Slashdot Mirror
Google to Distribute Online Video Ads
sufijazz writes to mention an AP story about Google's plan to start distributing online video ads. From the article: "The video expansion, announced late Monday, will affect thousands of Web sites that rely on Google to post ads related to the surrounding material on a page. For instance, a news story about housing might prompt Google to display an ad for real estate agents. Google isn't allowing the video ads to appear on its own Web site -- a heavily trafficked destination that produced 58 percent of its $2.25 billion in revenue during the first three months of this year."
"You killed my yogurt!" --Fred Fredburger
The people running on a minimum broadband connection or dialup will simply be forced to upgrade if they don't want to see their whole WWW experience crawl to a stop (literally)
This seems quite strange, if we consider that AdWords was the first miracle for Google's business in 2000. ;)
Do people really want to see video ads? Isn't it even more disturbing than banners? I hate the flash video ads in imdb for example. In the beginning, they even had sound turned on by default!
Google isn't completely stupid, since they won't try this on their own site... Maybe only a move to suggest bad ideas to its competitors
Nearly every site will blast annoying sounds out the instant I visit the page? We'll have to surf porn with the sound turned down?
Task Mangler
FTA: "The appeal of Google's video ads might be dampened by controls that will prevent the messages from automatically streaming across a Web page. Google instead will display graphics promoting video ads that won't be played unless a viewer clicks on a play button."
The appeal to me is precisely that I don't have to watch the ads if I don't want to. Thank goodness.
Of course, advertisers are probably less enthused -- but I'm sure major brands understand that potential customers do get pissed off by intrusive advertising.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I don't think they'll mind to much - from tfa:
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
If the Eolas patent "Click To Activate" crap ever makes it to Firefox, I'll have to click on the ad to have it rammed down my throat? Sure, of course I will. If I didn't, it'd be like stealing the Internet.
Not only is this a waste of bandwidth, but Google became so popular because of their clear, textual interface. And that included their ads which were usually easily visible and not obnoxious to look at. I will actually click on relevant text links, but I don't click on banner ads or video ads, ever.
Hopefully this won't turn out as bad as it sounds.
Presently here, but not there.
>> The appeal of Google's video ads might be dampened by controls that will prevent the messages from automatically streaming across a Web page. Google instead will display graphics promoting video ads that won't be played unless a viewer clicks on a play button.
Its close, but still - what if I dont want any video ad appearing on my website through adsense? Do people have choice of "only text"/"text and video"/"video only"?
from Do no Evil to We are the Source of all Evil.
Video ads will just use up a lot of bandwidth, make pages relying on google ads load slow, and be a real annoyance worse than banner ads and popups. Why aren't they doing it on their own page? Simple - they know that it makes whatever page that it shows up on look like crap and load slow.
There is really not much to bitch about here. It is a still ad with the ability to become a video ad.
Slashdot already has those fancy Microsoft video ads, and thiers are set to autoplay! Although, thank FSM, they are muted from the start and the user gets to activate the sound.
Well, before this I had not blocked Google ads because they were not annoying and didn't waste much bandwidth. Now they have switched to video they can welcome themselves to my HOSTS file.
To sell what product exactly ? In any case, I think it is so popular just because the woman in it is attractive in an off beat kind of way.
Slashdot has ads?
;-)
/. crowd can accept video ads (from MS no less), then the rest of the internet will lap up video ads that aren't forced on you.
*fires up IE*
Damnit you're right!
and yes, your point was completely valid, if the
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Unoffical, but GDrive?
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
to my Bandwidth!
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
I'm puzzled, there has been some speculation of Google working on Flash ads support, but I didn't expect videos to make it before Flash.
Of course, the video player of Google (the online one) is working inside Flash, and uses Flash video, but why not allow *any* Flash content as an ad?
For once, what would be a 1MB video could easily fit into less than 100k vector and procedural (scripting enhanced) animation using the full toolset of Flash.
---
Of course, last but not least, I wonder where is the promise of Google to always deliver light non-intrusive ads. Text-only ads were so great, but soon polluted by big image banner ads (not on the Google's site yet, but on google ad enhanced sites), and now... videos.
Google is walking on a thin line right now.
Sorry, I completely forget about Ad-Block and similar features within user setups that are available. I am at work, I have to get the slow served, full featured internet. God forbid I try and save my office some bandwidth by editing my System32 "hosts" file.
You have to click play for it to play the video.
I didn't know webpages had ads? Really?? Every once in while one will slip through, but a nice right click, block and bye bye ads! I'm sure this will be the next "battleground" the ad providers vs the ad blockers....
The appeal of Google's video ads might be dampened by controls that will prevent the messages from automatically streaming across a Web page. Google instead will display graphics promoting video ads that won't be played unless a viewer clicks on a play button.
The activation feature could discourage many advertisers from signing up for the new video service, said Jupiter Research analyst David Card. "This isn't going to be a game changer for Google, but it gives them a much richer palette."
</FTA>
It really isn't that bad, although I don't know how many people are going to click the ads. I'm sure some will to start, just for the novalty, but over time, I doubt this will be a big revenue generator for Google (wasn't that an original opinion considering the quote from Mr. Card!).
I wonder if the video will work on *nix anyway, and if it doesn't, whose going to bother installing the codec and plugin to make it work?
Google could get themselves into trouble though, if they let those pictures be animated, but I'm sure they know not to do that, otherwise they would just have the video start automatically.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seus
Yes, so good! http://www.buythiscomputer.com/
Yeah, the IPS's should *charge* Google for this!!
Amazing... as I write there are 17 top-level posts of which 11 are saying something to the effect that "OMFG!!! Waste of bandwidth! All these sites are gonna be really slow!!! I'm editing my hosts file..." etc.
This means that fully 64.7% of Slashdot readers are so eager to rant on (not having read TFA) that they don't even mind making themselves look like utter fools, proudly displaying their complete ignorance of the matter under discussion, their inability to understand the facts before formulating an opinion, and their general desperate need for upwards moderation, which is the only kind of "social" approbation they can ever hope for.
As many have pointed out, including in this thread: you have to choose to see the video. Now can you all calm down and learn to think? There's an interesting discussion to be had about this, and the morons' chorus is drowning it out.
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
Well, previously I haven't been blocking Google's ads because they were just text. I guess that will change now.
I'm sure as hell not wasting my bandwidth downloading a VIDEO every time I visit a page.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Google Shareholder Emergency Meeting, May 23, 2006
CEO: amazon10x put us in his HOSTS file!
Shareholders: Nooo, not the HOSTS file! What are we going to do?
CEO: I guess we'll have to call off the highly profitable video ads.
Shareholders: *Whew!*
...all of you second-class netziens who can't afford the "upper crust" tier of Internet subscription won't be able to watch these ads.
:)
And then I will bask in your marketing-deprived jealousy. Enjoy the streaming-video-spam while you can, little ones!
Bwa. Ha. Haaaa.....
Didn't they announce something like this a few months ago also? That they would start to allow graphical ads (I don't remember if they could be animated or not). They said that quite awhile ago and most of the google adsense ads I see are still text. I wouldn't worry too much about it. If they become prevalant I'm sure there will be mucho backlash. Google survives on its customer loyality (unlike file format lockin. cough, cough). If they piss off their customers there's nothing really keeping them there. The only thing keeping their current customers is good service.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
While your point is valid, I would add one caveat - that the bit about having to click on the ad to see the video is the way it will work right now. As the article notes, advertisers aren't too happy about that. This could just be the camel's nose in the tent ...
Geez, dude, get with the program! Don't you know any /. reply that mentions pron at least gets left alone and more often than not gets modded up ?!
Will all Adsense (TM) publishers get this, or will they need to opt in? Will the impressions or clicks be worth more to the publisher? Didn't notice in TFA...
one of the things that pisses me off more than anything, as someone who has a cable connection at 3Mbs, is that I'll get pages to load and hang as some remote server is loading up an ad or image or something. You sit there and look at a half loaded web page for seconds on end. Don't site admins and companies know this pisses off users?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Video based ads really get your attention, they are usually more entertaining that just a flashy logo and the companys latest deal that we see in flash ads.
Why is this a good thing? Everyone who visits a site will actually see the ad rather than ignore it, so webmasters can demand more money and stop producing websites that try and trick you into clicking an ads and stuff.
Video is a proven model or advertizing, ask someone what was the last web ad they seen? now ask someone what was the last tv commerical?
Maybe advertizers will start demanding better content?
Maybe we will see a whole new industry built on creating video ads for the web?
Video ads usually get your attention with something entertaining... Some nice eye candy...
This will really put a push on building better networks and pushing broadband, maybe advertizers will start putting pressure on broadband providers... Demand for bandwidth with money behind it, unlike bittorrent which is a demand for bandwidth without any money behind it.
Ofcourse there is the bad side, it dose suck if your on dialup or slow broadband, or have a slower computer, but all you have to do is uninstall flash or not install it in the first place, hell this might be the push we need to have average joe buy a new computer and broadband...
God, root, what is the difference?
I often "Shoot the duck" or "Stomp on the spider" or "Kill the ninja" or whatever while I'm waiting for a page to load (as pages that tend to have these adds tend to load slow). I use Firefox so when I "win" the popup doesn't appear. I just get to have a little bit of guilty pleasure. This is an interesting more. It seems to be on the face or it a poor one from what I can see, similar to what people have already states, advertisers aren't going to be happy. Then again, Google ads are very popular because they are non-intrusive. If you have non-intrusive video adds you will still be reaching the large audience Google Ads already reaches. And don't forget, if they don't click on it, its still a picture add (presumably). I guess Google are banking on advertisers realising this. See annoying add. Block it/Ignore it. See picture of something interesting. Click to play, go to website. Which would get more? Time will tell I guess.
How often do you need to view flash stuff at work? For me, that's nearly never, so I use flashblock with firefox. Obviously, you are free to do whatever you want on your own computer.
Maybe Google is secretly working on more advanced video compression... DAN DAN DAANNNNNNNNNN!
I couldn't have said it better.
I'm really getting tired of looking for good conversation about slashdot topics because way too many people post before even reading the article or even really thinking about the summary.
Now, my thoughts on the topic. I manage the google ads (and other internet ads) at the small health product company i work for. It is always a challenge to come up with wording for the ads that makes us stand out from our cometitors because you only get 3 short lines of text. A video ad would really give us more time to explain things to the potential customer. If people click on them of course is yet to be seen.
I also think that people who use adsense on their sites should be given the choice.
Having images suddenly appear where there was previously text could kinda muck up the design of their site if they were not wanting images.
i use Firefox+adblock.
But i do not block the text only adSens.
Sometimes the have relevant info and i use them.
I DO however block all flash/image ads.
And the second google adds images or video i add them to my blocklist.
And i don't think im alone.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
I imagine that if they introduced these new formats, they'd be part of a tiered pay system.
If I were you, I'd download a zipped archive of Firefox and use that--with Adblock.
Go somewhere random
With a xxx*yy size flash video you can be sure to keep it in sane levels.
I have seen flash banner ads with 10s of translucent layers and antialiasing and shit that tried to run at 1000 fps or so. One of them made an A64 come down to a crawl.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
In May 2005, Google rejected an attempt by the conservative activist group RightMarch.com to run ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against besieged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Try searching for Tom DeLay, see what ads pop up on the right. Then try searching for Hillary Clinton.
Having to click the ad to play will only dampen appeal to some advertisers. Webmasters and users will love the fact that it's a nice visual ad that does not play without user consent.
I'm sure Google will have advertisers lining up even with this "downside".
The fact that you were modded down as "Flamebait" somewhat proves your point. That being said, you probably should have been modded down "Offtopic".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Really... how many of these stupid "OMG NO VIDEO ON PAGE LOAD!" posts are there going to be?
The second comment more than half an hour before this clears up the issue.
I can understand the tons of AC's posting it just to be stupid, but real people with real ID's this dumb?
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
I bet you click on those "punch the monkey" banners too.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Fire up the block list, images have been there for awhile.
It's up to each adsense account as to which type of ads to display.
If you go to a site that starts loading video ads, ask them to go back to text only.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Why is google by far the largest search engine? It's not because they're a better search engine, they arn't, especially when they were new. Lycos was the original search engine, and they had the lion's share of the market.
No, Google dominates because they were fast, clean, and not annoying. If you look at this thread you'll see many people saying "I click on google ads sometimes, no others" That's why google gets hits.
The day they change what they are sending from text to graphics half of the sites that put them up will drop them. This would be a marketing decision who's brilliance would rival 'New Coke' and would be remembered for at least as long.
As I was saying Google is not that stupid. If they make a new stream that does what they're talking about, fine, more power to them. It won't work, but it wouldn't be fatal to them.
Yes, you have to choose to view the video, but how in the world can you choose to not download it in the first place?
The reason that I used to disable images loading over dialup was NOT that I didn't want to see them... it was that I didn't want to download them and eat up my bandwidth.
There would be a solution, of course, if Google didn't actually send the video until you clicked "yes" or whatever. But then, how would whatever embedded player that is playing the content know that a video is ready to play? Or would there be some sort of flash interface to the video that tells Google to send the video, and reloads its space with an embedded viewer?
Who knows? But it is not ignorance that rants that our bandwith will be chewed up... why, oh why do you think that Google is not using its own video ads?
And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
This is a ridiculous (and outdated) article, it jumps to a paranoid conclusion based on one coincidence and no real evidence, just an unsupported claim. "A search of Google's site"? A search for what?
Wow. What did you get paid to say that?
First of all, I do not want web pages to ever play sound. If I consider animated graphic ads to be such an annoyance that I have blocked them, why would I be more likely to click and ad that is not only visually offensive, but audibly offensive too?
Second, it's pure arrogance to think people can just go out and buy a new computer and get broadband. It's been said a thousand times, and it is still true. Not everybody can get broadband. Some people are not able to afford it, and some people don't even have the option to get it short of expensive satellite options. Nor can everybody afford a new computer. Not even a $300 eMachine.
The idea that advertisements will push broadband adoption is ridiculous. All large ads will do is drive away a site's visitors. Pushing broadband adoption requires content.
I'd be surprised if the video was loaded before clicking the play button. It seems like an enormous waste of bandwidth to download something that won't get watched.
This piece is tagged "missing-the-point" presumably because the point is that we all hate online video ads, and prefer text links, so WTF is Google doing.
But there's another way that this plan misses the point. It's in having a two-minute limit on the video.
Why is this a problem?
30-second ads are based on the interruption ad model: you don't want to watch, so they keep it short. Interruption ads don't work online, which is a choice-based medium (or should be).
Google's plan is the some people will want to click on these things to watch the videos. But by limiting it to 2 minutes, they drastically reduce the amount of interesting content that could be offered.
For example, corporation X could offer you a bunch of videos from a band you like; their logo's at the end, but otherwise, it's just the video. You might be tempted to click to watch - but of course you'll be irritated, because the song will have to cut off after 2 minutes.
In other words, this plan is the worst of both worlds - it doesn't work under the hard-sell interuption model of old advertising, or under the new choice-based model, which is "do something genuinely interesting for me and I might actually watch it - in which case it should be as long as I want it to be".
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
The second article I referenced is dated today, loosely on the same subject, and goes through a nice list of examples of Google bias.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I'm 5849, you're 33222; looks like I was most remiss in not welcoming you back around 1998 :-)
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
You didn't RTFA either, did you? The ads won't play unless the user activates them. They won't catch anyone's eye unless they are actually clicked on by the consumer. Meaning they'll take just as much clicking as ever before.
It's a good thing I have an AMD64. That protects me from those pesky Flash ads... and in fact from running any Flash content at all! Yay.
But this wrecks integration with the rest of the site.
(Disclaimer, I am not an adwords subscriber, so I am not sure exactly how much control you get)
With textual ads, I assume that a little CSS can blend the add nicely into the rest of your site.
But with these new picture (and then video) ads, they don't fit in anymore to the rest of the sites appearance.
I realize not all sites are fashion conscious, but there are some sites out there that I am sure will hate the new picture ads.
This
Just to take a few of your assertations one at a time:
Can't remember. Must have been a few weeks ago thanks to a good adblocker.
Can't remember. I use ad breaks to go to the toilet, make a cup of tea etc.
So I assume there are no boring ads on TV?
Advertiser: "Oh, look, new media format. Suddenly I can see the light!"
But finally, here's the one that really got me.
I live in central Tanzania. "Broadband" here costs $3,500/month, and runs at 312K. The average national wage is about $400. "Average" may not mean exactly what you think it means.
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
Potential broadband customer: "Why should I get broadband?"
Salesman: "Then you can watch video ads!"
PBC: "..."
you must be new here
Nature journal lied in Britannica vs Wikipedia Ask to retrac
I'm currently using. . .
NukeAnything Enhanced
Flashblock 1.5
on top of Firefox/1.5.0.1
I have no trouble Nuking flash banners. Maybe you can get some use out of that. . .
Cheers!
-FL
I can't get Firefox to connect, something to do with the firewall. It does not have permission and I don't really care enough to fix it. I mean, I am on Slashdot right now.
None of the sites I am supposed to be at (mainly NY and Federal Criminal Justice sites, Lexus Nexis, and the like) have pop ups or ads. The problem doesn't exist according to our IT guys, only if you step outside of where you are supposed to be does it become a problem.
But I am allowed to go anywhere I want I often have to go to MySpace because apparently, many victims of crimes have accounts there. And fancy pages dedicated to the guys who they say are stalking them. Pages that say "I Love CmndrTaco" then they charge Taco with a stalking charge and we show the site in Court. I swear this has happened twice in the past 6 months. Who would have thought MySpace could be so usefull for the legal community.
Again more traffic from ads that people are going to pay for without actually deciding. They will be probably Flash based as those at video.google.com so I'm really thinking of uninstalling flash player. Haven't seen any usefull flash site (except ads) in a while.
Pixel image editor - http://www.kanzelsberger.com
From the creators of the top-acclaimed "Do no evil", comes "Marketing menace"!!!
Will this be a trilogy following the good-wins-then-bad-wins-then-good-wins-again pattern? Hope so.
Maybe there's no truth in this, but people have told me that web pages can contain these things called "links" using which you can, for example, allow people to choose whether or not to download and view large files. I'm not sure if Google's engineers are aware of this technology, but if so they may well make use of it. Perhaps they can tie it in with their plan (described in TFA) to "...display graphics promoting video ads".
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
A reminder to people who use the AdSense service (and not those of you who like to spout without knowing what you are talking about) - you can set your prefs so that only text ads will be displayed.
Brielle
I don't know any advertisers who care how much they annoy us... I don't even think the word "annoy" registers in their minds properly. They only think More people seeing my stuff! Buy my stuff! BUY MY STUFF!
Course I could be wrong, but considering so many still serve popups when not a single person I've ever met, heard of, or dreamed of is not annoyed by them, it's the only explanation I can think of.
My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
>Just to take a few of your assertations one at a time:
>> ask someone what was the last web ad they seen?
> Can't remember. Must have been a few weeks ago thanks to a good adblocker.
I'm talking about average joe here, most people don't use ad blockers... Hell I don't even bother with ad blockers, I just ignore most ads.
>> now ask someone what was the last tv commerical?
>Can't remember. I use ad breaks to go to the toilet, make a cup of tea etc.
The few times I've watched TV in the past few months I've found the ads to be entertaining, they do get old and annoying really quickly, but the first time around they are entertaining.
>> Video ads usually get your attention with something entertaining... Some nice eye candy...
> So I assume there are no boring ads on TV?
No but there are lots of entertaining ones out there...
>> Maybe advertizers will start demanding better content?
> Advertiser: "Oh, look, new media format. Suddenly I can see the light!"
Video ads cost alot more to produce,
> But finally, here's the one that really got me.
>> this might be the push we need to have average joe buy a new computer and broadband...
> I live in central Tanzania. "Broadband" here costs $3,500/month, and runs at 312K. The average national > wage is about $400. "Average" may not mean exactly what you think it means.
Ofcourse broadband depends on many factors, the main one being demand, small demand and no supply == high cost, large demand and supply leads to competition and over subscription which means reasonable pricing.
Currently there is a lack of demand in the US for broadband, many average joe types a happy with dialup.
Also video ads don't stop people on dialup and on slow computers from viewing existing content.
Video ads are likely to be a more effective method of advertizing but advertisers are not going to put money into producing videos and bandwidth if there is no content to force people to view them. I think the name of the game is going to be producing websites that you view long enough to watch the entire video. So this means real content! Its not going to be a game of trying to get people to click the ads, but trying to get people to stay on one page long enough for the video to play to end. Now there will still be lots of annoying sites that try and force you to watch a video before accessing the content.
The fact that google is getting behind this is what I like. There are already companys producing video ads, I see these mircosoft ads here on slashdot all the time. Thankfully the sound is muted by default.
I personally don't mind the ads playing by default aslong as the sound is turned off. On my computers that are too slow to play video I simply don't have flash installed.
