7 ms·

Apple vs Google vs Facebook and the slow death of the web

53 points by devhxinc 11y ago

venomsnake 11y ago
So walled gardens and "owning" the users are all fine and dandy until they suffocate you. No one challenged apple either legally or technologically and everyone tried to emulate them. Enjoy your brave new world.
rwmj 11y ago
Web seems to be doing OK. If a few of the sort of websites that rely on ads go out of business, it may even get better.
sremani 11y ago
I am actually with Apple on this one, and really think Apple is doing the right thing. No, we have started on wrong footing about content should be free* thanks to Napsterization of web, we discriminate digital goods and physical goods. Now, with ads, we get junk websites or good content websites turn into junk as soon as monetization starts. We have to some how find a way to make people pay for the content they consume, advertising can stay for those who can tolerate and those of us, who cannot - I am tired of Car Ads on my kids youtube channel, I will pay. The web will be OK, the real hell is the media like The Verge, serving mega-pages with marginal content and click-baity.. ratty tatty articles.
- NicoJuicy 11y ago
  you didn't read the article? The ads by iAd (= Apple) are unblockable ( like facebook ads). They just do the "ad blocker" to piss of Google and third parties... ( as usual)
  - rdsnsca 11y ago
    iAd's and not used on the web at all, they are only for in app ads.
    - untog 11y ago
      Which is entirely the point. To make money, companies are going to have to move away from the open web to closed app environments. Like the article says.
- aqwwe 11y ago
  If they would block ads in native mobile apps and web equally, it would seem fair, but they pick and choose.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  The article is saying that content producers will monetize by moving to Facebook.
NicoJuicy 11y ago
Just block iOS for everything, Apple didn't see that one coming.
- zimpenfish 11y ago
  I'm reasonably sure that would hurt the websites more than it would hurt Apple.
- gress 11y ago
  You don't think they thought of that?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
bryanlarsen 11y ago
My take on what the Verge is saying: Web sites that rely on advertising will die or move to Facebook and native apps. What percentage of Hacker News links rely on advertising? 90%?
- _xander 11y ago
  Considering linking to pay-walled content is forbidden on HN, I'd say 100%.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > Considering linking to pay-walled content is forbidden on HN What? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
ChrisArgyle 11y ago
The author's take on ad blockers is quite alarmist. There are plenty of obvious solutions and counter-arguments: * Is it fair that you collect and sell data on your users without telling them exactly what that data is? Do you think they'd continue patronizing your site if they knew up front? * Create a mobile app for your content and enforce its usage * Bring ads on premise. Back in the 90s we all hosted and sold our own ads. * Pivot. The world only needs so many BuzzFeeds.
- TarpitCarnivore 11y ago
  > Create a mobile app for your content and enforce its usage Shortly after Nilay took over at The Verge the mobile app was killed off. Likely to drive mobile traffic where they can display, rather invasive, ads.
jbob2000 11y ago
The article is wrong. The author thinks this is about a war between the big 3. It's not. There's no insidious plot to pull the rug out from under google. Apple isn't trying to push their ad platform. Ads right now are just a shitty user experience. You can try to construct whatever narrative you want, but the simplest explanation fits; ads are shit, mobile browsing is shit because of it.
strgrd 11y ago
"TAKING MONEY AND ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE WEB MEANS THAT WEB INNOVATION WILL SLOW TO A CRAWL" This is the sort of messaging I would expect from a journalist who has a stake in the online-advertisement game. Does anyone really buy this argument? I enjoy this Apple-Google death spiral as a spectator, and I hope it will drive more websites to subscription-based, freemium models, instead of playing friends with global spy regimes that incentive advertisement platforms to extract every detail of your internet browsing in order to "serve you better ads", aka, develop behavior profiles of consumers in order to find the "terrorist", and definitely not aggregating the behaviors of individuals in order to create a huge information disparity that becomes a vector of population control. Yes, that poorly placed Google AdSense blurb is trying to take over the world. Advertisements suck, and they're only getting worse, and more subversive, and the intent of the platform creators is only becoming further aligned with these spy regimes.
- Jyaif 11y ago
  i think you missed the point. Apple is not killing the ads, its killing ads in the browser. Content producers are just going to leave the web and do native apps with ads. On iOS, those ads are controlled by Apple. It's genious. It's just a shame that the web is a casualty.
  - eddieplan9 11y ago
    > On iOS, those ads are controlled by Apple. I don't think that is true. My understanding is that Apple has certain policies about user tracking. It does not force ads to use iAd or take a cut from ad revenue.
  - 7Z7 11y ago
    > On iOS, those ads are controlled by Apple. And Google. And any number of ad networks that the developer can choose to use.
- dang 11y ago
  "Please don't use uppercase for emphasis." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
carlosrg 11y ago
Highly ironic that Gruber is complaining about blocking its website ads on the grounds that they're not annoying like other websites. Same with plenty of other Apple bloggers. Guess what: adblocking because some ads are obtrusive is like killing a fly with a cannon. Or more like killing a fly with a nuclear bomb. No adblocker maker is going to start whitelisting every single non-obstrusive ad network. They're going to block most of them. Most users will not make the effort of whitelisting their favorite websites either, they'll just see some adblocking app on the Top list in the App Store, download it and forget about it. Bigger websites will get smarter about ads. Probably more "sponsored" stories and similar things that you can't block. Smaller websites are going to have a harder time tho. All because some people can't understand that if you don't like obtrusive ads the best thing to do is to stop visiting sites with obtrusive ads.
