7 ms·

Just bought and tried (in this order): Crystal, Purify and Peace. Each has features to like. Crystal has a great price and is the only one to let you report an

Just bought and tried (in this order): Crystal, Purify and Peace. Each has features to like. Crystal has a great price and is the only one to let you report an ad not blocked or broken page so that the ad block list can be updated. Purify lets you block scripts and images on top of font-blocking options also in Peace. Crystal missed an ad that Purify (and Peace) caught, but Peace was the only one that seriously removed all the cruft causing slowdowns, even Google+ news site pop ups and like button pinned banners from The Verge in addition to blocking ads. So my recommendations are Crystal for price, Peace for well, exactly what it says on the tin, and Purify if you'd like to block images and scripts also. Check screenshots of each for the latest on their preference panels.

lstamour 11y ago
That said, none are perfect. Swapping between all three and reloading Slate.com, it seemed impossible to block an after-page-load ad inserted at the top of the article via JS. Except when I ran Purify with Scripts disabled on Slate, then the page loaded instantly with no ad for obvious reasons. (Sadly Purify is missing an extension to selectively enable JS.) Searching the store, Blockr looks nice enough, specifically calling out blocking of Cookie Warnings, but other than that, seems like a more configurable Crystal with features of Peace. 1Blocker which I have yet to use, currently takes the cake on configurability -- perhaps too much so -- it lets you turn on and off individual rules as well as add your own by typing in the filter directly.
- blub 11y ago
  Can't one keep more than a single blocker active at the same time?
  - LeoNatan25 11y ago
    You can enable more than one blocker at a time.
  - ytch 11y ago
    In Setting ->Safari -> Content Blocker, You can Enable/Disable each one, so you may enable all at the same time
  - lstamour 11y ago
    Yes, I ultimately don't want to though for both performance and debugging purposes. If something goes wrong, I'd rather easily know who did it. But yes, I would prefer if say, a "no script" content blocker specifically focused on that, an "ad block" one on that, a "privacy" one too... You could also combine apps to block regional ad variants, maybe, if in future country-specific ones are developed. Running more than one might work best for something like 1Blocker as a way to add your own block rules...
- nailer 11y ago
  I don't mind most ads, but I'd happily pay just to block EU cookie warnings (with a good UX).
  - heinrich5991 11y ago
    I guess the easiest way to do that would be to collect the "EU cookie warning seen"-cookies.
pvg 11y ago
Keep in mind that there will be zillions of these in short order and many will also be free. Since they all use the same Apple-provided matching/blocking engine, there isn't going to be much in the way of innovation there - there won't be a content blocker that is 3 times faster and uses a quarter of the memory of some other content blocker. It'll be down to config UI and the quality of their rules - the rules are all going to be derived from publicly available rule lists. There will very likely be publicly available lists in Apple's format quite soon as well. Marco Ament comes out looking best on the last point by being completely upfront about where the rules in his blocker come from.
- lstamour 11y ago
  I would add to that responsiveness in updating rulesets, ability to add your own rules (especially graphical) or customize rule sets by country, and security features like noscript or phishing warnings as possible ways others could stand out in future. We might end up seeing special purpose Content Blockers, site-specific ones...
- mtgx 11y ago
  It will be interesting to see if Adblock Fast can be faster. It says it only uses 7 "rules", that I think someone said must be machine compiled, and it's arriving today on iOS9 as well. It may not have a great database, though. https://www.producthunt.com/tech/adblock-fast https://www.producthunt.com/tech/adblock-fast
  - pvg 11y ago
    Those '7 rules' are a giant OR concatenation of a zillion rules, lifted from somewhere else (i.e. the usual publicly available sources.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10192391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10192391 It's not going to be any faster or slower than any other blocker using a similar number of conditions.
jd3 11y ago
Cool technology, but I don't understand why every tiny little feature or program costs money on mobile. The price of convenience?
- beggi 11y ago
  The prices are usually tiny as well. Peace is $2.99.
- stephenr 11y ago
  Because software developers are people who like to eat too?
  - wilfsford 11y ago
    Like all the small publishers that get ruined by adblocking?
    - stephenr 11y ago
      You're comparing privacy invading, intrusive, battery draining, data chewing ad-networks, with a developer who asks you to pay a couple of bucks for something he's probably spent a month minimum developing. Sorry, but no. Those publishers have the option of asking their readers to pay for the content directly, which is exactly what the developer does. They also have the option to use ad networks that aren't completely user-hostile.
- mokkol 11y ago
  I don't understand when I hire a painter that they ask for money either :/
fredsir 11y ago
I guess that a fart app should probably not cost anything since it's quite useless, but I do believe that it's a problem that on day one of a whole new App Store category, the first app launched, Crystal (it appeared hours before Purify and Peace for me anyways) is a free app. That's how you make mobile apps an unsustainable business. I don't know how much work has gone into making these content blocker apps, but I bet it has taken some time - time that in any "normal" business would be charged for, and I think mobile apps creators should charge more for their apps too. In my experience, there are two types of mobile apps consumers. Those that won't pay for an app, whether it costs $1, $10 or $20, and those that will, and I think it would be healthier for the ecosystem to cater at least as much to the latter group as the former, but I don't think that's currently the case. It's a race to the bottom, folks.
- kalleboo 11y ago
  App developers should just go on tour - that's where they make most of their money anyways, right? Or maybe sell some T-shirts...
- Drakim 11y ago
  You assume that every app developer is out to make money. This is not more true than that every PC application developer is out to make money. Some people make free software and gives it away for free. That's not a race to the bottom, unless you think Linux being free is a race to the bottom against Windows.
  - vbezhenar 11y ago
    For some reason AppStore has surprisingly low amount of free software. It's either free with ads, free with in-app purchases or paid. Or free software missing marketing and it's hard to find it in AppStore or popular ratings. Is there some compilation of free software links?
    - frou_dh 11y ago
      It costs money to join the Apple Developer Program so it's probably in peoples' minds to at least recoup that.