Broadband is widely avaiable here in Canada, unless you live in the middle of no where there is both adsl and cable.
There is a major lack of good quality legal broadband content online right now. Google video and yourtube are improving the situaltion but there is still very little professional quality content. Why? because there is no ad revenue to support it. Traditional banner ads or google ads barely cover the bandwidth if that. Hopefully video ads will pump some much needed money into this area.
God, root, what is the difference?
CEO: amazon10x set up us the HOSTS ! Shareholders: What you say !! CEO: Take off every 'vid' !! Shareholders: You know what you doing. CEO: For great justice.
Arg. Should have previewed: here's the formatted version
CEO: amazon10x set up us the HOSTS !
Shareholders: What you say !!
CEO: Take off every 'vid' !!
Shareholders: You know what you doing.
CEO: For great justice.
Yes, they get your attention. That's the point. They are highly distracting and annoying. When I'm listening to music I don't want advertisement sounds/music blasting out of my speakers on top of it. Not to mention for users on low-end PCs (i.e. the one I presently use to connect to the Internet): It's bad enough that Firefox's extensions have memory issues, but to have video ads playing would slow it down to a crawl.
Thank goodness for Adblock Plus!
Humblest apologies, Master
And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
Sorry, I should have made it clearer that I was referring exclusively to the first article my comment, thanks for pointing that out.
The second article doesn't point out any bias at all. Google has barred many other ads and other content due to their hate policy, including content from democrats, so-called Christians (due to hateful content against gays), pro-liberal comedy websites ("Who Would Jesus Bomb?"), anti-Islam speech, etc. Their policy isn't biased against republicans, unless republicans are actually more hateful than democrats, which is not the case.
Google aims to provide that mystical thing: an objective angle. Like Wikipedia, it doesn't view the inclusion of every opinion as NPOV.
That many of Google's employees are pro-democrat is an irrelevant coincidence and proves no bias.
Google's acting in accordance to the laws of other nations outside the United States is also irrelevant to a bias inside the United States.
Accusing the BBC of being a "predominately liberal media outlet" is possibly the second-biggest of this article's blunders. The BBC is constantly scrutinized internally and externally in efforst to keep it POV-free. Often, the government accuses the BBC of giving to much voice to the opposition! (Labour's opposition has been The Conservative Party since 1997 when they were elected).
The bigger blunder is the accusation that Google will intentionally provide bias for any site at all ever. Google's policies are not biased. They are apply to everyone equally. If the WSJ made more of its articles free and indexable under Google, I suspect they would often outweigh CNN, AP or the BBC in "quality".
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I suspect that it works much like the Google Video previews.
;)
Go to Google Video, and search for something. Note the play buttons to see a short preview of the clip.
Click the button. It uses JavaScript to load the preview in Flash.
I saw this on Thursday at fanfiction.net. Here's what it looked like: http://nandhp.tripod.com/googlevideoad.html [JPEG compressed to 8kb]
What exactly is your point? As a Republican, do you not feel that Google should have the freedom to run whatever ads they want to from their service? Are you against such essential freedom of expression?
And it's no wonder that Google would be more supportive of the Democratic Party. They haven't participated nearly as much in the warmongering and fearmongering that the Republican Party has recently. The stance of Google (likely dictated by its employees) has traditionally been one of "do no evil". Supporting people like the Republicans, who often advocate the bombing of innocent civilians in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, completely violates the "do no evil" mantra.
Remember, you always have the ability to block their ads if you disagree with their political stance. You can easily use Yahoo!, or MSN, or the other search engines out there. If you disagree with their service, don't use it.
Ad blockers are the number one extension for every major browser in use today. ISPs even send out their installation kits with included ad blockers. Most people may not block all ads, but most people block at least some ads and the number blocking all ads is only increasing. Just take a look at the top extensions for web clients and their growth. They're ad blockers. Look at the growth of PVRs. People love being able to record shows and...skip ads.
The people have spoken, and you just don't like their answer.
I don't know what the last ad I saw was on the Internet because I've been blocking them for years now. Even before then I couldn't tell you because I just ignored them. People become ad blind, which is why I bought a PVR. Instead of spending 15% more time watching television programs than I had to with periods of me spacing out or wandering for snacks I just skip commercials entirely. That's an average of 15% of my time spent watching TV back to do things that can't be done in three minute intervals. No, video ads won't encourage me to get broadband or a new computer. I don't own a computer to watch advertisements.
