Ask Slashdot: Banner Ads in "Free" Software? 111
Yet ANOTHER Anonymous Coward writes in with
this question, that I'm SURE will generate a
lot of discussion:
"Rumor has it that a major software
development house is considering embedding
banner ads within their software and then
giving the software away for free. The idea
is to apparently generate revenue on the ads.
Could this be the way of the future for
software companies (considering that
software prices are falling and companies
are looking for other ways to make money)?
What do slashdot-goers think of this idea?
Is this SPAM or will people be ok with this
sort of advertising? Feedback is appreciated."
What do you all think?
Ads are ALREADY in software, but not the free kind (Score:1)
The ads are here and my company offsets the cost of outside internet access vie the deals. While it may be annoying I've been told it is the single reason I can still surf the Web vs having a closed firewall so it can't be all bad.
Apple's Sherlock (Score:1)
The banner ads in sherlock are totally different.
Sherlock works by parsing the engine's Search Result page, recognizing patterns, and rearranging how the results were printed out.
In doing so it throws away everything on the results page except the results themsleves.
Meaning that the banner ads are ignored and never even loaded.
The search engines didn't like this, quite justifiibly because their content and system resources were being taken without the banner ads, their revenue source, being even looked at.
So apple added a feature where in addition to the results being parsed, the banner ads were parsed as well, and displayed.
If the search engine doesn't use banner ads, no ads are displayed. In fact you can open up the sherlock plugins in any word processor, delete the startbanner and endbanner lines, and the banners will no longer display for that search engine.
Apple put in the ads without any personal gain to themselves.
Your second point (about the content) is a very good point though.
That's what he said. (Score:1)
banner ads (Score:1)
I think it's more likely that we'll see banner ads in software and pay a purchase price. In magazines, there are full page ads every other page, but you still pay $5 per issue. I don't mean to seem like a cynic, but the objective for companies is not to make free stuff for us, but to bring in as much money as they can.
Click the soda can (Score:1)
I don't think this is the end of the world, but I think it's a good idea if done well. A discretly placed "COKE-A-COLA" can that you can click on to go to the web page would be great.
Personally, I hate the idea (Score:1)
I tolerate banner ads on web pages as long as they are done in moderation (Slashdot's banner ads are a good example) but will not bother to visit sites who's ads bring up a popup (Xoom and GeoCities) or otherwise make my use of that page painfull (I'm still on a 33.6).
IF the software is "free" give it to me free. If you want money for it (and I think it's worth using) I'll pay money for it. This whole "it's free but you gotta watch some adds to use it" crap reminds me a bit too much of that Channel 1 school oriented cable crap a few years ago (they offered the schools free TV's with cable access in return for ad space on the TV durring classroom use. Evil.)
On the other hand, many people are as stupid as the day they were born and will go for it.
Time Honored Tradition (Score:2)
That said, I've had a taste of open source software, and that has been my taste of delight. I'm not going back.
Free with banner ads, pay without... (Score:1)
being a good model for software distribution,
but requires some ground rules that can only
be industry regulated to make this work [*].
First, one option that should be seriously
considered by companies thinking about this is
a free version that will display ads (that
cannot be turned off at the user's end), and then
releasing a version that will cost the user
money but will not display the ads. The
amount of programming time to create two
executables should be negliable, so it's not
a problem from a developer's POV. However,
the only question that can remain is that
with one, profits can continue to roll it, but
you would have no idea of the amount that it
might generate (based on number of uses &
cost of an ad), while on the other side, you
can only recover a fixed cost if the end user
over-uses the program. However, in the end
I think having both models, with the one
appropriately priced based on expected uses,
will be ideal; those users that do not want the
ads can pay for the software to remove them.
(There's already one good program that I've
used on Windows, called Copunric, a search
engine front-end that is free but with ads
to dl, and that you can pay $30 or so to get
rid of them).
Secondly, the ads cannot be thrust at the user;
they need to be visible at all time, I agree,
but they should not require the user to be
online at all times, they should not be like
shareware nag boxes, popping up at random times
when the user is working with the software, etc.
A 100x50 box in the corner of the window, for
example, displaying ads from a cache that might
be updated weekly, for example, would be ideal
for this.
[*] If a company decides to put in-your-face
ads this way, I think that other companies will
be able to take advantage of this by releasing
their own programs that perform the same function
but with more passive ads, and knowing most
users, this will lead to the reduction in the
use of the offending program, which might later
rerelease their program without the active ads
and instead with passive ads. This is a sort
of automatic regulation that may be inherint
in this model.
Finally, this might allow shareware to become
a bit more popular. Practically, a lot
of shareware is nag screens, or a one time ad
strictly for their product, but it's still an
ad. There model already works well, but if
shareware authors can access a service that pays
them for ads as well, there could be a resurgance
of good shareware programs again (lately, IMO,
the market in that direction has been rather
stagent, because of the lack of money that
it brings in unless you really have an outstanding
product).
