Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Safari Reader: Apples Weapon of Mass Destruction
- Thread starter JellyFish
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anyone who doesn't want to see ads already uses an adblocker and it doesn't seem to affect anyone to the point of bankruptcy.
I, for one, welcome the concatenation of multi-page, one paragraph per page, three sentences per paragraph articles. That's just nonsense anyway.
I, for one, welcome the concatenation of multi-page, one paragraph per page, three sentences per paragraph articles. That's just nonsense anyway.
I think it's great, for me, personally. But I can definitely see how loss of revenue through click-through ads could happen, and could lead to less free content overall, but the browser share now is small - though the reader idea could catch on with other browsers..
I think at some point soon many of us will have to decide who we are. Are we the sort of person who will put up with ads for free content. Or do we want rid of ads and pay for the privilege.
I'm in the former
I think at some point soon many of us will have to decide who we are. Are we the sort of person who will put up with ads for free content. Or do we want rid of ads and pay for the privilege.
I'm in the former
The statement is ignorant of the fact that the Reader downloads the ads still so it will not have any financial effect on sites. This includes when Reader pieces together content from multiple pages. All ads get downloaded in the same manner that they would if Reader wasn't being used. The author is just a whiner without the facts.
Not that I agree with the thesis of the article, but you seem to be missing the point yourself. If advertisers know that 5% of the impressions aren't actually reading their ads, or if their analysis shows a decreased commercial benefit gained from web advertising, or if the ads are pay per click, publishers are eventually going to be paid 5% less per impression. Advertisers aren't fools.
You are presuming that all articles are one page. The ads will load on the first page of the article, but after that no ads load in the browser as Safari Reader continues to pull up the rest of the article.
See the section in the article about the importance of multipage ads for sites. Sites like Ars Technica, for example, do detailed reviews that cost a lot to produce and are broken into multiple pages to generate ad impressions.
Safari Reader has now destroyed that business model. Ars Technica will get the ads generated by the first page but after that no ads will load for the other pages.
Ads are loaded. Reader then overlays them with the article text, but the ads are still there, in all their tacky glory. Anyone who really wants to know about what patent nostrum is recommended for their toenail fungus is welcome to click.
No advertiser has a right to my attention.
No advertiser has a right to my attention.
Let me explain this again. ADS LOAD FOR THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ARTICLE ONLY. THEY DO NOT LOAD FOR SUBSEQUENT PAGES. THE CONTENT OF THE PAGES LOADS IN SAFARI READER BUT THE ADS DO NOT.
This will mean a significant revenue loss for sites like Ars Technica, the NY Times, etc. These sites depend on ads to generate revenue to pay employee salaries & benefits, taxes, and all the other things that go into running a business.
Apple has made a colossal goof in releasing Safari Reader like this.
you're wrong. at least according to ars.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/safari-5-faster-less-clutter-secure-browser-extensions.ars
The problem is that this will work in the short-term, but in the longer term advertisers will realise this is happening.
Go ahead and test it. Look carefully and see if you see the subsequent pages in a multi-page article loading (along with its ads). I tested it and I only see the first page loading. I don't know where the hell Ars got that from. Where are the ads loading? In what? The first page of the article is there but no others and the rest of the content loads in Reader with no ads.
Try this article on the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06Fiorina-t.html?ref=magazine
I'm guessing it's a background load and page hit and makes it invisible to the end user. and I am guessing that ars knows this since they likely tried it on their own articles and could see the hits. i have no way of testing it on my iPad and try to offer more proof, but I do trust their analysis more than a random blogger
If that's the case then it would need to be verified by Apple. Why have they not issued a statement? There seems to be nothing on the Safari 5 part of their site that addresses this issue. So I doubt that you are right.
Apple has some questions to answer about Safari Reader, it seems.
Get rid of multi-page articles
Multi-page articles need to go anyways.
Have you ever tried to make it through one of those obnoxious Forbes.com slideshows/articles? Yuk. I can't hit "close tab" fast enough on that god awful site.
On a sidenote...
I won't be surprised if there's some type of Meta tag that can force Safari to not recognize content as an article.
Multi-page articles need to go anyways.
Have you ever tried to make it through one of those obnoxious Forbes.com slideshows/articles? Yuk. I can't hit "close tab" fast enough on that god awful site.
On a sidenote...
I won't be surprised if there's some type of Meta tag that can force Safari to not recognize content as an article.
FAIL article. The user needs to go to the article first to use reader. It mainly affects multi-page articles.
No, I specifically stated multiple page articles as well. All ads get downloaded. Some of it is done via pre-caching, which you will not necessarily see happening as a user. Also, as a web designer and developer, I really like this feature.
Who actually reads the ads anyways? Studies have shown users become oblivious to them and never pay them any attention. They're just a waste of space, which is why I use an ad blocker, and is why Apple created this feature for Safari. I've been using the Readability script for a while anyway so the feature isn't really new. The only time most people click on an ad is because it was an accident or the ad jumped in front of their mouse.
I see. So you're a parasite that thinks the sites you read should give you free content and that you have no obligation to give anything back. Okay, gotcha. Thanks for letting us know. I'll check to see if Mac Rumors has an ignore feature so I can get rid of you and not have to read your silly comments.
I'm not sure I see this really affecting advertiser revenue.
I'm not sure how typical my habits are, but when reading an article I
1. Never bother to give more than a passing glance at the ads (which I could do when the page loads before going into "reader mode", and
2. Absolutely never click on an ad. Never. Never ever.
I'm not sure how typical my habits are, but when reading an article I
1. Never bother to give more than a passing glance at the ads (which I could do when the page loads before going into "reader mode", and
2. Absolutely never click on an ad. Never. Never ever.
I guess I'm not sure how those people behave, but the page does need to load before you can click the reader option.
Maybe that's enough time for the ad clickers to click?
I guess I'm not sure how those people behave, but the page does need to load before you can click the reader option.
Maybe that's enough time for the ad clickers to click?
My website loads pretty fast. Most of the content / ads definitely load before Reader shows up, on my site.
But yeah Safari Reader will likely reduce clicks. Doing an article explaining that this is result of Google's own doing.