There are better ways to screen out unwanted callers.
As Jeff Hammerbacher, fmr. Manager of Facebook Data Team, founder of Cloudera says, "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."
It's long seemed odd to me that people just accept ads. Imagine trying to explain that model to an alien familiar with the basic ideas of our economy but unfamiliar with ads as a primary revenue model:
"Well, say you want something from me, but you don't want to pay the amount I ask for it. Instead, you give a larger amount of money to a third party. The third party gives it to a fourth party, who gives it to me. I try to manipulate you into seeing the third party as more valuable, so you'll give them more money in the future. I do what you want in exchange for you putting up with this."
"Didn't it just cost me a larger amount of money that way? Because of all the intermediaries?"
"Well yes, but everyone just pretends to not know that. Oh, and this is the dominant revenue model for several large industries."
Thanks for that great analogy! I'm trying to articulate the problem in easier to follow ways. I've been wanting to depict it in the dreaded infographic.
Care to help with the words or the graphic? I'm going to start website for this. If anyone knows of a great website already focused on articulating the problem with ads, let me know. Email me!
I was writing from the perspective of taking it for granted that this service is not actually free. From that perspective, ads versus fees are just different points in the price structure. (The very term "price structure" clarifies that it's not free.)
Ad-supported services are quasi-free, in the sense that the the display of ads is not actually eroding any dollars from your financial portfolio. Ads potentially rob you of time. But not necessarily. For instance during a TV commercial, you can take a washroom break or fix yourself a snack.
Not all ad-supported programs are intrusive with the ads. I have a few on my smartphone, and none of them cause delays or very much interference with the operation of the program. They occupy some screen real estate and sometimes can be clicked by accident. (And that's probably a bad thing for the advertisers: an accidental click isn't an indication of true interest; such clicks will not become conversions at any significant rate.)
> the display of ads is not actually eroding any dollars from your financial portfolio.
I honestly don't think you followed my links and read carefully. And you're ignoring the opportunity costs and social costs, also explained in my link.
> I honestly don't think you followed my links and read carefully.
Indeed, but some great minds of our generation are probably working on figuring out a way to make people do that.
> And you're ignoring the opportunity costs ...
To my credit, I did write: "Ads potentially rob you of time". Reading/viewing/listening to ads isn't free, of course. Your time and attention are a resource.
But opportunity costs are fictional, unless you can show that an actual opportunity is lost. People who have a valuable opportunity to chase generally prove that by chasing that opportunity and not (for example) sitting in front of a TV watching a commercial.
If you're viewing an ad right now, it can safely be assumed that that is currently your best opportunity.
Ads certainly do not coerce you into losing opportunities.
(I will sooner believe that the alleged losses due to copyright infringment are actual!)
It's past 2 p.m. in my timezone and I haven't seen a single ad since I woke up at 6. Didn't watch any TV or listen to a radio. I use AdBlock on my web browser at home and work. Didn't bicycle past any billboards. Amazingly, nobody has tried to sell me anything yet.
Really, it's not that hard to live ad-free. Just block whatever you can, and opt out of the remaining ad-loaded culture.
By "free" he means as in “free beer” not as in “free speech”, i.e. not what RMS means by "free software".
When he writes "anti-free-software movement", he is purposefully playing with the ambiguity of the term[1] and playing off the FOSS movement's use of the term. He does so tongue-in-cheek, but for clarity I should not have quoted that part. My mistake.
"Don't Be A Free User" means don't be a user that doesn't pay. He is also specifically speaking of services, not software: "I love free software and could not have built my site without it. But free web services are not like free software."
All of the examples he gives are of services that had no revenue.
That said, I just realized that I made a second mistake. I missed an important detail in his post. He writes at the end, "Make them charge you or show you ads." So obviously he's arguing that you should use services with a revenue-based business model and he is ok if that business model relies on ad revenue. He's only arguing against using services with a non-revenue, buy-out exit strategy. He is not making a "Be the customer, not the product" argument that I thought he was. I'm disappointed that Maciej isn't a part of the no ads movement, at least at the time he is writing this. I will have to talk to him :)
I dislike ads and think they are harmful for other reasons, if that makes you feel better! But they are kind of orthogonal to the argument I was making here.
Maciej Ceglowski (idlewords) also calls for an "anti-free-software movement" in Don't Be A Free User: https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/
There are better ways to screen out unwanted callers.
As Jeff Hammerbacher, fmr. Manager of Facebook Data Team, founder of Cloudera says, "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."