click to expand...

Because adverts are not how the page should look, they change upon every refresh, and are not related to why you opened the page in the first place. An add-on, means 80% of web users will not have it as mandatory, but users in the know can use it to block out all the ads. As 80% of people will still see the ads they will still generate revenue. But 20% of people that are more IT aware will have nicer, quicker web pages loading.

Now can we please get back on track and stop going on about why you think that ad-blockers will create an end to the web.

No personal attacks
 
Just had a quick play on a old Dell optiplex and it seems very nice. Thing that struck me straight away was the speed. Seemed very nippy compared to IE on the old P4 2.8 Optiplex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom