15 ms·

Crystal, iOS ad blocker, to accept money to let ads through

306 points by NN88 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago
And just like that, Crystal was uninstalled. Didn't take long for the conflicts of interest to show up! "According to Mr. Murphy, he isn’t adding the option for financial gain, but rather to make sure publishers aren’t overburdened by all-out blocking of ads on their sites." My response to which is: "Who do you think you're fooling? You are taking money to allow people to defeat the core purpose of your application." Secret Media plans to only work with “premium” publishers who don’t bombard users with large amounts of low-quality advertising. Is there any other kind?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- danielhgma 11y ago
  > taking money to allow people to defeat the core purpose of your application. Seriously. This is so bad for users
  - epistasis 11y ago
    Perhaps for you, but this does not subvert the core purpose of Crystal for me. I will continue using Crystal, with the default option, since I don't mind seeing minimal, non-intrusive ads that don't completely disrupt my user experience. And I don't have a problem with responsible websites with responsible ads getting paid. In fact, this option to have vetted ads is pretty much ideal for me! Edit: I'm curious, why do people dislike my preference here? I'm not saying anybody else has to like Crystal, just that it's matches my desires.
    - nugget 11y ago
      Vetted or acceptable ads is a fake narrative - a smokescreen - it's just a way for these adblock apps to extort ad networks for a payout. In the article it mentions that hundreds of companies including all the big search and display networks, and all of the big native ad networks, are included on the whitelist. Who is left?
      - epistasis 11y ago
        While it could be a smokescreen, it certainly doesn't have to be a smokescreen. If it turns out that Crystal is letting intrusive ads through, then they're doing a bad job and I'll stop using it.
        nugget 11y ago
        We already know who will be let through - the ABP whitelist is public. It's the majority of the ad tech world including the most intrusive native networks.
        epistasis 11y ago
        I don't have much experience with ABP, but I'm also having difficulty finding complaints about intrusive ads getting through ABP. Is this something that you've experienced personally, or is it just from the companies reputations that are on the whitelist?
        nugget 11y ago
        I experienced it personally and switched from ABP to uBlock as a result.
        epistasis 11y ago
        Thanks, that's good to know, I'll keep an eye out for this!
        anabis 11y ago
    - nosuchthing 11y ago
      Seems almost like extortion.. the advertisers already paid for advertising but now Crystal demands additional payments from the advertisers or else it blocks the ads. The websites don't seem to get any additional payment from Crystal for this "vetting".
      - epistasis 11y ago
        It could seem like extortion, or it could seem like certification. Websites have proven that they're terrible at vetting ads for security and intrusiveness, they do not care about that. By paying a different company to perform the certification, then there's less of a conflict of interest. Of course, this depends on trusting someone. Trust can be misplaced, but I already know I can't trust websites, so Im looking for someone else.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        outericky 11y ago
        Certification in your sense is conforming to a certain standard. This is extortion. Basically "conforming" is paying. That's extortion. Pay are demands or no soup for you.
        manigandham 11y ago
        The adblocker companies cant be trusted either since they only stand to gain from this behaviour. ABP makes tens of millions from this. The only way trust works is if there's a neutral 3rd party that represents all sides and has respect.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- dapearce 11y ago
  According to the article it sounds like an optional feature which can be turned off. It allows people who want to support ad-based publishers with quality ads, while still blocking the heavy junk. Not an unacceptable thing to me, especially if it makes the developer some extra money without forcing me to let the ads through.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    It's always an "optional feature" - but the app is closed source. Also, given that the blockers don't have the sophistication level that you'd expect from say, µBlock, where you can just click on something annoying and banish it, is that ad being displayed because the ad company is giving backhanders to the developer, or was it just missed in the filter? Who knows? Ad blocking software having "acceptable ads" is identical to antivirus software having "acceptable viruses". Ooh, I just reread the article. The company trying to convince blocking software to do this is the outfit behind the original Adblock Plus, the original people who started this practice.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - yuhong 11y ago
      I don't think ads are the same as viruses. There are different kinds of ads for example, and not all of them use tracking or even pay by the pageview.
      - anonymfus 11y ago
        They are malicious memes. Analogy could be about their effect on brains.
  - nugget 11y ago
- guyzero 11y ago
  This is exactly what the most popular desktop browser ad blockers do.
  - mtgx 11y ago
    You mean what Adblock Plus alone does.
- adiabatty 11y ago
  > > large amounts of low-quality advertising. > Is there any other kind? I'd say The Deck manages to be high-quality, low-volume advertising. One of their rules is "our ad is the only ad on the page". http://decknetwork.net/ http://decknetwork.net/ Artisanal ad networks targeted to web workers don't exactly _scale_ to the rest of the ad industry, but non-irritating advertising exists.
  - mbesto 11y ago