Having worked on the video playback component in Flash and Flex (I'm an engineer at Adobe), I feel obligated to enlighten you on the bandwidth implications for users visiting web sites containing Flash-based video ads.
There are three ways to play video in Flash:
Of these, the first one is recommended only for extremely small video clips (5 seconds or less), because embedding the video into the SWF, aside from providing poor quality playback, also bloats the size of the SWF file.
The other two have their pros and cons each, but they have one thing in common: video is downloaded only when requested. Streaming (option 3) has the additional advantage of requesting video frame-by-frame, whereas in the case of HTTP download, the entire file is requested at once (though the download can be aborted at any point during playback).
So, take a chill pill. The world is not coming to an end. If you don't want to see the ads, don't click on the play button.
Google is portraying the new ad product as the latest revolutionary way that it is leveling the playing field for small businesses, according to a NYT Google quote: "A large percentage of video ads will come from small advertisers. A small resort owner in Maui probably already has video of their great beachfront property. Now they can put it in an ad and reach a qualified set of users." Google has also been characterizing its offline ad distribution attempts as enabling systems for small businesses, such as its print ad auction. The auction failed, however, and Google's small business radio ad distribution strategy with DMarc Broadcasting has not materialized. (http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=13)
"Ofcourse there is the bad side, it dose suck if your on dialup or slow broadband, or have a slower computer, but all you have to do is uninstall flash or not install it in the first place"
Sure, great solution. I don't like annoying radio ads either, so I think I'll just punch out my speakers...
So we will now have commericals while surfing the internet? Next we'll be buying internet tivo's.
I still do, ever since a "friend" sent me that damn joke page that shouts, "HEY EVERYONE! I'M LOOKING AT GAY PORN!".
Sony ha
Sure we'll help you take a shit in public. Just go do it on the neighbor's lawn. And hand over the cash.
It is going to be a windows/mac only player right? I'm sure glad I'm running Linux!
What was once a great search engine is now an overweight, bloated behemouth intending to stamp it's prescence across the Internet, sucking up money while pestering us with ad's we do not want.
Time to find a new search portal boys and grils. And Macro$lut cn kiss my fat, haory, putulant, hemeroidal ass if they think I will be using their search engine
What is interesting to me is how the revenue model is going to work. There can be a tiered model where Google charges $X for every graphic impression of the ad, $Y for every download/playing of the ad and $Z for every visit to the advertiser's website. If it's Flash, the ad can include a hyperlinked URL at the end, can't it?
And does it matter how long the ad is? Will there be differential pricing depending upon the length of the ad?
For advertisers, I think this is a good challenge because they have to make their first graphic interesting/eye-catching/enticing. So we may get to see good, creativite work (or just photographs of hot chicks with strategically located Play buttons).
2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
Unfortunately AIM has started running these ads in the top of their client, and they are videos. And they will just start playing at random.
This does two things: it comes out of my speakers which are usually cranked pretty loud, AND they consume system resources temporarily enough to slow down my machine.
That PISSES ME OFF TO NO EXTENT, so I will usually close out of the AIM client (or minimize it), I am hoping that AIM is seeing how many people let the video run it's length, and when they look at my stat, they will realize that each and every time a video comes on, I close out of it. Perhaps they will stop sending those damn things.
Libertas in infinitum
does this not go aginst their philosophy
I fear the Y2038 bug
Waiter: Evil, Google? Google: No, thanks. But my customers will might have a smidgeon.
Reading through these comments, one has to wonder just how short the attentionn span of the average slashdotter really is. This article is real short, yet nobody seems to have read it and everyone makes false assumptions on the "suspect the worst" model.
According to TFA the video ads will _not_ be starting playback automatically, but only if a play button is pressed.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
It's not The Google Democratic Party search engine.
It's The Google search engine.
I'm not Republican or Democrat. Nor do I want to see Google's results based on my or any political party.
And you're right, I can use another search engine and they totally are free to do whatever they want as long as they're not breaking any laws. This freedom also comes with responsibility of dealing with repercussions of their choices. Repercussions like me using my freedom of speech to speak out against their heinous policies.
Support the FairTax
All i've ever seen you do is patronise other people.
Go and write something about Internet Explorer you micrsoft troll gimp.