Tapjoy is a mobile advertising and publishing platform whose unique Mobile Value Exchange model allows users to select personalized advertisements with which to engage for virtual currency or premium content. Tapjoy helps unlock mobile joy by empowering more than 500 million mobile users who choose to watch videos, subscribe to services, install applications and participate in other types of advertisements in exchange for virtual currency they can use in their favorite apps. Tapjoy’s turnkey in-app advertising platform helps developers acquire cost-effective, high-value new users and monetize their applications, while its powerful advertising marketplace lets brand advertisers reach a global mobile audience spanning more than 20,000 applications. Tapjoy is backed by top-tier investors including J.P.Morgan Asset Management, Rho Ventures, North Bridge Venture Partners, InterWest Partners and D.E. Shaw Ventures. Headquartered in San Francisco, the company also has offices in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, London, Seoul, Beijing, and Tokyo. For more information, please visit www.tapjoy.com.
Multiple Locations including:
San Francisco, CA
Atlanta, GA
Cambridge, MA
Non engineering positions also in China, Korea, Santa Barbara, Chicago, Los Angeles etc.
Wait, you make a game free, which is being pirated a lot. So basically there is no way to legally buy the game, and you just cut off the legal revenue stream completely? That just sounds like a publicity stunt more than anything else.
"little known" is actually the reality of how the rest of the world sees the tech startup domain. I am sure I can find people even at HP/IBM who will ask "whats a github"?
Then go and build one of them in 72 hours, live blog it, and post it here. If it's interesting, surely it'll get upvoted, and then at least some of the YC partners will take notice.
Gruber makes an assumption that the only thing that third party cookies are used for is ad networks and tracking. A whole bunch of common (especially the new social tools) you use rely on third party cookies.
Its not 3rd party cookies to blame, its their use. There are legitimate uses for third party cookies. If I care about blocking ad networks, I use an ad blocker. I just dont go ahead and limit the functionality that these cookies offer.
> Gruber makes an assumption that the only thing that third party cookies are used for is ad networks and tracking.
I think it'd be more fair to say that this particular use-case is the one that he's emphasising. And, in the context of privacy, it's the one that regular users are going to care about the most.
> If I care about blocking ad networks, I use an ad blocker. I just dont go ahead and limit the functionality that these cookies offer.
That might work for you, as an individual, but Apple couldn't do it without copping a lot of flak. Imagine if they suddenly blocked ads by default—the web would go crazy.
I would posit a guess that there are more sites out there that need ad revenue to survive than there are sites that need third-party cookies to survive.
More people want their FB likes than you know. If you dont want, you should not start generalizing that the mass population doesnt. Also, half your favorite sites will disappear without those evil ad networks. A large number of people choose ad driven products than subscribing/paying for a service.
The question, I suppose is why I need to opt-out of these 'legitimate uses'? Why is the assumption that I'd like to freely give my browsing history to everyone that throws together an ad network or social site of the month? How are +1 and Like buttons any better than DoubleClick?
