Originally Posted by guice
On the subject of "bandwidth theft", purely talking in the terms of "theft" cause the ads are blocked. Here's a related article from a couple years ago about companies trying to block Firefox because it can block the ads: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070817/143014.shtml
It's quite relevant if you want to try to use the "blocks ads" argument against WM. |
From that article:
|
Just like with the full vs. partial RSS debate, people need to get past the idea that every single visitor needs to be monetized. Instead, recognize the indirect benefits of having more users. Even if a Firefox user doesn't buy something or click on an ad, he or she may tell someone else about the site and they may click on an ad or buy something.
|
The problem with this is that a larger user base
can provide these benefits, but that doesn't mean it always
does. In order for something like this to be a benefit, it must generate
more revenue than it is costing the site in question, which WoWM was not.
Yes I know,
you knew where the addons were coming from, and from time to time visited the site to view change logs, etc, but you have already demonstrated enough computer knowledge to set yourself apart from the average user. Whether you realize it or not, your average user simply loads up the program, reads the descriptions it provides, and click-click their done, many likely never even realizing it doesn't actually come from WoWM (yes I know WoWM declares on their page it doesn't come from them, but your average user does not read the FAQs). These friends their telling others about the site? They are telling them about WoWM not WoWI, and these friends
almost always have the same usage pattern.
If WoWM was bringing in enough direct traffic to make up for their indirect traffic, we wouldn't be having this problem.
I also note your article mentions the original site is down due to the "slashdot effect". That is exactly what WoWM does to WoWI on patch days (except WoWM does it with indirect visitors).