And of course, this might make Linux more
favorable -- I doubt we'll see linux programs
with ads like this, and it could be advertized
as the free but ad free OS...
Depends on the type of ad (Score:1)
So if I were gaurenteed that the ads would be still, and not flashing moving animated I would consider it if the app was really good and nearly free.
Bannerware -- okay if done right (Score:1)
It's options that matter (Score:1)
now if it were to be customizable...say like
It's a mindset (Score:2)
My reaction at first was "screw this, if I want an application to do foo I'll write my own". My second reaction was "wow, what a different world the DOS/Windows people must live in - everything for money, nothing for love".
It doesn't supprise me that with more DOS/Windows people getting into Unix that the money grubbing weasels with the shitty shareware would be moving in too.
Free speech or free beer (Score:2)
Of course, I seriously doubt the company would allow that, so it probably wouldn't really be free.
I would consider it commercial software and I seriously doubt I'd use it. But that's just me...
Nice shareware alternative. (Score:1)
Some versions of "SuperZip" already worked that way.
Just keep in mind that it has nothing to do with free software or Open Source(tm) software. It is just a new way to finance proprietary software.
Been there, done that? (Score:1)
I tried to tell that they where using it illegally! The company is a big high tech kind of place (think ibm, lucent or both )but they didn't seem to mind ripping of the Winzip people. If I used Office or Windows in the same way they would of had my head ( "that is piracy" they would say)
Fine, so long as it's optional (Score:1)
Of course, advertising revenues like this will only remain viable until one of us writes a free alternative for the app in quesiton...
Evolution in action (Score:1)
I find it surprising that they justify this menace by supporting all those development costs. Seems to me free software has higher quality and is done by people as a hobby who have other jobs. Why should I use junk software, junk email, junk messages, all to support the company's owners and stock?
software will be hacked/cracked (Score:1)
--
Why this will fail with software (but not TV) (Score:1)
Software companies are finding it is increasingly difficult to persuade customers to upgrade. It's mind-boggling how many corporate computers still run Windows 3.1 and skipped Windows 95 altogether. Even with Microsoft pressure in the form of total OS abandonment, these companies will continue to maintain their 16-bit essentially data entry applications. This has Microsoft concerned enough to investigate yearly-licensing fees on future versions of their software (the main obstacle is verirification) to generate a much more predictable stream of cash.
Banner-ad software, like DIVX, is an attempt to generate a continious revenue stream. There may be some short-term success from this but in the long run the sometimes touchy 'community' we belong to will produce a few disgruntled people to "crack" the software and remove the ads, especially if the system compromises your privacy like the ill-fated Microsoft WebTV hardware. With the most-excellent Sherlock tool in MacOS System 8.5, when you select a page, it displays the banner ad for whatever was on that page (appease the portal folks..). Within days some folks had a banner stripper for the search utility. Such filtering software has existed for Linux for a long time, so you can block annoying ads if you choose (I do not do this).
Because computing is increasingly becoming Open, not only will it will be easier to bypass or block ads, but we'll have less of a reason to use it in the first place: open source software is measurably exceeding commercial quality in places where it exists. There are serious rough spots, like integrated and hyperlinked helpfiles, but we've gotten so good because we stick to the problem needing a solution and not masking things over with animated paperclips and forcing browsers down each other's throats.
Television OTOH is not a very democratic medium. I was at NAB last week, and things like FireWire prosumer videocameras and Final Cut Pro are going to do the same things that the laser printer and PageMaker or Calimus did for desktop publishing. We won't however see a lot of feature-length streaming movies on the web because bandwidth is too expensive, and television is too entrenched to be replaced by streaming net TV. That kind of power to the Disney's (ABC) and the Westinghouses (CBS? forget) means they can go beyond simply embedding their logo's in the right hand corner of what you watch. We're going to see things like banner ads on the screen perhaps instead of commercial breaks that you depend on to take a leak. If they can get away with it, optical sensors will return information such as when you got up and left the room (example: Microsoft "emotion" or facereading technology). I know many people who refuse to put political bumperstickers on their vehicles (myself included) because it makes them unwary... would you want to tell a server you turned off the State Of The Union speech?
I got a little off track here, but with closed technology we will get the short end of the stick. Software like this scares me because they will not simply serve ads. We've seen Microsoft get away with taking advantage of "Win 98 registration bugs" to harvest names, while at the same time claiming they weren't aware of the bugs (huh??). Just imagine if all this technology was in use 50 years ago during the "Red Scare", would the technology have been abused? You bet.
Going forward, do you really want your computer, or the media (or some inevitable hybrid of the two) monitoring you?
