Quote:
Originally Posted by PhormUKPRteam
Hi all
Hope you all had a good Easter? With reference to the above discussion, the Register article in the Guardian neatly highlights the two central issues here: protecting online privacy and needing ad funding to pay for Internet services. Of course people are concerned about the trade off they think they have to make between getting a personalised service on the one hand and giving up personal data on the other - we agree that they shouldn't have to make that pay off. So are you happy to be served targeted ads by companies that use your personal data and store it for more than 12 months before it is even anonymised? Surely it is better to have a system that stores absolutely no personal information, no IP addresses and no browsing histories - like us or not, that's a better privacy environment than you currently get.
Online ad targeting is not going away; something the Guardian confirms in its statement. The reason that we've had such an enthusiastic response from the companies that we meet is that the Phorm system can earn ISPs and publishers - big and small - more money to plough back into the services you receive today - most of them for free. If not ad funding, then what other way is the Internet going to be paid for? Most Internet publishers have abandoned subscriptions because not enough people are actually prepared to pay when it comes down to it.
As always, if you have any queries or want any more information, visit www.webwise.com or www.phorm.com |
You best start singing for your supper mate because at this rate Phorm won't have any money to pay your wages. You have failed, epically.
Let me give you an example of how the web works. I used to own a website called dvdr-core.org a controversial website which ended up getting me sued for $150 million USD. But lets forget that part for a moment (since it is irrelevant as no judgement has ever been made against me by a court) and look at the relevant part of why I chose it for an example.
We had a cluster of server in the Netherlands which cost around $8000 USD per month to lease. We had no ad revenue as we had no ads, we had no private investors and we had no money of our own to fund the project. Yet the bills always got paid because the users, who valued the service offered by the website, opened their wallets and sent us donations.
My above example is not alone, there are 10s of thousands of websites out there that survive on donations one of the bigger ones you might recognise is Wikipedia. Ad revenue is NOT the only way a website can make revenue, if you provide a service people want, they will pay, it is that simple. If you provide them with nothing they want, they will never visit you again.
The ISPs could very easily increase their revenue simply by increasing their prices. People are not going to dump the Internet and all the benefits it gives them just because their ISP fees go up 5-10 GBP per month. With music rights people (Fergal Sharky for example) looking like they are going to offer ISPs a revenue incentive by including music downloads into ISP services at a flat rate (which it has to be said was inevitable) ISPs will soon be in a stronger position financially. The same is likely to happen with IPTV services and Video on Demand services. ISPs don't need to become Criminals under RIPA to make money, they simply need to offer their consumers services they want and lets get one thing straight here, consumers do NOT WANT PHORM.
You have lost the battle, your share price is at an all time low and you are starting to lose partners. Your product is a brand killer as clearly stated by the Guardian today. I hope you end up in the dole queue and I know I am not alone in my sentiments.
Alexander Hanff