Then find a new place to post and if they burn their bridges (I doubt they will), relish in the fire and flame!
Then post on reddirt or something.
you just wont stick up for discussions that will cost you money. Until google threatened to pull cash you had no problems with it.
Up next. AMD says don't say something bad about our video card or no ad money for you.
All threads saying something bad about AMD go bye bye.
HAH good one! Will you be here all night?
And I would have made the same decision regardless, as we're not going to stick out our necks for people who want to copy YouTube videos.
Our privacy policy remains unchanged.Any changes to privacy settings, rights to sell info etc? With changes of ownership, I typically see an increase in spam due to personal information that is suddenly on the market.
Individual ad sales like that are handled by our ad agency (now Purch). So what we write has and will continue to be decoupled from ad sales.Up next. AMD says don't say something bad about our video card or no ad money for you.
After reading all these posts from jpishgar, one thing is very clear.
We are all getting free stuff!
Individual ad sales like that are handled by our ad agency (now Purch). So what we write has and will continue to be decoupled from ad sales.
And if AMD started trying to threaten us anyhow, we'd tell them to go pound sand (in a more polite manner, of course). Please don't confuse our disinterest in fighting over blatant copyright infringement with our editorial standards.
Would...would you like a pony? Because I'm totally willing to give you each a pony.
you just wont stick up for discussions that will cost you money. Until google threatened to pull cash you had no problems with it.
Up next. AMD says don't say something bad about our video card or no ad money for you.
All threads saying something bad about AMD go bye bye.
Ponies with horns on them ?Would...would you like a pony? Because I'm totally willing to give you each a pony.
Put quite simply, Purch has the reach to get a much better rate on ads than what we could get before. We were already a profitable operation, but the more profitable we are now, the more their own share of those profits.I don't want to be "that guy". I don't want to be argumentative, cynical or seen as yelling "the sky is falling." That being said...
I am curious how Purch plans to make money on this deal? I mean, if nothing is changing at Anandtech, where do they see the extra profit coming from to justify the purchase?
I ask because when one company acquires another it is usually because the buyer has specific plans on how the purchased company will be used to make them money. It is only natural for the buyer to want a return on their investment.
In the vast history of company acquisitions I don't think those plans have ever been "no changes, business as usual". It just doesn't work that way.
Respectfully,
KeithP
While we had no issues competing with larger corporate owned sites on the content front, when it came to advertising we were at a disadvantage. Our advantage in quality allowed us to make progress, but ultimately it became a numbers game. The larger corporate owned sites could show up with a network of traffic, substantially larger than what AnandTech could deliver, and land more lucrative advertising deals than we were able to.
This all dovetails into the whole Purch philosophy of Growth with Integrity. Which sounds totally Dilbertesque and corporate buzzish, until you see it in action and the actions of the C-suite level guys in support of it goes and reaffirms your faith in humanity.
Would...would you like a pony? Because I'm totally willing to give you each a pony.
Amen! Shout it from the mountaintop!
Also worth mentioning, in terms of the whole decoupling thing, there's a great big wall between ad sales and editorial. From my end, I'm also always, always happy to have Community stand on top of that wall between and provide additional, redundant defense and interdiction if ever needed (rarely happens). The sales guys can get zealous at times (which is good, pays the bills and keeps the lights on), but because Community represents the will of the readers, it has a vested interest in keeping Editorial free to do their thing and will always advocate to maintain independent editorial ops. And no one defends in the name of integrity like a hundred thousand voices all crammed into one assertive statement saying "The community doesn't think it would be good."
This all dovetails into the whole Purch philosophy of Growth with Integrity. Which sounds totally Dilbertesque and corporate buzzish, until you see it in action and the actions of the C-suite level guys in support of it goes and reaffirms your faith in humanity.
Just to add my two cents in here, we had to make this choice as well on Tom's a while back. Nearly every site with any forum community in it has to make this choice, and ultimately makes the choice to disallow YouTube ripping stuff. It's kinda a no-brainer. Firstly, it's technically iffy legal territory, and that's generally bad news. Secondly, it's Google asking. They aren't demanding, like the guys with the DMCA requests that hammer a forum, but rather just politely asking. And they make it pretty clear. They aren't even saying they'll punish you or send you a demand about it. They just say they won't be partners with you. It's certainly the nicest request I've ever gotten from a company about content objected to on a forum. Thirdly, it is Google. Google can hurt you permanently in the land of the intarwebs. Being able to post a link to something you can get literally anywhere else (including, note, GOOGLE search), is a microscopic concession (if even that) and one gladly made by anyone confronted with the choice who has the well-being and survival of their community in mind.
Now, if it was something like a thread critical of Google's methodologies, or their corporate practices, or even the Google doodle of the day, and they asked for a takedown, I'm sure the response would be to politely disincline to acquiesce across the board.
Individual ad sales like that are handled by our ad agency (now Purch). So what we write has and will continue to be decoupled from ad sales.
And if AMD started trying to threaten us anyhow, we'd tell them to go pound sand (in a more polite manner, of course). Please don't confuse our disinterest in fighting over blatant copyright infringement with our editorial standards.
Do you honestly believe what you write? This is the same corporate double speak you guys always use. And its rarely true.
If there was this wall between content and ad people, this would have never happened.
Yes. Though actions here will speak far louder than words. As I've said in other comments - observe and prove us.
If someone asks you to take down something that is being hosted on your site illegally, and it is, you do so. That isn't considered kowtowing to "the man", it's civility. More than that, it's good stewardship of the site itself.