    There are a few others who also operate with the same model, but they are generally considered small businesses (or "lifestyle businesses"). Unfortunately these inherently have ceilings to them and market dynamics dictate you will always have someone more greedy who will try to build AdSense-like dominance.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    This is where the people making the blocklists get stuck. Marcus Aurelius, ad block developer, decides that the deck ads aren't that annoying, don't break the page they're on, are low bandwidth, don't track you, etc. And so MA leaves them out of the list. But everyday he gets 100 bug reports "I still see ads!!!" from users who never want to see a single advertisement on any site ever. What's MA going to do? Probably give up.
    - kawera 11y ago
      Or maybe build a "Block this" feature on touching.
      - noreally 11y ago
        They've had that feature in strip clubs for years.
      - tedunangst 11y ago
        The architecture of iOS content blockers seems not to allow that. No information is allowed to flow from safari to the ad block app (to allay concerns that the app itself is spying on you).
- markcerqueira 11y ago
  > Is there any other kind? Yes there is. Sometimes I see ads for stuff that I didn't know about and am genuinely interested in. Yes, it's rare, but it does happen.
- newscracker 11y ago
  One reason I didn't jump into buying an ad blocker was because I knew there could be some free ones coming in. Another reason was because I knew there could be some compromises that the makers of the ad blockers would make "in good faith" on behalf of their users (which could also be a sellout or seen as a sellout). I'm glad I didn't buy Crystal. I would've been frustrated enough to request a refund from Apple if I did.
KenanSulayman 11y ago
And it's deleted. Thanks
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  Don't just delete it. Go to https://reportaproblem.apple.com/ https://reportaproblem.apple.com/ and get an (instant, no questions asked) refund.
dang 11y ago
We changed the title from "Creator of Crystal, iOS ad blocker, to accept money to let certain ads through", which appears editorialized (unless WSJ changed their title). Submitters: please use the original title unless it is linkbait or misleading, and definitely please don't use the titles of HN submissions to editorialize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: ok you guys, thanks for the feedback. We rely on you to point out the important exceptions. Title reversion reverted.
- sergiotapia 11y ago
  The article is literally saying that though. It's the one lead, the title should have stayed.
- kylec 11y ago
  Normally I'd agree, but the real story here is the new information about Crystal's business practices and not the generic story about ad blocking surrouding it.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Yeah... unfortunately that's not editorialized, that's pretty much a fact per the article. WSJ really buried the lede here.
- eli 11y ago
  I disagree with you on this one. The headline no longer represents why the story is of interest to HN and the original headline was factually correct and, actually, pretty similar to the WSJ's subhed, "Software promises to cut clutter; some ads skirt filters—for a price"
- manicdee 11y ago
  The original heading was not editorialised: it was not an opinion or interpretation but a summary of the content, and in fact the only reason I read the article in the first place. The new title, which does not show up in RSS, would not have attracted me to read the article.
noobie 11y ago
Purify: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-simplest/id1030156203?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-simplest... Safari Blocker: https://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/safari-blocker/id1011678834?l=en&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/safari-blocker/id1011678834?...
polysaturate 11y ago
Good ole computer age extortion! I think I may continue to wait out the iOS ad blocking apps, as these things continue to shake out. I, however, am genuinely interested to see if this generates and revenue or if everyone just disregards the app(consumers and publishers)
berberous 11y ago
"Mr. Murphy said he has taken Eyeo up on its offer, and plans to implement an option within his app whereby “acceptable” ads will be displayed to users. The feature will be switched on by default, Mr. Murphy said, and he will receive a flat monthly fee from Eyeo in return." Whether or not this is in bad faith, so long as there is an option to switch it off, I don't really care.
- kylec 11y ago
  How hard do you think he will continue to work to block the ads of his business partners? Even if there's a switch, his incentives are not aligned with the users of his app.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
kylec 11y ago
In addition to deleting Crystal, I also suggest writing a review and requesting a refund.
- 542458 11y ago
  It sounds like it's optional. I can understand why you'd want to leave a negative review, but it seems a little extreme to demand a refund when the old functionality is still there and presumably fairly simple to switch to. It still does exactly what you paid for.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    For now...
  - Gys 11y ago
    No, it does not what I expected. I expected it to block all ads. Not to only block ads that do not pay them money.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Done and done. Link for anyone who wants to do the same: https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1022177308 https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1022177308
- mkolodny 11y ago
  Here's a link explaining how to request a refund. It took me about 30 seconds, and I received a refund immediately.
  - deanclatworthy 11y ago
    Where's the link?
    - 11y ago
pavornyoh 11y ago
So what does the creator of Crystal consider "acceptable ads" based on this post? “Given how popular Crystal has become, it doesn’t provide any way for users to support publishers,” he said. “I decided that’s a good feature to provide, and from what I’ve seen the ‘acceptable ads’ policy doesn’t let through what I’d classify as bad ads.” Why take money?
- ropiku 11y ago
  Looks like it's using the list from Eyeo (Adblock Plus) https://acceptableads.org/ https://acceptableads.org/
- kylec 11y ago