Oh, and dont forget about PointCast :-D (Score:1)
This has been around for a while. (Score:1)
Free software/websites (Score:2)
All we're seeing here is another method of companies generating revenue; time will tell just how successful it is. The main problem will be evaluating its usefulness, since one download could equate to 1, 2 or twenty people seeing the ad. In some cases, it might be downloaded, looked at once and deleted, making the ad less than effective.
The big problem with this is the effect it will have on package sizes. A small package with too many ads will be bigger than it should be, but the effect of a small ad in a large package (eg, MS Office) would be less noticable.
--
Free beer, but it's MGD! (Score:1)
> can change it, but the super cool license
> says you can't redistribute the changes.
Not True Completely. You can redistribute patch files, but you may not redistribute any copyrighted code. Patch files contain none of the orginal code, so it is often legal to give away patches.
Also, ads are blockable by many ways on the computer, including Web Ad blockers like the Mac OS Shareware WebFree. Ads are pretty easy to edit out / block if you really want, but according to a recent NBC study, by NBC human relations, they found only 5% of people don't watch TV ads! Think how easy it is to go to the fridge while the commericals are on, or use your VCR to scan past ads. The fact is, very few people don't watch ads.
"Advertising Works!"
Thanks,
AArthur
It's been done (Score:1)
> sites. They will probably have "crackz" for all
> this bannered software.
ehh... Banner blockers exist, and are not just limited to warez sites. There are major edits for most banner advertising to remove the banners, not just on warez sites.
It's not illegal to give directions to remove banners, according to most licenses.
Banner blocker's I've seens include the Stuff-It Expander Ad Blocker, Hotline Banner blocker, Web Banner Blocker. None of these patches are on warez sites, but on public sites on the internet, including sharware/freeware archieves.
In related news... (Score:1)
Be Seeing You,
Jeffrey.
Bannerware -- okay if done right (Score:1)
This compile is brought to you by Bud Light.
When you're tired of coging, nothing beats a Bud.
Taanstaafl (There may be... for a very few) (Score:1)
We Already have Small Banner Adds in Linux! (Score:1)
Though this does have some bearing on the next version of GPL, people who pay for software are faciltators of software. They should have their names irrovocibly added to the README, something silly like "Nike Sponsored the additions of Shoe Mode to Emacs" and in X window when I run Emacs in Shoe mode I see a Nike swoosh. Now I could remove the swoosh, but I couldn't remove the reference to Nike in the README and redistribute it.
I don't know who is going to pay much money for such advertising, but they could probably do it and still get a tax deduction, like PBS, you can sponser programs you get an Add at the end of the program and you can write it off your taxes. I sounds like a nice idea.
bring on the ads (Score:1)
Competition in Action (Score:1)
Skin Ads? (Score:1)
I'm sure if offered money, folks would make game skins look like NASCAR. Come to think of it, that's tempting.
Hmmm.. (Score:1)
Schools could get the latest and best software and still have enough money to buy books
People with strict budgets (read: poor or students) could be given a chance to buy software (and hardware) without living on bread and water the rest of the year.
I see possibilities here, but it's not something I would like personally. And I imagine people with slow internet connections wouldn't care much for it either..
vr
BEELZEBUB!!! (Score:1)
Sounds like a nightmare waiting to be rebelled against.
How can we keep the web free from an online brownshirt campaign?
"Put up this banner or no transactions for your commercial site!"
"This image will be displayed or no bank transactions, no buying or selling!!!"
This is the info age not the ad age!!! (Score:1)
I don't mind ads that provide product info, no product doubletalk and hype. I'm not falling for it...
...tastes like spam... (Score:1)
Displaying banner ads is one thing.
Displaying banner ads on a piece of software
that spends most of it's working time minimized,
well I don't get it.
...tastes like spam... (Score:1)
One point that'll act agaist this idea is that it'll negatively affect the software's usefulness. If this is the case, market pressures will probably kill the producers, or at least maul them slightly.
K.
-
--
To the extent that I wear skirts and cheap nylon slips, I've gone native.
...tastes like spam... (Score:1)
I don't see how that follows. It's like saying that mugging someone is legal if they're walking in an area where you can expect to be mugged.
K.
-
--
To the extent that I wear skirts and cheap nylon slips, I've gone native.
It seems to me... (Score:1)
However, if the playing field were to become level, ie., it becomes an issue of "ads" v. "no ads", it seems to me that the support base for open-sourcing, etc., could only increase...
Will the ads be profitable or worth the effort? (Score:2)
I don't think it's even been proven that banner ads generate money. I know from personal experience that I never clicked on one with the intent on buying something. I also can say probably a vast majority of others haven't either.
