BlackbirdBuilt for Speed Premium Member join:2005-01-14 Fort Wayne, IN
2 recommendations |
to siljaline
Re: Mozilla Will Serve Ads Within Tiles Of Its New Tab Pages"Free" does not mean "without cost"... it only means without a charge to the recipient. If it exists and is offered, then somebody somewhere has costs they have to somehow cover. Bluntly put: Do we in this forum have better, safer suggestions for development/maintenance cost-covering than adverts or tie-ins? When we make use of "free" software, what do we bring to the maker's cost table besides good wishes, "loyalty", and criticism? I believe there exists in this forum more than enough cross-discipline expertise and cleverness to come up with practical cost-covering alternatives to ads and tie-ins, if such alternatives exist... and if they don't exist, for alternative and secure ways that ads might acceptably be used or deployed in freeware. Ponder again the Palemoon developer's comment (with my emphasis): quote: seriously, if the unobtrusive ad at the bottom really bothers you, you can block it and cut into what little I get from it. And if everyone would follow your suggestion, I'd have to cut down on my expenses (and cut services like the internal updater, the xmpp service, or even the forum).
It's a clear illustration of the cost dilemma of all the free software not being offered by mega-corporations who elect to subsidize their "free"-product development costs for PR or marketing reasons by offloading them to other products or services. For every meaningful suggestion about how developers can cover costs otherwise, there seem to be 10,000 spiteful "gotcha" comments in forums and threads when a "free"-product developer is "caught" in placing some means of revenue-generation in a product... to be followed eventually by thousands of other mournful postings when that software eventually goes belly-up because its developer finally just abandoned shelling out his own money and effort for ungrateful users who only ever contributed their sense of "free" entitlement. |
|
SnowyLock him up!!! Premium Member join:2003-04-05 Kailua, HI |
Snowy
Premium Member
2014-Feb-20 5:32 pm
said by Blackbird: Bluntly put: Do we in this forum have better, safer suggestions for development/maintenance cost-covering than adverts or tie-ins? In the final analysis this site is a 'product' just as software etc... is a 'product'. The question of revenue has been successfully addressed by this site by offering 2 types of 'product'. An add supported free version alongside an add free paid subscription. If a take your pick approach is doable maybe that's the way to run? |
|
siljalineI'm lovin' that double wide Premium Member join:2002-10-12 Montreal, QC |
siljaline
Premium Member
2014-Feb-20 11:59 pm
said by Snowy:In the final analysis this site is a 'product' just as software etc... is a 'product'. Which is now en-route or is monetised. |
|
|
SnowyLock him up!!! Premium Member join:2003-04-05 Kailua, HI |
Snowy
Premium Member
2014-Feb-21 12:54 am
said by siljaline:said by Snowy:In the final analysis this site is a 'product' just as software etc... is a 'product'. Which is now en-route or is monetised. I certainly hope so. |
|
siljalineI'm lovin' that double wide Premium Member join:2002-10-12 Montreal, QC |
siljaline
Premium Member
2014-Feb-21 12:58 am
It was bound to happen, yes ? Most of us saw this coming although Mozilla's rationale has been somewhat convoluted in Marketing-like speak.
Most of us have or will take steps to avoid the Ad Tiles program (as it where) as best possible. |
|
SnowyLock him up!!! Premium Member join:2003-04-05 Kailua, HI |
Snowy
Premium Member
2014-Feb-21 1:07 am
said by siljaline:It was bound to happen, yes ? Most of us saw this coming although Mozilla's rationale has been somewhat convoluted in Marketing-like speak.
Most of us have or will take steps to avoid the Ad Tiles program (as it where) as best possible. I have misunderstood what you were referring to, my apologies. My reply was a response to this site being profitable - not to Mozilla which I have no opinion on. |
|
sivranVive Vivaldi Premium Member join:2003-09-15 Irving, TX
1 recommendation |
to Blackbird
So long as the ads take the form of static still images and text, I would be fine with that. No advertiser-supplied code should be executed. Therein lie dragons. |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed Premium Member join:2005-01-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
said by sivran:So long as the ads take the form of static still images and text, I would be fine with that. No advertiser-supplied code should be executed. Therein lie dragons. That's largely how I view it: if ads must be included to balance the books, I want no related scripting running to support them. I want to see a potential path for cost coverage for a developer that doesn't also have a security/privacy risk attached to it. I also believe the paid plus "free" ad-supported product model is something many users could live with... that way, they can try out a product for "free", and if it merits extensive use, they might be more than willing to pay for it - I know I do and would. An alternative would be to include extra features in a paid version. In the case of Firefox, I'd be more than willing to pay for its ad-free or full-feature use, but for them to also have a static-ad-supported "free" version and/or a feature-starved version as well. At least that way, a secure cost-support structure would be out in the open for all to see, and a way around it would be available (by paying) without threatening to put the developers in a cost hole trying to do neither. |
|
siljalineI'm lovin' that double wide Premium Member join:2002-10-12 Montreal, QC |
to Snowy
No worries Snowy |
|