  The acceptability of the ad is determined by how much the ad company is willing to pay him to let it through.
stevenh 11y ago
The only reason Apple didn't bake an ad blocker into iOS themselves is because they didn't want to get into legal trouble for what is obviously anticompetitive behavior toward Google (AdSense). They instead encouraged devs to be the patsies for the damage this will do, and they boosted these devs' blockers to #1 in their app store so everyone would see them and download them. Spare me any preposterous claims of corporate altruism; this wasn't enabled and encouraged by Apple to reduce page load times on the web. If Apple had their way, the web wouldn't even exist anymore. It's been transparently obvious for years that Apple would like to replace the web with their own walled garden app ecosystem. Apple would also like to replace web ad networks such as AdSense with their iAd network. This is what we are seeing unfold currently. Their News app with its unblockable iAds is another tentacle of this plan.
- derefr 11y ago
  > If Apple had their way, the web wouldn't even exist anymore. Apple certainly doesn't run any web technology—they don't have skin in the web-app game like Google and Microsoft and Amazon do. (They have a web store, but on iOS it heavily suggests its native-app equivalent.) But that doesn't mean they want their users to not use the web. Web-browsing is a feature; Apple invested a lot of energy into WebKit for a reason. Apple just don't give a damn about the supply side of the web; they don't care if they kill every web business in the process of giving users the best web-browsing experience possible. I have high confidence that if Apple could integrate something like e.g. Tor into Mobile Safari without a latency hit, they'd jump at the chance. Better privacy for their users! Breaks analytics and ad targeting? Who cares?
  - scoreponok 11y ago
    >giving users the best web-browsing experience possible Do you really believe this is Apples paramount motivation? The only reason this is acceptable is exactly because they have nothing to lose, only everything to gain by hurting competitors that rely on advertising revenue. Ask yourself this -- if apple iAds was wildly successful would they be taking the same action? To ensure the "best web-browsing experience possible"? > Better privacy for their users! Breaks analytics and ad targeting? Who cares? Maybe companies that generate revenue using these tactics? Again if this was Apples bread and butter they wouldn't be implementing any security measures might interfere with their bottom line, user experience would surely be taking a back seat to profit.
manigandham 11y ago
This is the tough part about both sides. Being all or nothing means good ad networks and publishers are hurt but removes any arbitration and slippery slope issues. Or they can try to do an "acceptable ads" list but in this case it's always inevitable abused and turned into some extortion scam with the highest bidders (who usually have the worst ads) getting through. It would be best if there was an neutral industry group that didnt make adblocker software or sell ads and worked with all 3 sides to come up with a real democratically approved list of vendors.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  What I don't get is why payment is involved in this process at all. If you want to build an adblocker as a project, fine. If you want to allow ad companies to apply for whitelisting, ehh, but at least make the option off by default. Taking money for the process just screams corruption.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    Because its "abused and turned into some extortion scam" The current whitelist is nothing but a business model run by an adblocking company and makes them millions. It is NOT in the interest of the consumer and doesn't verify ad standards for anyone. Just look at some of the companies they let through - it includes clickbait links, in-image banners and autoplay videos inside articles.
gglitch 11y ago
The word for this is "bait and switch."
kctess5 11y ago
It's interesting to me how the "Acceptable Ads" thing has managed to inserted itself in the middle of all of this - for a price of course. Yet another middleman which skims off money from the content producers, but this time under the guise of helping them get impressions.
jobu 11y ago
All of these blockers use SFContentBlockerManager which only blocks ads for Safari and any apps that use SFSafariViewController (basically none). Does anyone know if it's possible to do ad blocking through the NEFilterProvider classes? (https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/NetworkExtension/Reference/NEFilterProviderClassRef/index.html https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Networ...) This looks like it would block requests at a lower level, possibly for all Apps. Has anyone else tried digging into it?
- anonred 11y ago
  A quick search shows that NEFilterProvider requires the device to be supervised to work.
  - vbezhenar 11y ago
    It's not hard to supervise the device. Majority of users won't bother, but there's still market, I'm sure. Another approach is to sell ad-less VPN. User will have to install custom root certificate, so VPN server can MITM secure connections in order to strip and block ads. It's certainly easier to setup.
manicdee 11y ago
I can not understand Secret Media's twisted rationalisation of simultaneously wanting to avoid bombarding users with ads, and developing techniques to bypass ad blockers. Any site that starts displaying auto-play ads with sound will not get any repeat visits from me. Surely they realise that this escalation is a bad idea?
- qq66 11y ago
  Well, if you're blocking a site's ad, the site probably doesn't want you as a repeat visitor.
fwn 11y ago
> Eyeo declined to disclose which companies are on its “whitelist”—those that escape ad-blocking. Yeah, right.. https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- equalarrow 11y ago