Also, I'd assmue the ads would be in the top right corner. Like the Netscape "N" but bigger. How would they even get there? Alot of computers that have people using apps like word processors aren't connected to the internet(at least while they are using the word processor). That would mean the ads would have to be permanently in the app. That's not going to be cheap for the advertisers, and most likely, not worth the money.
And one last thing. Ads have already been in some apps, like AOL Instant Messenger. But these kind of apps are more of the recreational type things that people use when they get home from school/work. When someone opens up Word Perfect, they have a reason to use it, and want to get that work done. They aren't going to be looking at ads and going "that looks interesting, I shoud get one of those". Or even click on it to go to their website. Like I said eariler, a good majority aren't going to even be connected to the internet.
This will be an idea that may be tried, people will see it will fail, and won't be tired again.
Fine, to a degree (Score:1)
Let me turn off the ads if I decide I want to pay for the software. At some point, using the program without the ads will be more vaulable to me than using it for free.
Letting me choose the ads would be nice too. The random banners on the web are of no use to me. Focused ones like
Hell, AOLIM already has ad banners on it. As a trend for all software, I don't see this as a good thing - but I don't think it'll last, as banners become less and less valuable. That, and the proliferation of open source software will cause banner-less alternatives to arise.
A form of pollution (Score:1)
They're everywhere. You pay good money for top seats to a sporting event, and what do you see. Banners. You decide to forego the cost of tickets and watch the game on TV...banners. You drive along the highway...same thing...billboards with huge banners. Attempting to find respite in a nice, quiet session of web surfing is futile...more banners.
If software vendors are seriously considering this, I'd prefer a *choice* between paying a reasonable price for a version with NO advertising, or torturing myself with a free, banner-supported version.
For those who would consider using "free" software under this arrangement, they'll probably be faced with some kind of registration process, after which their information they provide will be prostituted to any Tom, Dick, or Harry willing to pay for it.
Advertising in software (Score:1)
It reminds me of the free long distance service in other countries where you have to stop and listen to an add every so many minutes of usage. Pain in the butt, but it gets used alot.
Personally, I think it's a waste of time for people. I would rather pay for OSS than get a crappy advertising vessel for free.
AIM and ICQ clients (Score:1)
As far as I can tell, ICQ doesn't seem to, either. At least, no ICQ clients that I have tried have any actual advertising in them. Unless you call the respective company logos "advertising."
Of course, I've never used the Windows or MacOS clients for any of these services, so... take my comments with a USDA serving of sodium.
oh, and regarding advertising in OSS source code:
"Copyright 1997-1998 Transmeta Corporation -- All Rights Reserved"
Where have we seen that line?
Urgh. (Score:1)
At first a sort of shell will form, and the distinction between ad and program will be quite distinct. With time and experience the ads will get better at controlling beyond the bounds of their shell, although the shell itself will appear to be quite rigid, formalized and impermeable.
For a biological metaphor, I'm reminded of the way a parasite invades a host and then uses the host's own cellular material to reproduce and package itself for transmission.
As in the other medias, there will be a full range of ad saturations to choose from; from all-dressed to birthday suit.
A decade or so from now, ads-in-programs will be nearly ubiquitous and regarded as a necessary, or at least an I-can't-do-anything-about-it, annoyance.
Myself, I will avoid programs-which-carry-ads the same way I avoid ads elsewhere. I record my TV and watch from tape, fast-forwarding through the commercials, editing them out all together for a keepable movie. I don't buy magazines with ads, or of they have 'em, I rip them out before I start reading (I hate mags which don't put ad's on both sides of the page...), or I don't buy unless I _really_ want it. For web-pages, the Junkbuster [junkbuster.com] is my best friend.
All that being said, ads-in-programs will probably only survive in an online, constantly updating network environment (they need a constant stream of fresh nutrients). 'Mr.WordProcessor' won't have them, except maybe in a thin client setting.
Well, there's $0.05
-matt
in use.... (Score:1)
numbers where everywhere so they revamped it, added lots of features, turned it into a free beta
and, to generate revenue, made an banner ad slot right on the main window and made it such that the main window can't be moved off screen. We'll see how it flies.
-Z
Banner ads are doomed to fail... (Score:1)
May not work; Good idea anyway. (Score:5)
I'd have been wrong. For many, many years the entire television industry was supported entirely from advertising revenues. And the advertising did not become steadily more intrusive, starting out as short segments of video played in breaks between the programs and slowly migrating to endorsement by announcers and then to blatant product placement within the shows and other content. Instead, it did the exact opposite: early television shows very often featured the sponsored products within the show, and only later did they begin to separate the advertising and segregate it to brief (all right, not-so-brief) advertisement breaks.