- gress 11y ago
  How is 'not visiting sites with obtrusive ads' meaningfully different from just blocking the ads?
- AllenKids 11y ago
  I don't believe Gruber is complaining about The Deck being blocked, rather arguing that some ad networks are "more equal than others" (which I believe is true BTW). It matters little financially though, Gruber's main revenue source is not the puny little square at the bottom left corner of Daringfireball.net anyway.
fenomas 11y ago
Ever since iOS became ascendant I've been scared of a future like this - where the bulk of internet use is funneled through a small number of gatekeepers, doing an end run around the leveling power of the web. It's hard to put into words, but it's the fear that the "internet as we know it" - chaotic and untamed, or more importantly unruled - will evolve into something akin to TV before cable: more interactive, but still essentially a content delivery system for four or five corporations. That is, a thing that our grandkids will be free to consume, but not to create or improve. It's funny - if a TV network had ever tried to sell people TVs that only played that network's shows it would have flopped, but iOS has proven that the principle can work if the experience is good enough, or the alternatives poor enough. I suppose it's all inevitable, and maybe some think what I'm worried about is already here, but I sure hope not.
- gress 11y ago
  The 'leveling' power of the web is an illusion. The web is controlled by those who have the resources to develop and distribute web browsers, which is a tiny elite at this point. The leveling power was never about the web - it was inherent to the Internet and open source. What we needed was a true open-source app platform that was a community property the way Linux was. If we had that, it wouldn't matter what Apple did. Unfortunately Google killed that dream with Android.
  - untog 11y ago
    > The 'leveling' power of the web is an illusion. The web is controlled by those who have the resources to develop and distribute web browsers, which is a tiny elite at this point. Not even slightly. If I wanted to, I could post a .txt file on an HTTP server somewhere and anyone could consume it. More broadly, web browser are accessible to all, and anyone can put a web page online. That's not true with apps at all.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > If I wanted to, I could post a .txt file on an HTTP server somewhere and anyone could consume it. Sure, right now. Of course, the browser manufacturers are moving to actively discourage that by flagging HTTP as unsafe, as a first step to blocking it by default. At which point you'll have to use HTTPS for most people to be able to see it, which means you'll have to go through someone with a relationship with a root CA trusted by browser vendors to make content visible to the public, which means, again, back to the web being controlled by those who develop and distribute web browsers.
copsarebastards 11y ago
People are talking about this as if there are two options here: ads pay for the internet or the internet drops behind paywalls. There's another option: we go back to using non-monetized or minimally-monetized services. Frankly, those are better. I don't care about giant media websites aimed at providing oversimplified, sanitized content for the lowest common denominator of people. I don't care about social media or snappy web interfaces that put a layer of varnish on crap. I care about quality information, and people who are knowledgeable and care about a topic will share information on that topic even if they don't make much money for it. People running blogs or small informational services will still do that. Services like PBS/NPR will still be funded by government and donations. Bloggers who are knowledgeable enough will still be able to sell books. Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc. can all go bankrupt and I don't care. Sites can go back to being straight unstyled HTML with no CSS and I'm fine with that. Web 2.0 is completely worthless to me. Ads AND paywalls can go to hell. Sheldon Brown's website is still the best resource about bikes on the internet. The worst degradation it has experienced is the apologies for politically incorrect content that its current maintainer has added due to pressure from people on social media.
x3sphere 11y ago
I'm torn on whether this will make things worse or better. I can see sites starting to adopt in-content ads more aggressively, which will be more difficult to block. Like the sponsored links at the bottom of news articles. I find those much more annoying than a simple banner ad that's in the sidebar.
mark_l_watson 11y ago
While the article makes interesting points, I feel that it is only relevant to big media and expensive content. The other side of the web is small businesses and individuals making money with their own web sites for customer support, maintaining a consulting business (I have used my web site for 20 years for this purpose), selling their products, sharing their creative works, etc. I would argue that this side of the web is huge and is still ripe for Google style revenue generaton. I don't underestimate the effect of mobile app use though, and I don't like raising the bar for individuals and small businesses having to spend money to create apps. This is a shame since the web is better in my opinion. When I do engage in productivity killing activities like Twitter and Facebook, I use the web versions of the sites on my phone. I do this partly to support the web as a universal platform and partly because I resent the access permissions so many apps require on my devices.
guugul 11y ago
"you wouldn't steal a car..." what a difference in tone and attitude the tech media has for the movie/tv studios (snickers and shrugs of indifference) and for themselves (plaintive appeals to the reader's benevolence) when they both have issues with making money on their content.

