Technology Archives

Will Ad Blockers Kill The Internet?

It’s been nearly a month since I deleted all the ads from my site. Instead of pasting targeted distractions to my readers, I opted for simplicity. If readers wanted to support me, they could buy my book, donate, or share my work. Since then, an explosive dialogue surrounding the ethics and use of ad blockers has ensued. I decided to share my two cents on advertisers, marketing, and the “death of the web.”

Advertisers want us to believe that their commercials and banner ads inform us. They need us to consider their arguments, and think we’re making rational decisions in response. And they implant a picture of perfection – of what life could look like – with their products.

We’re supposed accept this bombardment of stimuli as the cost of accessing and reading websites. Go to The New York Times, and a slurry of ads feast over your metadata to predict what you might purchase next and serve up a healthy dose of consumerism. Behind the scenes, trackers surreptitiously soak up your browsing history, location, and personal data.

This is the cost of being a content consumer in the 21st century, and for years, we’ve accepted it. Until recently, when the entire Internet exploded in euphoria and vitriol over Apple’s new mobile operating system (iOS). It’s most recent update empowered users to install “content blockers,” which would effectively eliminate advertisements in the mobile browser.

These ad blockers allow users to surf the web cleanly. The busy and distracting pages disappear – suddenly the content comes into focus. Trackers suffer and people’s profiles can’t be built as easily. Now, companies struggle to personalize ads via privacy infractions.

As the browsing experience improves, profit revenue decreases. It’s a perfect inverse correlation. The web feels calmer without ads. I don’t have to be defensive and avert my eyes.

Over the last few weeks, publishers worldwide have clambered to their keyboards, predicting apocalypses. The Verge conducted a poll of its users, which found that 78% said “Yes” they will use an ad blocker. Without ad revenue, how will they survive?! If everyone turns off the ads, how will companies make money?

Publishers are already predicting that companies will cease to exist. One quote from PC Mag highlights the hyperbolic language: “With this move, users will eventually wonder why their favorite website died before finding another set of content to plunder.” Supposedly, a content pirate will kill sites left and right because of their ad blocker use.

Wired highlighted the plight of Google’s profits in an almost sympathetic tone: “Google depends almost entirely on ads for revenue. By one estimate, the giant may be losing billions of dollars from these kind of browser blocking extensions.” What will the massive, multinational corporation do without its record-breaking ad revenue?

Adding to the publisher outcries is The Verge’s Nilay Patel, who said ad blockers could mean the “Death of the web.” Then he added that “taking money and attention away from the web means that web innovation will slow to a crawl.” Wow! Death, as in ceasing to exist. That’s pretty extreme, right? Without ads, your computer literally would cease to surf – browsers would be pointless.

The problem with all this fear mongering is that it’s flawed. The web was not invented by corporate interests; rather, it was a governmental invention that became a public good. Advertising wasn’t part of the equation. Profit wasn’t the sole motivator to those who innovated in the early days of the Internet.

Even today, much of the web exists because of volunteers, governments, and public grants. Open source projects like Wikipedia, Ubuntu, and Firefox are perfect examples of how third-party ads needn’t be the sole source of innovation or income.

Interestingly, in this ad-infested web, major publishers have grown to bloated proportions. Many recycle other news outlets’ content and repackage it as their own. Companies like The Verge, Wired, and PC Mag occasionally publish top-notch journalistic pieces, but they’re most often caught up in quasi-advertisement “product reviews” and republishing. It’s lazy work to draw eyeballs, not critical thinking. To lose these companies would be awful, as I must admit I enjoy them, but we’d move on.

We’ve come to a crossroads as publishers and consumers. Should we put up with ads or use ad blockers? Should we accept distraction or simplicity? Should we keep the status quo or demand an alternative?

Some suggest paywalls, which force readers to subscribe for content. I can guarantee that circulation will drop immensely and many won’t pay (here’s looking at one of them). If it’s news, it’ll be printed somewhere else in a non-subscription form. And if it’s not reprinted, then it can’t be that important, can it? So, that idea’s gone.

