Annoying adverts

2»

Comments

  • Keith StarsmeareKeith Starsmeare Member Posts: 22
    edited 2 January 2013, 9:01PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    I was happy with BT Vision... but that service no longer exists. It's been replaced by a YouView like thing which they're also hoping to kill and replace with YouView. As I mentioned, I won't pay Sky as it's expensive and has ads - the worst of both worlds! And I've never considered Virgin as I'm not in a cabled area.

    If BT can manage to charge £5 for access to all of the commercial catch up which they're even hosting on their own hardware, then surely the individual broadcasters could do it for a couple of quid a month? I can't see myself forking out for channel fives content though! ;-)
  • edited 2 January 2013, 9:10PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    Then I think you're going to have to adapt to how this service works or get a dumb Freeview box.
  • Keith StarsmeareKeith Starsmeare Member Posts: 22
    edited 2 January 2013, 9:17PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    No, you're wrong, there's another alternative; I can argue on forums and twitter to encourage the clever YouView developers to make the YouView platform perfect. After all, I invented Windows 7! ;-)
  • gomezgomez Member Posts: 2,073 ✭✭
    edited 2 January 2013, 10:07PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    The developers are not the problem. It is the rights holders you need to convince. Ain't going to happen any time soon.
  • churchwardenchurchwarden Member Posts: 795
    edited 2 December 2016, 8:27PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    Me again.

    Sorry - been watching my YouView box. Getting a bit full because I'm spending too much time on forums ....

    In general, I agree with Martin's view - unlikely to happen - but I was also being a bit Devil's Advocate as well (peas in a pod)

    I did read somewhere around 2-3 years ago that there was a lobby in the US trying to get PVR boxes legally 'fixed' so that it was not possible to skip adverts. I suppose they could detect the signal around adverts and when the box recognised that signal it made the skip/fast forward function inoperable. And that was for all adverts if the program was played back after recording it. This was because channels were worried about exactly what gomez said above - losing advertising revenue because everyone is recording programmes and skipping over the ads. Hopefully it will never happen with recordings, but I could see a future where 'they' try to force us to watch them.

    Given that possibility (and hopefully it IS just a possibility) I would want an option, even a pay option, to by-pass it.
  • edited 2 January 2013, 11:44PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    >> Sorry - been watching my YouView box.

    Eh? We're meant to watch them? Not sure mine does much noteworthy, doesn't seem to move very much...
  • churchwardenchurchwarden Member Posts: 795
    edited 2 December 2016, 8:27PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    Pedant ... get a life ...

    (did you see my comment about Revenge coming again on Monday ...?)
  • edited 3 January 2013, 12:08AM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    No?

    I tried getting a life once, I found it got in the way of being an annoying git ;-)
  • churchwardenchurchwarden Member Posts: 795
    edited 2 December 2016, 8:27PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    LOL - the Martin we have come to know and love - RECORD REVENGE!!!!!
  • edited 3 January 2013, 12:18AM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    Cheers, just saw your earlier comment and have set up a series link as well a the catch-up show airing before it.

    :-)
Sign In or Register to comment.