53 points by devhxinc 11y ago

So walled gardens and "owning" the users are all fine and dandy until they suffocate you. No one challenged apple either legally or technologically and everyone tried to emulate them. Enjoy your brave new world.

rwmj 11y ago

Web seems to be doing OK. If a few of the sort of websites that rely on ads go out of business, it may even get better.

sremani 11y ago

I am actually with Apple on this one, and really think Apple is doing the right thing. No, we have started on wrong footing about content should be free* thanks to Napsterization of web, we discriminate digital goods and physical goods. Now, with ads, we get junk websites or good content websites turn into junk as soon as monetization starts. We have to some how find a way to make people pay for the content they consume, advertising can stay for those who can tolerate and those of us, who cannot - I am tired of Car Ads on my kids youtube channel, I will pay. The web will be OK, the real hell is the media like The Verge, serving mega-pages with marginal content and click-baity.. ratty tatty articles.

NicoJuicy 11y ago
you didn't read the article? The ads by iAd (= Apple) are unblockable ( like facebook ads). They just do the "ad blocker" to piss of Google and third parties... ( as usual)
- rdsnsca 11y ago
  iAd's and not used on the web at all, they are only for in app ads.
  - untog 11y ago
    Which is entirely the point. To make money, companies are going to have to move away from the open web to closed app environments. Like the article says.
aqwwe 11y ago
If they would block ads in native mobile apps and web equally, it would seem fair, but they pick and choose.
bryanlarsen 11y ago
The article is saying that content producers will monetize by moving to Facebook.

NicoJuicy 11y ago

Just block iOS for everything, Apple didn't see that one coming.

zimpenfish 11y ago
I'm reasonably sure that would hurt the websites more than it would hurt Apple.
gress 11y ago
You don't think they thought of that?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

bryanlarsen 11y ago

My take on what the Verge is saying: Web sites that rely on advertising will die or move to Facebook and native apps. What percentage of Hacker News links rely on advertising? 90%?