Now, I'm not saying it's perfect -- there's still a certain amount of intermixing between the content and the advertising, and in recent years the entire system has broken down to be replaced by a consumer-funded arrangement where the fees are collected by cable companies [but I still make do with terrible fuzzy reception and limited selection because I am unwilling to pay for a service that I value so little].
So what does this have to do with software?
Basically, I think that banner-ad-funded software and computer services are a wonderful idea. I salute juno and others who pioneer this. I actually think that banner advertisements are a good idea -- rather like comercials on television, they set an expectation that the advertising will occur only within a narrow strip and should not leak out into the editorial content. Yes, they DO leak out, but when it happens, people get upset, and as long as that expectation is there it may hold things together for a while.
As for the software, I think that "Free" software (as in Linux... free for anyone to use, extend, develop, etc) is a great idea. But not all software will be done that way -- not now, and probably not ever. I also think that "Inexpensive" software (as in Linux, but also as in Netscape and Explorer, and even a lot of shareware out there that charges reasonable prices) is a great idea. Some of the software that is not "Free" may be "Inexpensive", and that would be a good thing. If banner advertisements can help make this possible, by paying the salaries of those who develop and market inexpensive software, that's a great thing.
Most of the time, I will ignore the ads -- it's really not difficult to do, they're certainly not as intrusive as, say, email ads. But sometimes -- particularly if the product being advertised intrigues me -- I will click on that ad, and go check it out. I will do this consciously and intentionally, for two reasons: first, because I'm interested in the product, and secondly because I know that when I do so, I'm also helping to support this nice, cheap, software that I obviously appreciate (else, why would I be using it). This is the same attitude I take with web sites (yes, this means that I check out the banner ads at /. from time to time), and if enough other people have the same attitude, then perhaps my initial instinct is wrong. Perhaps is is possible for (some) of the software industry to be (partially) funded through banner ads. It would be nice.
TANSTAAFL revisited, d'oh called, etc. (Score:1)
To those hoping to have an option to turn the ads off: That's a big d'oh, good buddy. Having the ads playing is why it's (beer) free, so why in the world would they give you an option to turn off what's paying their bills? Right, they won't - and they certainly won't release the source to make it easy for someone to hack in such an option.
I wish I could recall where I saw a comment from a web site admin discussing the way the web ad business has evolved. The gist of it was that although there are 'way more ads, they pay 'way less each, so the revenue has been kept from falling only by placing ever more ads. This can't go on much longer - the ads will squeeze the content right off the screen pretty soon.
Random observation: if you run Linux it's almost trivially easy to get rid of most of those annoying ads. Your mantra is "junkbuster", available in easy-to-install packages for all the best distributions. I was finally moved to install this - or, rather, to get around to configuring it and using it, since it's been installed but not running for quite a while - when several sites I like to visit started attaching those damned looping GIFs. Sorry, Rob, but I have a nice, non-moving, zero download bandwidth cost "Internet JunkBuster" logo up there at the top of these pages, and on LWN and a bunch of other sites I would prefer not to block. But I get so damned tired waiting for those huge animated annoyances. Uhm, I used to get so annoyed, that is.
It's amazing how easy it is to squelch the majority of these things. Block doubleclick.com and blockstackers.com (or were they
My web browser likes me when I point it at my JunkBuster proxy!
# blockfile for junkbuster at two14.lan
# obnoxious purveyors of bandwidth-wasting adverts
ad-up.com
adclub.net
ads.intellicast.com
ads.msn.net
ads2.zdnet.com
blockstackers.com
burstnet.com
click2net.com
cmp.net/ads/
doubleclick.net
easyscopes.com
eimg.com
focalink.com
hitbox.com
inet1.com
linkexchange.com
linuxtoday.com/pics/
lwn.net/images/
imgis.com
media.preferences.com
skygate.co.uk
songline.com
theonion.com/adframes
theonion.com/ad_
valueclick.com
wired.com/advertising
www.news.com/Ads/
www.sfgate.com/place-ads
# some brute-force for some brutish louts
/adimages/
/ads/
/adverts/
Revenue from Ads (Score:1)
Don't forget what we stand for! (Score:1)
Linux to me is a fine and valuable tool, and I got it for that, not to make a political statement or align myself with a movement, philosophy, or group.
As for advertising, I don't have a problem with it as a concept, but to me good software is as simple, precise and orthogonal in its purpose and design as possible. Adding the "advertising thread" seems to me to detract from this.
Still if it stops one good software company going out of business, I'm for it.
Re:Outrageous Violation of Privacy (Score:1)
When you consider the alternatives (feature deficient or time limited software), banner ads are definitely the lesser of two (well, three) evils. I currently work for a company that makes money by imbedding ads in software. At first, I was totally against the concept (I use junkbuster to block website ads) but now I can see the appeal (as outlined below):
1) It gives the users a choice in *useable* software. Not some piece of crippleware.