  Seriously.. This is unbelievable. I think there's a lot of room for devs that will stand for their users. My friend is actually releasing a pretty killer, no holds barred blocker (it's in the approval process): Halcyon Blocker: http://www.halcyonblocker.com http://www.halcyonblocker.com He's the only one I've seen come forward saying he's 100% committed to privacy and his app does not download anything. He curates the lists himself (I've helped profiling some of his block rules). I have a beta and it's fast, clean, and works. Can't wait for it to come out. He's pretty excited too.
  - lorenzhs 11y ago
    There's no information flow from Safari to the adblocker app, so that privacy point is really moot. Baking in the filter lists instead of downloading them from a server seems like a pointless restriction, preventing users from customizing the filter lists.
Gys 11y ago
Taking money from both sides ? I don't like that. Just bought it and got refunded when I reported it as a problem: 'wanted to buy another one'. But maybe that is something that only works in Europe ? Refunding, I mean ?
- fnayr 11y ago
  No, Apple will give a refund to anyone in any country that asks for any purchase on an app or IAP.
plg 11y ago
Come on, EFF, please develop an ad blocker
- dmerrick 11y ago
  I know it's not exactly what you're asking for (it's non-mobile and it's not exactly an ad blocker), but this seems like a good opportunity to plug the EFF's Privacy Badger. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger
- tobltobs 11y ago
  I do not think that the eff want to help to make the web a playground for big companies only. They do not have anything against small publishers, so why should they develop a adblocker?
  - Spivak 11y ago
    Developing an application to block all tracking scripts would technically contain an ad blocker as a subset.
alkonaut 11y ago
So which blocker should I install now that I removed Crystal?
- HSO 11y ago
  Safari Blocker seems good (and honest, so far)
- bobbles 11y ago
  Purify is another good one. They seem to be pretty determined to soak up all the customers the others are going to lose from being dodgy bastards
  - hyperbovine 11y ago
    I'm happy with purify. Try disabling scripts and images--it's not as bad as you think! Pages load like it's 1997.
- seviu 11y ago
  AdMop is quite good, and it has a very decent level of support (disclaimer: given by me, I am the developer)
supercanuck 11y ago
This is like Tivo 10 years ago but now that we're talking jnternet companies instead of old stodgy broadcasr companies, hallelujah, We've found Jesus!
tehwebguy 11y ago
Ugh I just paid for Crystal this morning
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  https://reportaproblem.apple.com/ https://reportaproblem.apple.com/ lets you request an immediate, no-questions-asked refund.
jrochkind1 11y ago
If I as a user pay double for the Crystal app, can I block the ads even of those companies that has paid them to let the ads through? Hm, then maybe Crystal could charge companies double to get their ads through even double-paying consumers... then there could be a triple-pay tier... I think I see the business model.
- hackerboos 11y ago
  > business model Extortion isn't a business model.
lukezli 11y ago
For a free alternative that allows full customization of content blockers, try out my app, Safari Blocker: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/safari-blocker/id1011678834?ls=1&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/safari-blocker/id1011678834?...
- arete 11y ago
  Safari Blocker is great, thanks Luke! Being able to add rules on the fly is really handy.
  - lukezli 11y ago
    Thanks a ton! Lots of great features planned in updates: user whitelisting in Safari, better default blockers, native iPad support, OSX extension. Will continue to be free
- icanhackit 11y ago
  Thanks Luke, great app. I like the UI and color-scheme as well, to my eyes it seems inspired by Android 4.1 but with space and color used to delineate UI elements instead of hard borders/buttons.
- nacs 11y ago
  Just uninstalled Crystal and installed your Safari Blocker. Works great so far and has a far larger filtering list (and customizable lists too it seems). Thanks!
- pkamb 11y ago
  I'm surprised that name made it through App Review. No issues?
- tdkl 11y ago
  Any chance to include and keep up to date an Eu cookie policy block list ? Here's a good one: https://github.com/r4vi/block-the-eu-cookie-shit-list https://github.com/r4vi/block-the-eu-cookie-shit-list I'd add it myself just aren't sure how to keep it updated.
- 11y ago
gecko 11y ago
What's a good ad-blocking browser on Android, if any? I want to like Firefox with uBlock, but it's honestly just a lot slower than Chrome.
byoogle 11y ago
Open source, free, and no “acceptable” ads!: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock-fast/id1032930802 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock-fast/id1032930802 I’m one of the devs and here’s the code: https://github.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast https://github.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pduan 11y ago
  How come none of these ad blockers work on iPhone 5?
  - psophis 11y ago
    Apples framework for ad blockers is 64bit only.
  - numair 11y ago
    You have to have a 64-bit iPhone for the "content filtering" functions. The iPhone 5 is the last 32-bit CPU-based iPhone.
    - pduan 11y ago
      Thanks! Although jailbroken ad blockers were working. Guess it's an Apple framework limitation.
      - userbinator 11y ago
        Most definitely an artificial limitation. There's nothing about blocking ads that requires a 64-bit CPU.
        hughes 11y ago
        What if there are (2^32)+1 ads on the screen!?
rajacombinator 11y ago
Reading through comments here that Taboula and Outbrain can be blocked has me interested in ad blockers for the first time ever.
akramhussein 11y ago
Unreal. These content blockers aren't hard to make. I started one the other day and couldn't believe they charge for them. Maybe I'm missing something?
- trimbo 11y ago
  No it's just the traditional "first to the app store with new feature" cash grab.
vortico 11y ago
Again, using free/libre software on your device would solve this problem. Any users of the software could modify the source code of the program and then share the change with other users of the software, making this a non-issue.
tlong 11y ago
Weak Crystal. Maybe the ad bloc guy will release one. He's cooler
werber 11y ago