_xander 11y ago
Considering linking to pay-walled content is forbidden on HN, I'd say 100%.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > Considering linking to pay-walled content is forbidden on HN What? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

ChrisArgyle 11y ago

The author's take on ad blockers is quite alarmist. There are plenty of obvious solutions and counter-arguments: * Is it fair that you collect and sell data on your users without telling them exactly what that data is? Do you think they'd continue patronizing your site if they knew up front? * Create a mobile app for your content and enforce its usage * Bring ads on premise. Back in the 90s we all hosted and sold our own ads. * Pivot. The world only needs so many BuzzFeeds.

TarpitCarnivore 11y ago
> Create a mobile app for your content and enforce its usage Shortly after Nilay took over at The Verge the mobile app was killed off. Likely to drive mobile traffic where they can display, rather invasive, ads.

jbob2000 11y ago

The article is wrong. The author thinks this is about a war between the big 3. It's not. There's no insidious plot to pull the rug out from under google. Apple isn't trying to push their ad platform. Ads right now are just a shitty user experience. You can try to construct whatever narrative you want, but the simplest explanation fits; ads are shit, mobile browsing is shit because of it.

strgrd 11y ago

"TAKING MONEY AND ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE WEB MEANS THAT WEB INNOVATION WILL SLOW TO A CRAWL" This is the sort of messaging I would expect from a journalist who has a stake in the online-advertisement game. Does anyone really buy this argument? I enjoy this Apple-Google death spiral as a spectator, and I hope it will drive more websites to subscription-based, freemium models, instead of playing friends with global spy regimes that incentive advertisement platforms to extract every detail of your internet browsing in order to "serve you better ads", aka, develop behavior profiles of consumers in order to find the "terrorist", and definitely not aggregating the behaviors of individuals in order to create a huge information disparity that becomes a vector of population control. Yes, that poorly placed Google AdSense blurb is trying to take over the world. Advertisements suck, and they're only getting worse, and more subversive, and the intent of the platform creators is only becoming further aligned with these spy regimes.

Jyaif 11y ago
i think you missed the point. Apple is not killing the ads, its killing ads in the browser. Content producers are just going to leave the web and do native apps with ads. On iOS, those ads are controlled by Apple. It's genious. It's just a shame that the web is a casualty.
- eddieplan9 11y ago
  > On iOS, those ads are controlled by Apple. I don't think that is true. My understanding is that Apple has certain policies about user tracking. It does not force ads to use iAd or take a cut from ad revenue.
- 7Z7 11y ago
  > On iOS, those ads are controlled by Apple. And Google. And any number of ad networks that the developer can choose to use.
dang 11y ago
"Please don't use uppercase for emphasis." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

carlosrg 11y ago

Highly ironic that Gruber is complaining about blocking its website ads on the grounds that they're not annoying like other websites. Same with plenty of other Apple bloggers. Guess what: adblocking because some ads are obtrusive is like killing a fly with a cannon. Or more like killing a fly with a nuclear bomb. No adblocker maker is going to start whitelisting every single non-obstrusive ad network. They're going to block most of them. Most users will not make the effort of whitelisting their favorite websites either, they'll just see some adblocking app on the Top list in the App Store, download it and forget about it. Bigger websites will get smarter about ads. Probably more "sponsored" stories and similar things that you can't block. Smaller websites are going to have a harder time tho. All because some people can't understand that if you don't like obtrusive ads the best thing to do is to stop visiting sites with obtrusive ads.

gress 11y ago
How is 'not visiting sites with obtrusive ads' meaningfully different from just blocking the ads?
AllenKids 11y ago
I don't believe Gruber is complaining about The Deck being blocked, rather arguing that some ad networks are "more equal than others" (which I believe is true BTW). It matters little financially though, Gruber's main revenue source is not the puny little square at the bottom left corner of Daringfireball.net anyway.