2) In some cases, you can use the traditional shareware model and give registered users a version without the ads. Take Go!Zilla ( http://www.gozilla.com [gozilla.com]) for example.
3) It's an almost guaranteed way for developers to get _paid_. I like writing free (speech and/or beer) software. I like having money to take care of my family. The ads permit the software developers to do both of these in a manner that's been proven to work in other industries (tv, radio, magazines). Just like these other mediums, if you don't want to see the ads, choose a different product. Don't condemn the developers methods of revenue unless you're ready to cough up money to support the application that they are giving you for free. (Obviously, I don't agree with ads that display in commercial applications.)
Well, let's ignore the fact that developers could already put this feature into the software without telling you. The only part that needs to be "tracked" is whether or not you clicked on the ad. Some places will do you a favor and not download ads when the window is not active or minimized. Some even limit the bandwidth used by the ads so that it does not interfere with your network use.
Simple answer is that they cannot. You application will talk to the ad server to get new ads.
Pure FUD. I'm surprised you surf the web at all. All webservers I've seen keep logs. From what I've seen, most companies couldn't care less about individuals anyways. All they care about is your demographic profile. What ads can they show you that will increase your chance of clicking on one of them and possibly purchasing their product or service.
Dauphin
The more the stronger (Score:1)
Then you are not in position to choose anymore... Can you choose not to view ads panels in the street or can you choose not to see tv ads during films ? No you can't.
will I have to buy "free ads software" ? (Score:1)
Or will they enforce us to click or to be automatically oriented towards the site advertised so that they get paid ?
Been there, done that? (Score:2)
But hey, if it's closed-source, there's still work to do anyway, ah? What would be funny is if a software house decided to release an app under OSS, and threw ad blurbs all over the source code. (How about that for targetting a technically literate market segment?
A new form of crack (no, not the drug) (Score:1)
If the software offers a use that equals or outweighs the annoyance of some advertising, then they'll do just fine. This one will be decided by the public. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with such a method of generating revenues, it's not forced on you (you don't *have* to use the software), it's not tricking you into veiwing banners, and it's not spam (yay!). But(!) you can bet your ass if this comes out you'll see a new breed of cracks coming out that circumvent the ads. I wonder what the legal situation/ramifications of *that* would be...
May not work; Good idea anyway. (Score:1)
1. The quality of free television is poor
2. Television ads are expensive because they have a large audience.
Software ads will be more intrusive, as the screen is smaller and you actually pay attention. Of course there is a possibility of seemless ads; e.g. background images, billboards in video games.
There is also the problem of whose ads will show, will it be X, WindowMaker or GNOME.
SPAM (Score:1)
This is sure to increase productivity -- having ads for all kinds of crap you don't really need pop up at random times while you're trying to concentrate on writing the the company's annual report, which, by the way, was due yesterday.
About the only hope is that software vendors won't bother to put them in the Unix versions of software because they wouldn't be profitable enough. Of course then they wouldn't produce software for Unix at all...
The Web is bad enough with their banner ads -- I don't want them invading my desktop.
Besides, there are plenty of other ways to get money: subscription mode, where a one-time payment gets you all the updates for a certain time; or support, where the software costs very little but you can order 24x365 phone support for extra.
Free beer, but it's MGD! (Score:1)
Well, perhaps it's Open Source software, and you can change it, but the super cool license says you can't redistribute the changes.
Then again, maybe it would be good enough to look at the source code, and modify Junkbuster [junkbuster.com] to deal with banners coming thru on well known ports?--
Likely can't minimized banner windows (Score:1)
It is the users choice (Score:1)
2) Yeah you'll have to be hooked up to the net somehow, but my system that is online is pretty generic. What are they going to gleen from most people is stuff that websites already track.
3) I'm sure that the program would check for modified code. And how many users are actually going to hack it anyhow? A very small percentage who will probably get away with it but is it worth the effort?
I'm not a huge fan of ad banners but it is nice to have the option of using a program without shelling out the cash for it. Having a big enough monitor and a critical eye is good enough for me...
Don't forget what we stand for! (Score:1)
Actually, it can work.... (Score:1)
As long as I get a choice (Score:2)
I don't think the idea is going to fly, though, for the following reasons:
(1) To target the ads the software will have to be intrusive. It'll be interested in your household income and whether you subscribe to Hustler. Obvious problems here.
(2) The ads have to be updated, so the software will demand a semi-permanent connection to the Net. It's going to be a hassle for modem users. Besides, it's going to take a lot of trust before I allow a program with a vested interest in my identity and habits to freely communicate with outside.
(3) Hacking the programs to be ad-free (or display something more fun) will become the favorite pasttime for all teenage hackers. Anybody remember the disk-protection schemes from the late eighties? Guess who won the war?