eh, they were going to be kicked out by a better free version anyways. it's nice to see such a fast change of face. It used to take a decade or so
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
I would be an enthusiastic user of a curated adblocker that only allows actually non-intrusive, non-deceptive ads. (No autoplaying video or sound, no popovers, nothing that flashes or vibrates, no "one weird trick"...) I really would like to support the sites I use, if I could find a happy medium that let me do so without undue irritation or excessive effort on my own part. Anything that requires the ad company to pay seems like the wrong way to go about it, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. This would require a fair bit of active, ongoing curation, and that has to be paid for somehow.
- geoelectric 11y ago
  Same here. If someone were just completely up front about what they were doing and came out with "BlockCrappyAds," I'd run it in a heartbeat. I'm OK with small filesize, static ads. I just don't want anything active. Get me something that will only download ads if they're under some certain acceptable size (with size attributes declared in HTML), only on the base layer of the page (no modal overlays), and only jpgs/pngs/text with no active content. I'd run that.
calcsam 11y ago
Ad-sponsored services make you the product. These paid ad blockers make you and the advertisers the product.
- Spivak 11y ago
  What? The advertisers are explicitly the customer.
MattOfNZ 11y ago
This is what concerns me most about as blockers; the potential for collusion. Without transparency around rulesets, they are fundamentally untrustworthy. That comment in the iOS content blocker screen where it says that a blocker cannot send information back to the app is very literal; while it can't communicate with the app, it could communicate with the outside world. I wrote a proof of concept showing how a content blocker can be used to disclose a unique tracking token across all domains - seeing collusion happening with one of the biggest blockers makes me think that this could actually happen. It's a little inelegant, but it shows that it's possible. Proof of concept for those interested - https://github.com/MattOfNZ/Hypercookie https://github.com/MattOfNZ/Hypercookie Any feedback on how practical this seems would be appreciated, I am not sure if my concerns are real or unfounded. Edit: swapped 'seeing this' for 'seeing collusion'
mark_lee 11y ago
Using ad block is equal to infringing copyright, simplest don't use the app or web stupid
- mdpopescu 11y ago
  Hmm... Good point, thanks. (Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with the second part - I'll continue to ignore both copyrights and ads - but I do agree with the analogy.)
brisance 11y ago
How is this not a bait-and-switch? And thus fail the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose?
- nicky0 11y ago
  Ask for a refund and you shall get one.
kemayo 11y ago
Looks like Purify (the previous number two blocker) picked a pretty good time to announce it was having a sale [1], and also say they'll never do this [2]. [1]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-simplest/id1030156203?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-simplest... [2]: https://twitter.com/purify_app/status/647188444720951296 https://twitter.com/purify_app/status/647188444720951296
WWLink 11y ago
The word I want to use to describe a developer that sells their program, and then does something like this to their customers.. yeah I'm not going to allow myself to use that word here.
- bobbles 11y ago
  I guess what it means is that the advertisers were willing to throw more money at him for doing this than he made from selling the app. Sounds like a stupid plan though as the users will obviously go for something better and the deals will end up being worthless
bandicity 11y ago
I recommend Patreon vs. traditional Internet ads. Then I know what Content Creators can budget in from month to month. Plus people block ads in a variety of ways.
anonymousab 11y ago
An advertising industry where content is still 'free' (paid for by advertising) but the actual curation and safety costs are foisted onto the advertiser rather than the consumer - through a third party - is a nice middleground to strive towards. But if this app doesn't allow pre-existing owners to turn off this feature, that's a pretty blatant bait-and-switch. Extremely anti-consumer at that as well.
amelius 11y ago
Why is this acceptable in the App store? I was under the impression that this store had strict rules in order to guarantee user satisfaction.
- nicky0 11y ago
  Yes, rule 5.6: Apps must satisfy the user. Apps not deemed to be deeply satisfying will be removed from the store.
chocolait 11y ago
It is chaos :) Company pays to put ads in web pages. You pay ad blocker to remove ads from web pages. Company pays ad blocker to put ads back in the web pages. You pay another ad blocker company to remove ads from web pages. ...
jlebrech 11y ago
Looks like extortion to me.
yoz-y 11y ago
I really hope that someday there will be a good, curated and vetted ad-blocking list which will take into consideration how intrusive ads are. I don't want to block all of the ads since it is how the content producers get paid. But the current situation is really either/or. I don't seem to find any ad blocker that just removes unacceptable ads. Demanding ad networks to pay is plain extortion.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  And of course the guys curating this list should do this for free, just for the fun of it.
astannard 11y ago
Sounds like a protection racket
ypcx 11y ago
Refund coming in fast.
cheshire137 11y ago
Moving on to Purify. "Acceptable" ads don't say anything about blocking trackers.
CIPHERSTONE 11y ago
It's called "Bait & Switch". Crystal dev - If you read this, you should be ashamed of yourself. Very convenient for you after you have my money.
argklm 11y ago
I would be glad to see something like this https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ I'm glad supporting people deserving it. I'll stick to my whitelist on iOS for a non greedy adblocker. Sadly, this is getting about who makes more money rather than offering a better web...

