Per a link in that very article, Verizon made $1.83 billion profit on sales of $28.6 billion last quarter. That's not a 49% profit margin. That's a 6% profit margin. They had a "49.0 percent segment EBITDA margin on service revenues (non-GAAP)". I don't claim to know exactly what that means, but its not profit margin the way I (and I think most other people) understand profit margins.
Don't kill software patents just to use H.264 though. Kill software patents because it is ridiculous that an algorithm is patentable just because it executes on a computer.
I never understood this one. If anything, clever algorithms should be the ONLY software I am allowed to patent (one-click is not clever, GIF's compression was). These people worked hard to come up with a novel idea that they then want to make money from. What is wrong with that exactly? Why SHOULDN'T they be able to patent them? We let people patent novel ways of building a mousetrap. If my mousetrap is virtual, why is that any different?
They offered patent indemnification from patents that 'Google' holds. That's nice, but that doesn't protect you from the patents that anyone else holds. H.264 has been around long enough that it is unlikely their are anymore submarine patents out there (or if there are, it is likely they can brought into the patent pool). Also, Microsoft has agreed to indemnify any user using H.264 on their platform. Google refuses to do the same for WebM.
Software patents are evil, but they are also very painful if you are the one sued. Personally, I would rather deal with the devil I know than the devil I don't.
Did you read the article at all? The lack of indemnification is EXACTLY what MS is complaining about with respect to WebM.
Microsoft has said publicly that they pay 2x more into the patent pool for licenses then they get out for royalities.
WebM is probably encumbered as well. Just because Google says, "trust us, we've pretty sure you are safe" does not make you safe from getting sued. Sometimes its better to deal with the devil you know than the devil you don't.
More like feathering ones own nest.
After all, Microsoft is a member of the H.264 Licensors. They stand to profit by the continued adoption of H.264.
Actually, I can't even see Google getting all fussed about this, because they will not have to pay a license fee in 2016 because its not part of Chrome proper. Microsoft may not need to pay either, since as members they may get a free pass (just speculation on my part there).
They don't profit. Microsoft is on record saying they pay more into the patent pool then they get paid. That's why the add-on only works on Windows. The OS already comes with a license for H.264, so you don't need another to run video in any particular application.
Very admirable. But somehow the high morals of everyone on slashdot doesn't mesh with what I see in the real world.
Let me be clear: I don't have a problem with breaking DRM because you want to listen/watch something on another device. That's fine (and mostly legal these days).
My problem is EVERYONE who pirates seems to say this same thing: I would never have paid for this! And yet they keep what they downloaded and keep listening/watching it. No one I know at least ever paid for any song once they had downloaded it for free. Sorry, but that is copyright infringement and morally wrong to me at least.
The only person you had to know for a source of tapes was BLOCKBUSTER.
It cost money to rent the videos and at least some of that money went to the movie studios. There were happy with that deal. With BT, I don't see how anyone gets paid.
Why is I when I read "content freedom", I have a feeling you mean your ability to copy movies from torrent and avoid having to pay anyone for the huge investment and hard work they put into making movies. Sure, that's not what everyone will use it for, but it seems like most will. That's not something to cheer about in my book, but to each his own.
Downloading provides an audience to the artist.. The only people hurting from it are the distributors...
And the artists who get a percent of the sales...But you keep telling yourself that you aren't hurting the artists. Every artist I know would prefer to be paid AND have fans, rather than just the later.
I'll go on blocking their adverts until they start showing adverts I can look at without my eyes bleeding that advertise things that I might actually want.
I'll ask the stupid question: how will you know when that happens if you are blocking advertisments?
Well, I wonder why advertisers bother with this whole idea of targeted marketing at all. I mean, if a man learns about a new tampon product; if a gay person reading a gay magazine learns about a new contraceptive product or say a Russian brides website; and if Slashdotters learn about the latest product from My Little Pony, it's done its job, right?
Ok, but GQ is a magazine for men. Hence, advertising it on a site that is visited mostly by men sounds like good targeted advertising to me at least. I think trying to pretend that My Little Pony is the same as GQ is just a little bit of a strech.
I mean, if I like a website, should I sit and hit reload repeatedly, so that they get even more ad revenue?
Typically, sites are only paid for the unique vistor, so I don't think that would make any difference. Even if did, the point isn't to maximize the site's revenue. The point is to pay for the service they are providing (even if you pay indirectly by viewing ads). You want the content without paying for it, which seems wrong to me.
If you really like a site, do you sit and hit reload repeatedly, to give them extra ad revenue?
Whether you hit refresh a 100 times or not makes no difference. For one, they are likely paid for unique views only, so refreshing does't make any difference. For another, I didn't say the point was to maximize Ars's (or any other site's) revenue. My point is that they need revenue to provide their service and if I have to view a few ads to get that service for no charge, then I'm more than happy to make that trade. The key point is that it is a trade. To take something without giving anything in return is called 'free loading'.
And for all the sites I don't like - you'll agree using ad blockers is fine?
If you don't like a site, why are you visiting it in the first place?
And yet, your post seems to show that advertising was working on you:
- The majority of the ads are for GQ magazine. I didn't even know what the fuck that was before clicking on the link
. Perfect. The ad gave you knowledge of a product you were unaware of before. That's the whole point of advertising.
- I had 3 annoying Gilette ads about their Fusion razor.
If you can remembver the name of the product afterwards, then the ad is working. Also, and I know this may come as a shock, but not every ad is going to be perfectly relevent to you.
- I get a metric fuckton of ads for Wired magazine, already on their RSS feed, more irrelevant ads
You expect Ars to some how know that ahead of time? You whine that the ads aren't relevent, but they are for a product you already use. I would say that means the ad was at least targeted at the right demographic, even if its not relevent to you in particular.
- I got about 10 or so Microsoft ads about some 'Business Synergy Client Focused' gobbledygook
Another tech related ad on a tech site. Makes sense to me...
All this is missing the point of the article. Ars gets paid by the view. If you don't view ads, they don't get paid. That means they have to get rid of staff, reduce content, etc. If you like Ars, you should view the ads. If you don't want to view the ads, then either become a subscriber or don't view Ars.