lstamour 11y ago

That said, none are perfect. Swapping between all three and reloading Slate.com, it seemed impossible to block an after-page-load ad inserted at the top of the article via JS. Except when I ran Purify with Scripts disabled on Slate, then the page loaded instantly with no ad for obvious reasons. (Sadly Purify is missing an extension to selectively enable JS.) Searching the store, Blockr looks nice enough, specifically calling out blocking of Cookie Warnings, but other than that, seems like a more configurable Crystal with features of Peace. 1Blocker which I have yet to use, currently takes the cake on configurability -- perhaps too much so -- it lets you turn on and off individual rules as well as add your own by typing in the filter directly.

blub 11y ago
Can't one keep more than a single blocker active at the same time?
- LeoNatan25 11y ago
  You can enable more than one blocker at a time.
- ytch 11y ago
  In Setting ->Safari -> Content Blocker, You can Enable/Disable each one, so you may enable all at the same time
- lstamour 11y ago
  Yes, I ultimately don't want to though for both performance and debugging purposes. If something goes wrong, I'd rather easily know who did it. But yes, I would prefer if say, a "no script" content blocker specifically focused on that, an "ad block" one on that, a "privacy" one too... You could also combine apps to block regional ad variants, maybe, if in future country-specific ones are developed. Running more than one might work best for something like 1Blocker as a way to add your own block rules...
nailer 11y ago
I don't mind most ads, but I'd happily pay just to block EU cookie warnings (with a good UX).
- heinrich5991 11y ago
  I guess the easiest way to do that would be to collect the "EU cookie warning seen"-cookies.

pvg 11y ago

Keep in mind that there will be zillions of these in short order and many will also be free. Since they all use the same Apple-provided matching/blocking engine, there isn't going to be much in the way of innovation there - there won't be a content blocker that is 3 times faster and uses a quarter of the memory of some other content blocker. It'll be down to config UI and the quality of their rules - the rules are all going to be derived from publicly available rule lists. There will very likely be publicly available lists in Apple's format quite soon as well. Marco Ament comes out looking best on the last point by being completely upfront about where the rules in his blocker come from.

lstamour 11y ago
I would add to that responsiveness in updating rulesets, ability to add your own rules (especially graphical) or customize rule sets by country, and security features like noscript or phishing warnings as possible ways others could stand out in future. We might end up seeing special purpose Content Blockers, site-specific ones...
mtgx 11y ago
It will be interesting to see if Adblock Fast can be faster. It says it only uses 7 "rules", that I think someone said must be machine compiled, and it's arriving today on iOS9 as well. It may not have a great database, though. https://www.producthunt.com/tech/adblock-fast https://www.producthunt.com/tech/adblock-fast
- pvg 11y ago
  Those '7 rules' are a giant OR concatenation of a zillion rules, lifted from somewhere else (i.e. the usual publicly available sources.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10192391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10192391 It's not going to be any faster or slower than any other blocker using a similar number of conditions.

jd3 11y ago

Cool technology, but I don't understand why every tiny little feature or program costs money on mobile. The price of convenience?

beggi 11y ago
The prices are usually tiny as well. Peace is $2.99.
stephenr 11y ago
Because software developers are people who like to eat too?
- wilfsford 11y ago
  Like all the small publishers that get ruined by adblocking?
  - stephenr 11y ago
    You're comparing privacy invading, intrusive, battery draining, data chewing ad-networks, with a developer who asks you to pay a couple of bucks for something he's probably spent a month minimum developing. Sorry, but no. Those publishers have the option of asking their readers to pay for the content directly, which is exactly what the developer does. They also have the option to use ad networks that aren't completely user-hostile.
mokkol 11y ago
I don't understand when I hire a painter that they ask for money either :/

fredsir 11y ago

I guess that a fart app should probably not cost anything since it's quite useless, but I do believe that it's a problem that on day one of a whole new App Store category, the first app launched, Crystal (it appeared hours before Purify and Peace for me anyways) is a free app. That's how you make mobile apps an unsustainable business. I don't know how much work has gone into making these content blocker apps, but I bet it has taken some time - time that in any "normal" business would be charged for, and I think mobile apps creators should charge more for their apps too. In my experience, there are two types of mobile apps consumers. Those that won't pay for an app, whether it costs $1, $10 or $20, and those that will, and I think it would be healthier for the ecosystem to cater at least as much to the latter group as the former, but I don't think that's currently the case. It's a race to the bottom, folks.

kalleboo 11y ago
App developers should just go on tour - that's where they make most of their money anyways, right? Or maybe sell some T-shirts...
Drakim 11y ago
You assume that every app developer is out to make money. This is not more true than that every PC application developer is out to make money. Some people make free software and gives it away for free. That's not a race to the bottom, unless you think Linux being free is a race to the bottom against Windows.
- vbezhenar 11y ago
  For some reason AppStore has surprisingly low amount of free software. It's either free with ads, free with in-app purchases or paid. Or free software missing marketing and it's hard to find it in AppStore or popular ratings. Is there some compilation of free software links?
  - frou_dh 11y ago
    It costs money to join the Apple Developer Program so it's probably in peoples' minds to at least recoup that.