306 points by NN88 11y ago

And just like that, Crystal was uninstalled. Didn't take long for the conflicts of interest to show up! "According to Mr. Murphy, he isn’t adding the option for financial gain, but rather to make sure publishers aren’t overburdened by all-out blocking of ads on their sites." My response to which is: "Who do you think you're fooling? You are taking money to allow people to defeat the core purpose of your application." Secret Media plans to only work with “premium” publishers who don’t bombard users with large amounts of low-quality advertising. Is there any other kind?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
danielhgma 11y ago
> taking money to allow people to defeat the core purpose of your application. Seriously. This is so bad for users
- epistasis 11y ago
  Perhaps for you, but this does not subvert the core purpose of Crystal for me. I will continue using Crystal, with the default option, since I don't mind seeing minimal, non-intrusive ads that don't completely disrupt my user experience. And I don't have a problem with responsible websites with responsible ads getting paid. In fact, this option to have vetted ads is pretty much ideal for me! Edit: I'm curious, why do people dislike my preference here? I'm not saying anybody else has to like Crystal, just that it's matches my desires.
  - nugget 11y ago
    Vetted or acceptable ads is a fake narrative - a smokescreen - it's just a way for these adblock apps to extort ad networks for a payout. In the article it mentions that hundreds of companies including all the big search and display networks, and all of the big native ad networks, are included on the whitelist. Who is left?
    - epistasis 11y ago
      While it could be a smokescreen, it certainly doesn't have to be a smokescreen. If it turns out that Crystal is letting intrusive ads through, then they're doing a bad job and I'll stop using it.
      - nugget 11y ago
        We already know who will be let through - the ABP whitelist is public. It's the majority of the ad tech world including the most intrusive native networks.
        epistasis 11y ago
        I don't have much experience with ABP, but I'm also having difficulty finding complaints about intrusive ads getting through ABP. Is this something that you've experienced personally, or is it just from the companies reputations that are on the whitelist?
        nugget 11y ago
        I experienced it personally and switched from ABP to uBlock as a result.
        epistasis 11y ago
        Thanks, that's good to know, I'll keep an eye out for this!
        anabis 11y ago
  - nosuchthing 11y ago
    Seems almost like extortion.. the advertisers already paid for advertising but now Crystal demands additional payments from the advertisers or else it blocks the ads. The websites don't seem to get any additional payment from Crystal for this "vetting".
    - epistasis 11y ago
      It could seem like extortion, or it could seem like certification. Websites have proven that they're terrible at vetting ads for security and intrusiveness, they do not care about that. By paying a different company to perform the certification, then there's less of a conflict of interest. Of course, this depends on trusting someone. Trust can be misplaced, but I already know I can't trust websites, so Im looking for someone else.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - outericky 11y ago
        Certification in your sense is conforming to a certain standard. This is extortion. Basically "conforming" is paying. That's extortion. Pay are demands or no soup for you.
      - manigandham 11y ago
        The adblocker companies cant be trusted either since they only stand to gain from this behaviour. ABP makes tens of millions from this. The only way trust works is if there's a neutral 3rd party that represents all sides and has respect.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
dapearce 11y ago
According to the article it sounds like an optional feature which can be turned off. It allows people who want to support ad-based publishers with quality ads, while still blocking the heavy junk. Not an unacceptable thing to me, especially if it makes the developer some extra money without forcing me to let the ads through.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  It's always an "optional feature" - but the app is closed source. Also, given that the blockers don't have the sophistication level that you'd expect from say, µBlock, where you can just click on something annoying and banish it, is that ad being displayed because the ad company is giving backhanders to the developer, or was it just missed in the filter? Who knows? Ad blocking software having "acceptable ads" is identical to antivirus software having "acceptable viruses". Ooh, I just reread the article. The company trying to convince blocking software to do this is the outfit behind the original Adblock Plus, the original people who started this practice.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - yuhong 11y ago
    I don't think ads are the same as viruses. There are different kinds of ads for example, and not all of them use tracking or even pay by the pageview.
    - anonymfus 11y ago
      They are malicious memes. Analogy could be about their effect on brains.
- nugget 11y ago
guyzero 11y ago
This is exactly what the most popular desktop browser ad blockers do.
- mtgx 11y ago
  You mean what Adblock Plus alone does.
adiabatty 11y ago
> > large amounts of low-quality advertising. > Is there any other kind? I'd say The Deck manages to be high-quality, low-volume advertising. One of their rules is "our ad is the only ad on the page". http://decknetwork.net/ http://decknetwork.net/ Artisanal ad networks targeted to web workers don't exactly _scale_ to the rest of the ad industry, but non-irritating advertising exists.
- mbesto 11y ago
  There are a few others who also operate with the same model, but they are generally considered small businesses (or "lifestyle businesses"). Unfortunately these inherently have ceilings to them and market dynamics dictate you will always have someone more greedy who will try to build AdSense-like dominance.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  This is where the people making the blocklists get stuck. Marcus Aurelius, ad block developer, decides that the deck ads aren't that annoying, don't break the page they're on, are low bandwidth, don't track you, etc. And so MA leaves them out of the list. But everyday he gets 100 bug reports "I still see ads!!!" from users who never want to see a single advertisement on any site ever. What's MA going to do? Probably give up.
  - kawera 11y ago
    Or maybe build a "Block this" feature on touching.
    - noreally 11y ago
      They've had that feature in strip clubs for years.
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      The architecture of iOS content blockers seems not to allow that. No information is allowed to flow from safari to the ad block app (to allay concerns that the app itself is spying on you).
markcerqueira 11y ago
> Is there any other kind? Yes there is. Sometimes I see ads for stuff that I didn't know about and am genuinely interested in. Yes, it's rare, but it does happen.
newscracker 11y ago
One reason I didn't jump into buying an ad blocker was because I knew there could be some free ones coming in. Another reason was because I knew there could be some compromises that the makers of the ad blockers would make "in good faith" on behalf of their users (which could also be a sellout or seen as a sellout). I'm glad I didn't buy Crystal. I would've been frustrated enough to request a refund from Apple if I did.

