3 ms·

"It's brilliant" Locking away articles in native apps so people can't block ads isn't brilliant. Apple encouraging ad blocking on the web to "nudge" publishers

by exodust 11y ago

"It's brilliant" Locking away articles in native apps so people can't block ads isn't brilliant. Apple encouraging ad blocking on the web to "nudge" publishers into their exclusive native eco-system is nothing but typical tech giant arrogance. Wired publishing stories that when clicked from Google go to place-holders with pointers to native should be penalised by Google search, and I hope they are. There is nothing on the Google results page to indicate the link is anything less than the content. Native app "content browsers" are all about less control for users. Native has always been about that. Sometimes less control works for users. No distractions, just minimal concentrated function. Other times, like with news articles, users are missing out on basic things like bookmarking; sharing the link - there isn't even a link; accessibility is out the window; copy and paste is out the window; discussion and comments are all but closed/extinct; no choice of browser to access the article. It's not good news for users.

rimantas 11y ago
I don't get it. Firefox and Chrome had ability to install ad blockers for ages. As soon as Apple adds this to iOS they are sudenly the bad gays. And before they did add this I am sure there were those not happy about that and ranting about the walled garden. One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above pretty much each "modern" this site in this regard.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- exodust 11y ago
  "I don't get it. Firefox and Chrome had ability to install ad blockers for ages..." The point is, while introducing ad-blocking for iOS Safari, Apple are simultaneously promoting a separate platform that is immune to ad-blocking. Apple would call it "business" and that would be valid. But when the "business" involves shifty one-two deals with publishers like Wired, whereby the website becomes nothing more than a jump-point to the app, suddenly we have a situation where not just particular technologies like Flash are in the cross-hairs, but the web itself. We like the web, remember? When it works well it's the most accessible, light-weight, least technical-debt means to online content there is, both for users and developers/publishers. Note that Apple are not allowing developers to write any old add-on for iOS Safari. Imagine if they opened up add-ons for Safari? That would be worth applauding. We could then fix many of iOS Safari's shortcomings, and give it some much needed extra functionality. "One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above" The web has more accessible characteristics built-in because of the way the data is openly available to different clients. Native apps controlled by one vendor like Apple are the complete opposite. Regardless of some advances in accessibility options within apps, accessibility isn't among the "out of the box" strengths of the technology you get for free like you do for web.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Locking away articles in native apps so people can't block ads isn't brilliant. I'm reminded of a quote: "After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things — terrible, yes, but great." -Ollivander I agree the path mobile seems to be heading down is terrible.

by exodust 11y ago

rimantas 11y ago

I don't get it. Firefox and Chrome had ability to install ad blockers for ages. As soon as Apple adds this to iOS they are sudenly the bad gays. And before they did add this I am sure there were those not happy about that and ranting about the walled garden. One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above pretty much each "modern" this site in this regard.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
exodust 11y ago
"I don't get it. Firefox and Chrome had ability to install ad blockers for ages..." The point is, while introducing ad-blocking for iOS Safari, Apple are simultaneously promoting a separate platform that is immune to ad-blocking. Apple would call it "business" and that would be valid. But when the "business" involves shifty one-two deals with publishers like Wired, whereby the website becomes nothing more than a jump-point to the app, suddenly we have a situation where not just particular technologies like Flash are in the cross-hairs, but the web itself. We like the web, remember? When it works well it's the most accessible, light-weight, least technical-debt means to online content there is, both for users and developers/publishers. Note that Apple are not allowing developers to write any old add-on for iOS Safari. Imagine if they opened up add-ons for Safari? That would be worth applauding. We could then fix many of iOS Safari's shortcomings, and give it some much needed extra functionality. "One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above" The web has more accessible characteristics built-in because of the way the data is openly available to different clients. Native apps controlled by one vendor like Apple are the complete opposite. Regardless of some advances in accessibility options within apps, accessibility isn't among the "out of the box" strengths of the technology you get for free like you do for web.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>Locking away articles in native apps so people can't block ads isn't brilliant. I'm reminded of a quote: "After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things — terrible, yes, but great." -Ollivander I agree the path mobile seems to be heading down is terrible.