Do any of you guys use AdBlock?

[2457244]

This site is a perfect example of why you shouldn't use adblock. They provide a free service and pay thousands each year on web hosting and journalism. In return, they place a few unobtrusive ads on each page in order to pay for all of this. If we all block them, they get no income and are left with 3 options:

1) Start charging us for their content.

2) Produce sponsored content such as biased reviews.

3) Close the site down.

The free internet is a myth. Sites cost money and big, popular sites cost lots of money. I support the sites I use by viewing their ads. Sorry for the rant but at the current rate, adblock is going to destroy something we all love.

That's a lot of quack and you know it very well.

Please, don't try to picture us a life without Seabert just because you make it sound like we, the people who use AdBlock are the bad guys without knowing what we are doing. There is more to the World Wide Web than ads alone.

I wish it was that simple..

Last time I checked, there is still a human post man in my street filling postboxes on a daily base even while we're living in a time with email.

No need for drama, Breaking Bad as ended.

 

[3568358]

This site is a perfect example of why you shouldn't use adblock. They provide a free service and pay thousands each year on web hosting and journalism. In return, they place a few unobtrusive ads on each page in order to pay for all of this. If we all block them, they get no income and are left with 3 options:

1) Start charging us for their content.

2) Produce sponsored content such as biased reviews.

3) Close the site down.

The free internet is a myth. Sites cost money and big, popular sites cost lots of money. I support the sites I use by viewing their ads. Sorry for the rant but at the current rate, adblock is going to destroy something we all love.

I have never purchased anything from an ad that I've seen on a webpage anyways so viewing them or not viewing them doesn't matter to some one like me.

Anyways, the mere viewing of an ad does not get a site money. Businesses ask sites to advertise their products because the site gets many views, and in doing so they hope to pay the site for advertising from money that the business got from sales from people who saw the ad and purchased what ever. If you're some one who doesn't have money to buy many things, or some one who doesn't buy anything new, then blocking the ads isn't going to hurt the any more than not blocking them, because you're not gonna buy anything anyways.

 

[3568358]

If sites start charging, I'll move on to another site. There are always alternatives. There are times I search for something and find an article that is behind the pay wall. Usually there are other sites who have the same article that are free.

I don't care if that's a bad attitude to have. Sites brought it on themselves with popups and having to click on something to skip an ad. I've been blocking ads for 5-6 years now on all my computers and I don't feel guilty one bit.

I agree, always an alternative. If sites didn't use such intrusive disgustingly ugly ads then adblock wouldn't exist. now our fault

 

[Weaselboy]

Yes, I saw that as well when I reinstalled it some days ago. I was surprised.
haruhiko, do you have any insights who might be the new owner?

There are rumors that it was bought by the owners of AdBlock+ since they are now using the same acceptable ads "third party" company. The whole thing kind of smells to me with AdBlock refusing to say who they sold to.

 

[Weaselboy]

Anyways, the mere viewing of an ad does not get a site money.

I have no insight into how MacRumors specifically makes ad money, but I know many sites do get paid for "impressions" (views) as well as click throughs, just at a lower rate.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

There are rumors that it was bought by the owners of AdBlock+ since they are now using the same acceptable ads "third party" company. The whole thing kind of smells to me with AdBlock refusing to say who they sold to.

Thanks for the info, Weasel. It would be a logical business decision and acquisition.

 

[JackieInCo]

I have no insight into how MacRumors specifically makes ad money, but I know many sites do get paid for "impressions" (views) as well as click throughs, just at a lower rate.

Google Adsense does or at least, used to pay per impression. I haven't used it on a website in a few years so i don't know how it currently is.

 

[Mikael H]

This site is a perfect example of why you shouldn't use adblock. They provide a free service and pay thousands each year on web hosting and journalism. In return, they place a few unobtrusive ads on each page in order to pay for all of this. If we all block them, they get no income and are left with 3 options:

1) Start charging us for their content.

2) Produce sponsored content such as biased reviews.

3) Close the site down.

..Or 4: Provide similar (but obviously cheaper) content on a hobby basis.

Any page that shows ads that evidently are based on tracking my habits gets their ads blocked. Any page where ads are served by a network that has spread drive-by malware in their ads gets their ads blocked. Any page where ads are obtrusive (cover parts of the page until you click them away, re-render the page mid-load so you risk inadvertently hitting the ad with your finger or cursor while browsing, run ads that automatically load the App Store or similar) gets their ads blocked. Any page where ads add a substantial loading time/data size to the page gets their ads blocked.

If the content is good enough, I'm prepared to pay for it: I still subscribe to (some) paper magazines for that reason. But I'm also prepared to take a reasonable hit in personal convenience for a principle.