Others promote the concept of paid articles. Many publishers have already experimented with advertiser-paid articles such as The New York Times and The Verge. Instead of reading a non-biased, semi-objective piece of journalism, readers have the distinct privilege of reading a lengthy advertisement. Again, everyone loses if the web destroys objectivity in journalism.

We live at a time of immense progress; ironically, technology is contending with these advances. Ad blockers censor and clean the web of the dirty bits. You no longer need to continually feel compelled to buy, buy, buy. Nor do pages deliver 20, 30, or 40+ trackers to your computer.

The rationale is clear: the web is better when it’s simpler. But questions remain about the sustainability of any company once their ad revenue dries up.

Here’s where I must be slightly callous. Frankly, capitalism is said to be flexible and adaptive. The invisible hand is supposed to morph and move with demand. There are companies constantly winning and losing in this roulette wheel of life – not everyone wins all the time. The companies that can successfully adapt to changing market forces… They’re the winners in this game.

Either way, the web is here to stay.

I Hate Being A Walking Advertisement

By Frugaling 35 Comments

Recently, my laptop pooped out. The four-and-a-half-year-old computer had been through thick and thin. I had traveled the country with it, and even dropped a glass of soy milk into the keyboard. It helped me create graphics, write graduate papers, and start Frugaling.org. The device was essential for my new book, too.

Not having a computer sent me in a tizzy. I needed one for nearly everything I do from work to play to school. My book wasn’t finished either, and I needed a dedicated computer for proofreading and formatting. Immediately, I investigated my options and surprisingly sold my old, broken one for a tidy sum.

My previous computer was an Apple. The laptop was reliable considering what I threw at it. In an effort to be frugal, I looked at Google Chromebooks. Unfortunately, certain academic and work responsibilities would necessitate a real computer – whether Mac or Windows.

Considering resale values, reliability, build quality, and my own knowledge base, I decided to get another Apple. Because it was “Back to School” season, the company had a special sale. Buy a computer, get an education discount, and receive a free pair of Beats headphones.

Regularly $200, the headphones would be shipped with the purchase. When I agreed to the payment options and clicked order, I planned to sell the headphones. They would ultimately lower the real purchase price of the computer.

I ravenously opened the boxes. Despite everything I preach about immaterialism and anti-consumption, my computer was a necessity. There wasn’t another way for me to write, publish, comment, and work on Frugaling. And I was lusting over the product.

Then, in another box, were the Beats headphones. I left the box sealed – brand new and ready for auction on eBay or sale on Craigslist. As the days ticked by, that unopened box stuck out like a sore thumb. It begged to be open.

So, I did.

As I ripped the shrink wrap and took the shiny headphones out, I felt this guilt. If I’m supposed to be frugal, am I allowed to own Beats headphones? Furthermore, can I truly afford them if my budgets are still so tight? The frugal friend on my shoulder said, “you can’t afford this.” The baller on a budget said, “maybe you can.”

When I put the headphones on my head, I looked in the mirror and saw Lebron James suiting up for his next basketball game. I was a walking, listening ad for Beats.

With their iconic lowercase “b” logo on either ear and a red cord dangling down, I was embarrassed. The look, fit, finish, and advertisement-like design bothered me. I felt like a hypocrite. How could I spout frugally inspired words and wear these?

The next day I took the headphones to school. Everywhere I went, people asked about them. In fact, someone in the Iowa City community who struggles with homelessness that I’ve interacted with regularly approached me.

He grabbed ahold and said, “Wow, nice headphones!”

When I heard that, I felt shame. How can I walk around with these bulky Beats that flash status in the face of those with less? How can I reconcile the decision to keep/accept flaunting $200 sitting on my head, while he struggles to find shelter?

In these moments, I think many people ignore this dissonance. They rationalize their ownership by stating that those with less get what they deserve. This is our capitalistic society working as it should.

For me, I balk at symbols of excessive wealth. These are unnecessary reminders of classism that pin rich against poor – privileged against disenfranchised. I don’t need to look like Lebron James walking to game time. Likewise, I don’t need to look like I’m better than anyone else – because I’m not.

But is there ever room for something like this in a frugal lifestyle?