fenomas 11y ago

Ever since iOS became ascendant I've been scared of a future like this - where the bulk of internet use is funneled through a small number of gatekeepers, doing an end run around the leveling power of the web. It's hard to put into words, but it's the fear that the "internet as we know it" - chaotic and untamed, or more importantly unruled - will evolve into something akin to TV before cable: more interactive, but still essentially a content delivery system for four or five corporations. That is, a thing that our grandkids will be free to consume, but not to create or improve. It's funny - if a TV network had ever tried to sell people TVs that only played that network's shows it would have flopped, but iOS has proven that the principle can work if the experience is good enough, or the alternatives poor enough. I suppose it's all inevitable, and maybe some think what I'm worried about is already here, but I sure hope not.

gress 11y ago
The 'leveling' power of the web is an illusion. The web is controlled by those who have the resources to develop and distribute web browsers, which is a tiny elite at this point. The leveling power was never about the web - it was inherent to the Internet and open source. What we needed was a true open-source app platform that was a community property the way Linux was. If we had that, it wouldn't matter what Apple did. Unfortunately Google killed that dream with Android.
- untog 11y ago
  > The 'leveling' power of the web is an illusion. The web is controlled by those who have the resources to develop and distribute web browsers, which is a tiny elite at this point. Not even slightly. If I wanted to, I could post a .txt file on an HTTP server somewhere and anyone could consume it. More broadly, web browser are accessible to all, and anyone can put a web page online. That's not true with apps at all.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > If I wanted to, I could post a .txt file on an HTTP server somewhere and anyone could consume it. Sure, right now. Of course, the browser manufacturers are moving to actively discourage that by flagging HTTP as unsafe, as a first step to blocking it by default. At which point you'll have to use HTTPS for most people to be able to see it, which means you'll have to go through someone with a relationship with a root CA trusted by browser vendors to make content visible to the public, which means, again, back to the web being controlled by those who develop and distribute web browsers.

copsarebastards 11y ago

People are talking about this as if there are two options here: ads pay for the internet or the internet drops behind paywalls. There's another option: we go back to using non-monetized or minimally-monetized services. Frankly, those are better. I don't care about giant media websites aimed at providing oversimplified, sanitized content for the lowest common denominator of people. I don't care about social media or snappy web interfaces that put a layer of varnish on crap. I care about quality information, and people who are knowledgeable and care about a topic will share information on that topic even if they don't make much money for it. People running blogs or small informational services will still do that. Services like PBS/NPR will still be funded by government and donations. Bloggers who are knowledgeable enough will still be able to sell books. Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc. can all go bankrupt and I don't care. Sites can go back to being straight unstyled HTML with no CSS and I'm fine with that. Web 2.0 is completely worthless to me. Ads AND paywalls can go to hell. Sheldon Brown's website is still the best resource about bikes on the internet. The worst degradation it has experienced is the apologies for politically incorrect content that its current maintainer has added due to pressure from people on social media.

x3sphere 11y ago

I'm torn on whether this will make things worse or better. I can see sites starting to adopt in-content ads more aggressively, which will be more difficult to block. Like the sponsored links at the bottom of news articles. I find those much more annoying than a simple banner ad that's in the sidebar.

mark_l_watson 11y ago

While the article makes interesting points, I feel that it is only relevant to big media and expensive content. The other side of the web is small businesses and individuals making money with their own web sites for customer support, maintaining a consulting business (I have used my web site for 20 years for this purpose), selling their products, sharing their creative works, etc. I would argue that this side of the web is huge and is still ripe for Google style revenue generaton. I don't underestimate the effect of mobile app use though, and I don't like raising the bar for individuals and small businesses having to spend money to create apps. This is a shame since the web is better in my opinion. When I do engage in productivity killing activities like Twitter and Facebook, I use the web versions of the sites on my phone. I do this partly to support the web as a universal platform and partly because I resent the access permissions so many apps require on my devices.

guugul 11y ago

"you wouldn't steal a car..." what a difference in tone and attitude the tech media has for the movie/tv studios (snickers and shrugs of indifference) and for themselves (plaintive appeals to the reader's benevolence) when they both have issues with making money on their content.