Well, it's also a lot easier to validate their choices - you and anyone else who are fluent in English, Russian or a number of other languages can go pick up a copy of Voices from Chernobyl, say, and give it a try. (It's amazing.) You will have a harder time validating the chemists' work.
I don't see how "literary circles" should be criticized for choosing works that they believe have merit in their own field. Nobody was up in arms earlier about the chemistry award going to people who weren't "household names" - other than the Peace prize, the odds that anyone who wins a Nobel this year will have a bigger public profile than Alexievich are slim to none.
by Google ads do you mean ads on Google? Or AdSense ads placed across the web (AFS? AFC?)? or do you mean AdSense + Doubleclick (DFA, DFP, ...) + AdExchange + AdMob + I could go on for a long while. Bottom line is google, more than anyone else, has a lot of skin in this game.
We use an original generation Fire Stick specifically for Prime streaming (everything else is on Apple TV), and it's an okay product, but Amazon's dual goal to provide free streaming while also driving purchases makes it a flawed product in the same way that Apple Music within iTunes made me pull out my hair. The new generation with voice should be a good improvement (the amazon remote app for smartphones already incorporates it for the original generation of fire sticks).
That really depends on what you mean by that. With the initial release of the kindle, Amazon was selling major publisher new release ebooks for less than $10 by simply eating the difference between their wholesale cost and the markdown. Agency means Amazon gets a reliable 30% margin on them. All evidence supports that publishers are generally speaking selling exactly as many ebooks as they want to be selling, since they have granular control over pricing - it doesn't help digital readers, but it does keep a moat around their physical business, which ultimately serves print readers.
Logic actually suggests that publishers will optimize prices to benefit themselves - that they are still in business & increasingly profitable many years after their imminent demise was announced seems to suggest that they are not making a total mess of it.
Buried paragraph at the end of the article that discounts the entire piece (as a piece about readers rather than as a piece about publishers):
"It is also possible that a growing number of people are still buying and reading e-books, just not from traditional publishers. The declining e-book sales reported by publishers do not account for the millions of readers who have migrated to cheap and plentiful self-published e-books, which often cost less than a dollar."
That's where it started. Open a marketing message, look at the from line. If they're implementing it, you'll see "Marketer name" <marketer@emailaddress.com> Unsubscribe
One can easily take him at his word that he did not expect to be pinned to #1 on the app sales charts, because that would have been a crazy thing to expect. With that came the kind of attention that he's show drives him crazy in the past, it really is a Flappy Bird analog.
Just one clarification, and it will seem picky, but while Marco's site does have ads, Marco-the-person is in no sense "reliant" on ad income, as an early Tumblr employee who did well in the IPO and then didn't blow it on yachts and helicopters. In addition to IAP money from his podcast app, selling Instapaper, etc.
I'm presenting arguments based on what the author says, and you're presenting arguments based on the title and embedded quotes. All one has to do is read the piece. It's really not that hard!
Gruber isn't presenting his argument (such as a tweet so simple could be considered an argument) to end consumers - he's attempting to use his influence on (iOS) mobile developers who are creating content blockers - and this is an audience he does have a fair amount of influence on. But again, the genie once escaping the bottle will have chosen to smash it, not to return.
The moral argument isn't presented in the piece, so it's not really fair to ascribe it to the author. He's saying it doesn't matter. They're making a "poisoned well" argument that there will be no functional divide between "good" and "bad" ads.
Well, yes, but the thing is while we care, and might want to craft a whitelist or put consideration into our choices, the majority of folks are going to search for ad blocker, choose the first one, and start enjoying the web without ads. Then they're going to wonder why they never did it on desktop? And then they're going to do it on the desktop. The genie, once out of the bottle, will not choose to return.
In any case what Jobs meant was that the companies that were putting out devices that required a stylus to operate correctly were doing it wrong, and that's been proven pretty extensively by the kind of touch interaction that the iPhone popularized.
Specifically: the new iPad Pro works just fine with touch, but you also have an option of an Apple-sourced stylus for more intricate work.
Now I don't read the oatmeal so am not really qualified to comment on its content, but what you just described (content based on timely matters) seems like the very definition of the editorial cartoons I grew up reading. I imagine there are a large variety of non-contemporaneous comics one could also read on the web if it's not to one's liking.
I think a big tell here is that when someone is talking about a certain subset of the reddit userbase that acts in a certain way, that if one reads that and thinks the person was talking about everyone on reddit, then one may actually fall within the subset under discussion.
Makes a better story like that though. Or even "It cost us 10% of our company to even start shipping out our product, what were we thinking?" (Random guess at equity stake)