To summarize: I think the idea sucks, but I'll be perfectly happy to watch it crash and burn.
Kaa
Adds = Distraction (Score:1)
Medical Software is Oz is already like this (Score:1)
Will the ads be profitable or worth the effort? (Score:1)
I think you have to think about longer term. Right now most people aren't connected to the 'net when they're doing their word processing -- but I'd bet in 10 years it will be rare to find someone without a permanent connection. Look at how many people are getting DSL, cable modems, and other forms of permanent connections. Since you can't really go beyond 56K with a normal modem, and nearly all alternatives offer permanent connections, I can't see how everyone wouldn't have a permanent connection in 10 years.
As for the issue of "you open a word processor to do work"... true, but I'm sure there are a lot of people like me. I *hate* writing essays, and it doesn't take much to distract me when I'm doing that. If some ad popped up in the corner of my word processor when I'm struggling through my essay, if it was interesting enough (at least more interesting than my exceedingly boring essay), I just might click on it.
But I think the idea will fail. It's exceedingly easy to find cracks on the web that enable you to bypass copy protection or other unpleasant things about software. I'd bet cracks for these programs would pop up in a short while -- even faster than with shareware.
My dad is no computer genius, but he's slightly more informed than the average user. He managed to bypass the forced banner ads for Pointcast without problems.
The main issue here is that ads in software are vastly different than ads in newspapers, billboards, or TV ads, because *I control the medium*.
I currently use software that controls the cookies my browser uses, as well as software which blocks 99% of all banner ads so I never see them.
There's a small chance this strategy might work for the technically illiterate masses, but no way it would work at all for hackers who didn't want to put up with the ads.
I can't really see how that could work out (Score:1)
Think about it, you are working on an important
school project or something, and with 5 minutes
interval some commercial for Adobe, Corel, LucasArts or Microsoft pops up, and you have to close it before continuing your work.
A solution like this could only possibly work
in a homePC, not a corporate workstation, and
why should I for instance use a program with all
those annoying features, when I can either use a
totally free alternative or apply a crack easily
obtained from the internet.
In the last alternative, the companies will be
unable to reach a lot of consumers without them
knowing it.
It would probably also require the consumers to
be online while working, and you can't really
demand that people have to stay online to write
a thesis or play a game.
Re:Skin Ads? (Score:1)
Product placement advertising hasn't killed the movie industry. Who remembers the placements of Coke and Atari in Bladerunner? The placements have not killed the industry, but have provided an alternate source of income. It didn't violate the integrity of the plot, or get in the way. In fact, I thought the advertising was kinda cool (I was an Atari freak at the time).
In the end, someone has to pay for the stuff. If it is me paying less, and the stuff is still cool, then I'm there.
Oh no! Not software as well (Score:1)
Enough pollution, thank you!
Find some other way of generating revenue - leave software to do what it is supposed to do.
Microsoft already does this, sort've (Score:1)
It's called the fscking paperclip.
I don't know about anyone else... (Score:1)
But in all the years I have been using the Internet, I have never clicked on a banner ad, and I personally find them very annoying.
One of the thinks I liked about the 'net before Clinton and Gore got ahold of it was that it wasn't loaded up with ads like television is. Now it's worse.
Now, my mailbox is loaded with spam, mostly from porn sites, most other sites have 2 or more banner ads on them, and every time I make a record update to my domain name, I get more spam from people who want me to pay them to host my site. (I host my own site, damnit, and several others)
I commend Slashdot for keeping the ads down. It's still the first thing I see on the page, but at least ads aren't the first 2 or 3 things I see.
Another annoying thing about ads is this: I use a modem from home, and the damn ads, especially animated ones, take forever to load.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, banner ads piss me off. I don't click on them, and try not to pay attention to them. I don't mind a banner ad, but I don't want to be blitzed with advertising.
And you don't want to know what I think of telemarketers...
exactly (Score:1)
Been there, done that? YES! (Score:1)
It's a battle for our eyes. It's no so bad when it's a minor skirmish or two but can you imagine if every app on your screen did it? Or if you had oen of those "free" PCs with banners all over the screen? How much bandwidth might you lose when all of those apps are reporting hit rates back to their servers and dowloading new ads? Yikes - this oculd get really UGLY.....
Been there, done that? YES! (Score:1)
It's a battle for our eyes. It's not so bad when it's a minor skirmish or two but can you imagine if every app on your screen did it? Or if you had oen of those "free" PCs with banners all over the screen? How much bandwidth might you lose when all of those apps are reporting hit rates back to their servers and dowloading new ads? Yikes - this oculd get really UGLY.....