What would you do? Would you keep the brand-assailing Beats headphones or sell them off?

Account For Depreciation, Save Your Budget

By Frugaling 7 Comments

Broken Computer Flickr Creative Commons Tech Devices — *Photo: flickr/youngthousands*

The 21st century doesn’t seem to prevent technology from aging rapidly and becoming obsolete after a couple years. A couple of my devices recently died, and I’m on the cusp of another big tech failure. I just don’t have the money to replace anything. This could spell trouble for my precariously balanced budget.

My devices are failing me

Three months ago, my Amazon Kindle broke. I traveled the globe with that device and read hundreds of books over its lifespan. After four years of heavy use, the screen died and the internal motherboard stopped working properly. It probably didn’t help that I spilled a glass of orange juice in the keyboard of this device (watch out for this theme). Rather than simply throw it away, I auctioned it off on eBay and recouped about $25. Not bad considering it was broken and about four years old.

Amazon’s Kindle costs about $120.

I just chucked my Apple headphones in the trash. After nearly two years of intense use and travel, they’re broken. I don’t go a day without listening to music on my iPhone, and most of the time I used those headphones. I had tried extending the life by using electrical tape and trying to reseal certain areas on the headphones. For a while, that worked. Unfortunately, they worsened. They’ve been answering/ending phone calls automatically and starting/stopping music at random. Not a pleasant surprise when you begin answering phone calls to telemarketers.

Apple’s in-ear “earpods” cost about $30.

What if my computer breaks?

I bought my 13″ Macbook Air in mid 2011. It’s my favorite computer I’ve ever owned, and I’ve avoided an upgrade. While I still yearn for a newer model, I can’t afford to buy one right now.

Like my other devices, it gets exposed to some serious travel and abuse. After about a year of owning the laptop, I spilled a full glass of chocolate silk in the keyboard (notice the theme?). It fried the top assembly. I brought it to a repair store to try and save it — the cost was about $400 to fix. I remember looking at that price and thinking, “I could buy a brand new Windows laptop at that cost.” I decided to go ahead with the repair, as the system could be saved.

Now, about three years old, my trusty laptop is starting to slow down. I can tell that the cooling fans aren’t working properly. This is likely damaging important processor components and could threaten my data. It’s a recipe for disaster. At some point, my laptop will likely overheat and fry itself. Until then, I work on nearly everything in the cloud and save frequently.

Apple’s Macbook Air costs about $1000.

Account for losses, use depreciation schedules

When you purchase a computer, like a new car, it immediately loses a bit of value. Over time, the depreciation continues. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has specific tax depreciation rules that can be used for the following:

Most types of tangible property (except, land), such as buildings, machinery, vehicles, furniture, and equipment are depreciable. Likewise, certain intangible property, such as patents, copyrights, and computer software is depreciable.

These properties can be deducted from income schedules, but are only to be used by businesses. You cannot deduct for physical product depreciation as an individual. Luckily for me, my computer is primarily a business tool — seeing as I use it to write.

Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System MACRS — Screenshot of a Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System calculator

Irrespective of whether you can claim a tax deduction, it’s important to learn to account for depreciation in vehicles, electronics, and intangibles (i.e., software). But this is where calculations get sort of complicated. Essentially, depreciation is a governmental science that averages your losses on a product, which is based on your cost basis (the original price paid). If I bought my computer in 2011 for $1000, then the depreciation expense that can be deducted from my taxes is $58. That’s a loose estimate from this calculator.

Even if you don’t claim business tax deductions, calculating depreciation through this method and then including the $58 loss in your budget for 2014 is very important. If I had properly accounted for the further losses of my headphones, the Kindle, and my Macbook Air, I would be in a better financial situation.

Eventually, things fall apart. It’s a known truth. After losing my Kindle and headphones to failure, I looked at about $125 in losses. If my computer goes, too, I’m in trouble. In the future, I’ll be looking to account for depreciation to avoid budgetary surprises that could leave me reeling.

Also, I’ve learned that I need to keep liquids away from keyboards.

I Hate Being A Walking Advertisement

Account For Depreciation, Save Your Budget