SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As the Apple Watch approaches its vague “early 2015” release date, there’s still a lot to learn about the hotly anticipated smartwatch. Sure, it can give us directions by tapping our wrists and [...]
Geek.com - Apple Watch will soon be plagued by location-based ads
“Wearables and Internet of Things are the next frontiers in the mobile revolution. We are excited to announce industry’s first programmatic ad platform for Apple Watch developers and brands,” said Ash Kumar, Co-Founder and CEO of TapSense in a statement. “While most of our competitors are focused on banner ads and legacy platforms, we are focused on innovation and next generation platforms.
-- submitted from IRC
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple Watch Will Soon Be Plagued by Location-Based Ads
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 31 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Everything bows to success, even grammar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 08 2015, @08:02AM
Everyone already pays for the web. There's no reason for people to have to pay twice. Just like cable was supposed to share part of your money with each channel you watch, your ISP could forward some of your money to each website you visit. That'll never happen because they're too greedy, but it's the fairest solution. You can't automatically rate anything by it's usefulness to each individual person, but you can automatically track how often something is visited or used. Though you'll always have people gaming the system. Maybe people would start developing their web pages to hit more addresses on their server.
I host a couple sites, they're all free and cost little to maintain. They're very popular in their niches and aren't full of unproductive graphics or scripts. Many of the more useful sites I visit are completely free. A few of them have ads. The major sites that make money selling things have tons of ads. These sites shouldn't have any ads because they also make money selling products and services. Any such site doesn't needs ads to exist. The popular information-based sites have donations and funding drives. A few of them have lotteries that bring in tons of money. There are only a few popular sites that don't sell services and don't run donations, sites like generic web search engines. These sites are the only ones that are expensive to maintain (video/image sites limit upload size and viewable counts until you pay and that limits their costs. A search engine has a fixed cost of maintaining a web index even if you only use it once. The cost of a single search is nothing compared to building the index). I don't know of any FOSS search engines that don't simply aggregate the results from commercial ones, but I'm sure such a site could find a workable donation model if its results are good enough. They could also sell access to their database. The rest of the web is niche sites which are effectively free to run. $5 for a name and then run them off your home net connection for 'free'.
You argue that a smaller ratio of people are buying things. That could be true, but sites should also be getting more efficient. Initial development is the most expensive part. After that they should be able to handle maintenance on less people buying things. It's the sites fault if their costs of operation keep going up and up.
There's no right to make money on the web. Every idea/website isn't required to be successful and we shouldn't try to force that. The web existed before it had ads and will continue to exist if web advertising was made illegal (would never happen, but it's an example). I'd argue the web would be better without advertising. Less fake sites, less click bait, smaller pages, and better security. The web will survive without ads. We shouldn't want ads. We shouldn't tolerate ads. They degrade the quality of the web.
Your efforts aren't making the web cheaper. Making easier to use and less maintenance required hosting software would have a direct results on the average person's ability to host a website. The only sites that care about power usage are already popular enough that they had bigger financial requirements to overcome and removing recruiter commissions is so far removed that it has no measurable effect. To make the web better you should make hosting cheaper, not giving more money to those who pay hosting costs. There's no reason to believe that money goes into hosting costs and thus it has no effect on the web.
(Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday January 08 2015, @03:06PM
This is easiest to discern if you use an old version of Safari; current versions don't have the "Activity" window anymore. I don't know when Apple removed it, but I expect they did so as the Activity window made it easy to put the arm on videos.
Safari runs on OS X and Windows. I haven't tried but expect it would run OK under Wine on Linux.
Open the Activity window, then leave it open while you visit a few websites.
You'll see that some sites use dozens, even hundreds of URLs to render what the user sees as a single document. That's mostly OK, were it not for many of those resources coming from different domains. That breaks the chunked content encoding in HTTP 1.1, in which multiple resources from a single host are concatenated into a single TCP stream, with some manner of sentinel to indicate where one resource ends and the next begins.
What's worse, many of the URLs have query parameters that are particular to the website you're visiting, the individual page, or your username. I've even seen stuff like "OS=mac%20os%20x&browser=firefox". Why don't they just use the user-agent? Perhaps they don't know there is such a thing as a user-agent?
In most cases, a unique set of query parameters will defeat caching proxies.
Quite commonly many of those resources are analytics services. For example, Adobe now provides free web fonts, but you have to download them from Adobe's servers. See, Adobe acquired an analytics firm. Now Adobe is only pretending to be in the graphic arts business, in reality they are an analytics provider. That's why I have a bunch of stuff like "127.0.0.1 hosted-pixel.com" in my hosts file.
Most of those free emoticon sites, free clip art and so on are in reality analytics sites. I even found one analytics provider that came right out and said their real purpose was for credit checks. I expect the way that works is that if they know you hang out at the wrong websites, you won't get your credit card applications approved.
It's not just that the websites are less efficiently loading their own servers; they are also making less efficient use of the Internet as a whole, by making poor use of, or even defeating the technologies that were developed long ago for the specific purpose of making the net more efficient.
My actual experience these days is that most websites today, when viewed over comcast residential cable, are quite a lot slower than 56k dialup from ten years ago.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]