Taanstaafl (Score:2)
In this case, the user will have to pay for the software with her time. Banners are only the beginning. I'm waiting for fully commercialized give-away software like wordprocessors, which will insert a 5 minutes commercial break every 12 minutes, databases, which ask the user to enter every 1000 records some brand name to 're-energize', drawing programs, which add to every file the face of some politico candidate (including random slogan),
Two, three years ago, banners on webpages were a novelty and today pages without them are becoming rare. In the same time, as advertizer start to measure the impact of their banner ads, prices for banners are coming down rapidly. Except for really popular pages, the average web site will earn less and less.
Exactly the same will happen to banners in programs. In the beginning, everyone will sell its desktop space, but sooner or later, it will probably not even be worth it for small companies.
Been there, done that? (Score:1)
Blizzard: ads in Battle.net chat areas
Hotline: Ads in the new v1.5 client
Ads are ALREADY in software, but not the free kind (Score:3)
One: Apple introduced banner ads into its operating system with the launch of Mac OS 8. The Sherlock search function displays ad banners when conducting an Internet search. This was to placate the owners of the search engines that Sherlock uses so that Yahoo, Excite, etc. wouldn't lose out on revenue that would have been generated from the hordes of Mac users who could suddenly by-pass their gold mine. I'm not sure if the money from those ads is split between Apple and the search engine(s) or if it goes to the engines exclusively.
Additionally, you can search various web sites through Sherlock plug-ins, so I guess those ads would also be shown for sites such as MacOSRumors.
Two: I used to work for a major entertainment website who realied heavily on ads and sponsorships to be profitable. Over the past two years, the number of ads that ran continued to increase, while the cost per ad continued to decrease at the same rate. This meant sponsorships were needed to maintain the revenue stream. Increasingly content was created to match sponsorship opportunities and was plastered with the sponsor's logo wherever possible. Because this leads to less-than-enticing content, the number of visits is likely to drop, further damaging the ad revenue tally and making it more difficult to attract more sponsors.
I'm getting it free already. (Score:1)
I really don't see why they would take this choice though. Id give it tops two days for any piece of software before numerous people post on the internet detailed instructions on how to surgically remove the ads from the program. Maybe they think this will combat pirating software in some way. Whatever.
-Sarkis-
Ad-enabled software has been around for a while (Score:1)
The Ad network is currently owned by Conducent [conducent.com]. For a while it was owned by Marble Associates [marble.com], a company I worked for and that closed operations a year ago (not my fault). Marble bought the network from the inventors (I forgot the name of their company), who established the first ad network, but they were not very successful with it.
When I started to work with the system at Marble, at first I found it intriguing, but then we figured out quickly why it wasn't doing that well:
- You need a lot of money to establish the critical mass for making people notice the network exists.
- You need a killer app to give people an incentive to download the software (hint: yet another unzipper won't do the job).
- People are very nervous about privacy, storage capacity and performance implications.
- The target group are non-professionals. In professional environments (where most money is), sofware is purchased.
- Banners are lame and nothing new.
In short, I wouldn't bet on the technology...How about tax? (Score:1)
banners... yuck! (Score:1)
woo hoo for them... (Score:1)
Many more already do this (Score:1)
...tastes like spam... (Score:1)
Personally, I'm all for it as long as there's a way to turn it off. For example Go!Zilla has a way... You register the software. Sounds fair.
Jason
Folks, this is good not bad....quite revolutionary (Score:2)
Ads are the logical answer. We may well see a day when it is more profitable to give software away than to sell it. The beauty of this is that if you want to register the shareware, you can turn the ads off. If you don't, then you still support the developers.
The reason I am familiar with this is that I work at NetJumper, which is coming out with its own SDK next month. We are creating a network of developers who will get advertising revenue. Our developers range from large, international companies to a college student who has written a cool game editor. ALL ARE ON EQUAL FOOTING HERE! If you write good software, you can now make money by joining our network. It's that simple.
Pure libertarian.
AdSoftware Network development toolkit available (Score:2)
This idea has already been in existance for two years now. Check out http://adnet.aureate.com/ [aureate.com].
More thought required on the reasons ? (Score:1)
If piracy is the cause of developers advertising in their software, do they really think that by making it free they will be any better off. Sure a company like VISA may sponsor cuteftp... which I have seen in my beta of cuteftp... but if people crack cuteftp and remove the banner advertising.. will Visa continue to sponsor ?
I know that the Visa ads in cuteftp really shit me. I probably have the ability to remove them.. and hopefully somehow I will find away, because I would prefer not ot have them taking up my space.
The bottom line is that people want the best of both worlds. They want it free, and we want it pure. And if it isn't pure, they will hack it until it is pure, write a crack and release the crack so that others enjoy the purity. In the end the advertiser loses, ceases sponsorship, and as such the developer gets no money anyway.
This may be great in the short term, but in the long term it would never work.