KenanSulayman 11y ago

And it's deleted. Thanks

ceejayoz 11y ago
Don't just delete it. Go to https://reportaproblem.apple.com/ https://reportaproblem.apple.com/ and get an (instant, no questions asked) refund.

dang 11y ago

We changed the title from "Creator of Crystal, iOS ad blocker, to accept money to let certain ads through", which appears editorialized (unless WSJ changed their title). Submitters: please use the original title unless it is linkbait or misleading, and definitely please don't use the titles of HN submissions to editorialize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: ok you guys, thanks for the feedback. We rely on you to point out the important exceptions. Title reversion reverted.

sergiotapia 11y ago
The article is literally saying that though. It's the one lead, the title should have stayed.
kylec 11y ago
Normally I'd agree, but the real story here is the new information about Crystal's business practices and not the generic story about ad blocking surrouding it.
Karunamon 11y ago
Yeah... unfortunately that's not editorialized, that's pretty much a fact per the article. WSJ really buried the lede here.
eli 11y ago
I disagree with you on this one. The headline no longer represents why the story is of interest to HN and the original headline was factually correct and, actually, pretty similar to the WSJ's subhed, "Software promises to cut clutter; some ads skirt filters—for a price"
manicdee 11y ago
The original heading was not editorialised: it was not an opinion or interpretation but a summary of the content, and in fact the only reason I read the article in the first place. The new title, which does not show up in RSS, would not have attracted me to read the article.

noobie 11y ago

Purify: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-simplest/id1030156203?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-simplest... Safari Blocker: https://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/safari-blocker/id1011678834?l=en&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/safari-blocker/id1011678834?...

polysaturate 11y ago

Good ole computer age extortion! I think I may continue to wait out the iOS ad blocking apps, as these things continue to shake out. I, however, am genuinely interested to see if this generates and revenue or if everyone just disregards the app(consumers and publishers)

berberous 11y ago

"Mr. Murphy said he has taken Eyeo up on its offer, and plans to implement an option within his app whereby “acceptable” ads will be displayed to users. The feature will be switched on by default, Mr. Murphy said, and he will receive a flat monthly fee from Eyeo in return." Whether or not this is in bad faith, so long as there is an option to switch it off, I don't really care.

kylec 11y ago
How hard do you think he will continue to work to block the ads of his business partners? Even if there's a switch, his incentives are not aligned with the users of his app.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

kylec 11y ago

In addition to deleting Crystal, I also suggest writing a review and requesting a refund.

