Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Brave: A new browser with built-in adblock and payment solutions
40hz:
"Supported by advertising" is a non-sustainable business model. Sooner or later we're going to need to get ourselves away from that idea.-40hz (January 23, 2016, 05:22 PM)
--- End quote ---
Ever since internet ads started we hear this, and at some point it gets old. It is not the user problem and it's easy why, because other mediums exist where just viewing ads is enough, TV ads payouts are based on how many people view them (ratings) and not those who 'click' or buy. Frankly internet ad networks and advertisers should get over themselves.
-rgdot (January 23, 2016, 05:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
I think you hit on an important difference. Ads on a oneway broadcast medium like TV tend to be far less intrusive then ads on an interactive "broadcatch" medium like the web.
Innuendo:
Ever since internet ads started we hear this, and at some point it gets old. It is not the user problem and it's easy why, because other mediums exist where just viewing ads is enough, TV ads payouts are based on how many people view them (ratings) and not those who 'click' or buy.
-rgdot (January 23, 2016, 05:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
Unfortunately (?), at least here in the United States, television isn't a medium where viewing ads is enough. Consumers subscribe to cable/satellite/etc. and are still served ads. Even local network affiliates who are usually free over the air are getting a piece of the subscription pie to bolster the revenue they get from ads.
Since I'm 'old' I remember back in the '70s and '80s when a 30 minute block of network programming gave you 27 minutes of program and 3 minutes worth of ads. These days a 30 minute block of network programming gives you 20-21 minutes of program and 9-10 minutes of commercials. I can watch nearly anything I want in my cable TV programming package, but rather than DVR it, I'll just download it from the internet because all the commercials are already cut out.
I think radio has become the worst, though. You'll get 12-15 minutes of programming (if you're lucky) and then 5-8 minutes of ads.
rgdot:
Ever since internet ads started we hear this, and at some point it gets old. It is not the user problem and it's easy why, because other mediums exist where just viewing ads is enough, TV ads payouts are based on how many people view them (ratings) and not those who 'click' or buy.
-rgdot (January 23, 2016, 05:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
Unfortunately (?), at least here in the United States, television isn't a medium where viewing ads is enough. Consumers subscribe to cable/satellite/etc. and are still served ads. Even local network affiliates who are usually free over the air are getting a piece of the subscription pie to bolster the revenue they get from ads.
Since I'm 'old' I remember back in the '70s and '80s when a 30 minute block of network programming gave you 27 minutes of program and 3 minutes worth of ads. These days a 30 minute block of network programming gives you 20-21 minutes of program and 9-10 minutes of commercials. I can watch nearly anything I want in my cable TV programming package, but rather than DVR it, I'll just download it from the internet because all the commercials are already cut out.
I think radio has become the worst, though. You'll get 12-15 minutes of programming (if you're lucky) and then 5-8 minutes of ads.
-Innuendo (January 25, 2016, 10:18 AM)
--- End quote ---
Several points to be made,
Traditional networks are sustainable by just ratings - those 'newer' channels are sometimes too - meaning they don't require clicks. What you are paying cable companies is not finding itself in TV channel pockets as you say, in some places existing over the air channels receive nothing, it is remaining in the cable companies pockets.
Speciality channels like HBO which do get paid by cable companies are at least in part (yes channel bundling takes away choice in Canada and elsewhere) supported by consumer choice so the internet ad model analogy is still a false one in my opinion. I visit a site by choice but my point was about how much the site owner makes by me just 'viewing' his/her ads.
The frequency of ads is a separate issue, people by the most part supported deregulation that allowed it, if people don't like it they have to look in the mirror.
Deozaan:
I'm posting this from the latest Brave v0.7 developer release.
It's pretty bare bones at the moment, but it definitely feels pretty speedy. But that's probably because it's pretty bare bones at the moment. :)
Chrome or Firefox might also feel just as speedy without any plugins/extensions or 15+ tabs opened at a time.
It has an interesting interface, with the address bar centered along the top of the screen. It also tells you how long it took to load the current webpage (this one took 972 ms).
Brave: A new browser with built-in adblock and payment solutions
Also, if you don't have your mouse cursor over the address bar, it just shows the current webpage's title:
Brave: A new browser with built-in adblock and payment solutions
There isn't a lot in the way of settings/options at the moment.
Brave: A new browser with built-in adblock and payment solutions
And some things are just broken/nonfunctional, such as while writing this post, if I click the icon to insert a link, the usual dialog asking me for the URL and title of the link doesn't pop up. And when I drag & drop the images into the attachment section, it properly adds the images but it also opens the images in a new tab. At least it doesn't open them in the current tab like other browsers would do. I also watched a few YouTube videos and the ads didn't show up, but I'm not sure if that's because of Brave or because I didn't disable AdGuard, but one thing that was broken was that trying to watch the videos full screen didn't hide the title bar and address bar parts of the browser.
Anyway, I read somewhere--though I'm sorry I can't remember where--that Brave is at least 25% faster than Firefox, and I can say that it definitely feels faster.
It's nice to see more innovation/competition in the browser space. I'm interested to see where things will turn out.
Stoic Joker:
@Innuendo - I miss the 70's too. :)
The frequency of ads is a separate issue, people by the most part supported deregulation that allowed it, if people don't like it they have to look in the mirror.-rgdot (January 25, 2016, 01:03 PM)
--- End quote ---
Regulation only serves to stipulate a point that it can't be screwed up more than. That's not fixing the problem, that's just using an arbitrary point to force the argument under the rug.
Realistically, the Ads aren't in-and-of-themselves even the issue. it's the poorly written backend (tracking and etc.) code that lags page load and turns the user experience into total shit. So instead of trying to block ads in an ever escalating pissing contest ... What they really need to do with a browser is bake in a pass/fail mechanism that simply omits anything on the page that doesn't respond in a - brutally enforced - timely fashion. So if - as is often said - you only have 3 seconds to captivate and hold a visitors attention, the page had damn well better load straight in half of that. And anything on the page that causes it to bog down the user experience should be removed on the fly. That way everybody can actually win for a change.
Ad loads fast-->page loads fast-->Visitor happy.
Ad gets seen-->page gets liked-->site op happy.
Page gets seen-->Ad gets seen-->marketer happy.
Everybody gets what the want.
I personally couldn't care less if they put 1,000 ads on a page, as long as they don't slow my roll. Because the 3 second clock is ticking double time...and I'm a fickle bitch. :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version