542458 11y ago
It sounds like it's optional. I can understand why you'd want to leave a negative review, but it seems a little extreme to demand a refund when the old functionality is still there and presumably fairly simple to switch to. It still does exactly what you paid for.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  For now...
- Gys 11y ago
  No, it does not what I expected. I expected it to block all ads. Not to only block ads that do not pay them money.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Karunamon 11y ago
Done and done. Link for anyone who wants to do the same: https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1022177308 https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1022177308
mkolodny 11y ago
Here's a link explaining how to request a refund. It took me about 30 seconds, and I received a refund immediately.
- deanclatworthy 11y ago
  Where's the link?
  - 11y ago

pavornyoh 11y ago

So what does the creator of Crystal consider "acceptable ads" based on this post? “Given how popular Crystal has become, it doesn’t provide any way for users to support publishers,” he said. “I decided that’s a good feature to provide, and from what I’ve seen the ‘acceptable ads’ policy doesn’t let through what I’d classify as bad ads.” Why take money?

ropiku 11y ago
Looks like it's using the list from Eyeo (Adblock Plus) https://acceptableads.org/ https://acceptableads.org/
kylec 11y ago
The acceptability of the ad is determined by how much the ad company is willing to pay him to let it through.

stevenh 11y ago

The only reason Apple didn't bake an ad blocker into iOS themselves is because they didn't want to get into legal trouble for what is obviously anticompetitive behavior toward Google (AdSense). They instead encouraged devs to be the patsies for the damage this will do, and they boosted these devs' blockers to #1 in their app store so everyone would see them and download them. Spare me any preposterous claims of corporate altruism; this wasn't enabled and encouraged by Apple to reduce page load times on the web. If Apple had their way, the web wouldn't even exist anymore. It's been transparently obvious for years that Apple would like to replace the web with their own walled garden app ecosystem. Apple would also like to replace web ad networks such as AdSense with their iAd network. This is what we are seeing unfold currently. Their News app with its unblockable iAds is another tentacle of this plan.

derefr 11y ago
> If Apple had their way, the web wouldn't even exist anymore. Apple certainly doesn't run any web technology—they don't have skin in the web-app game like Google and Microsoft and Amazon do. (They have a web store, but on iOS it heavily suggests its native-app equivalent.) But that doesn't mean they want their users to not use the web. Web-browsing is a feature; Apple invested a lot of energy into WebKit for a reason. Apple just don't give a damn about the supply side of the web; they don't care if they kill every web business in the process of giving users the best web-browsing experience possible. I have high confidence that if Apple could integrate something like e.g. Tor into Mobile Safari without a latency hit, they'd jump at the chance. Better privacy for their users! Breaks analytics and ad targeting? Who cares?
- scoreponok 11y ago
  >giving users the best web-browsing experience possible Do you really believe this is Apples paramount motivation? The only reason this is acceptable is exactly because they have nothing to lose, only everything to gain by hurting competitors that rely on advertising revenue. Ask yourself this -- if apple iAds was wildly successful would they be taking the same action? To ensure the "best web-browsing experience possible"? > Better privacy for their users! Breaks analytics and ad targeting? Who cares? Maybe companies that generate revenue using these tactics? Again if this was Apples bread and butter they wouldn't be implementing any security measures might interfere with their bottom line, user experience would surely be taking a back seat to profit.

manigandham 11y ago

This is the tough part about both sides. Being all or nothing means good ad networks and publishers are hurt but removes any arbitration and slippery slope issues. Or they can try to do an "acceptable ads" list but in this case it's always inevitable abused and turned into some extortion scam with the highest bidders (who usually have the worst ads) getting through. It would be best if there was an neutral industry group that didnt make adblocker software or sell ads and worked with all 3 sides to come up with a real democratically approved list of vendors.

Karunamon 11y ago
What I don't get is why payment is involved in this process at all. If you want to build an adblocker as a project, fine. If you want to allow ad companies to apply for whitelisting, ehh, but at least make the option off by default. Taking money for the process just screams corruption.
- manigandham 11y ago
  Because its "abused and turned into some extortion scam" The current whitelist is nothing but a business model run by an adblocking company and makes them millions. It is NOT in the interest of the consumer and doesn't verify ad standards for anyone. Just look at some of the companies they let through - it includes clickbait links, in-image banners and autoplay videos inside articles.

gglitch 11y ago

The word for this is "bait and switch."

kctess5 11y ago

It's interesting to me how the "Acceptable Ads" thing has managed to inserted itself in the middle of all of this - for a price of course. Yet another middleman which skims off money from the content producers, but this time under the guise of helping them get impressions.

jobu 11y ago

All of these blockers use SFContentBlockerManager which only blocks ads for Safari and any apps that use SFSafariViewController (basically none). Does anyone know if it's possible to do ad blocking through the NEFilterProvider classes? (https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/NetworkExtension/Reference/NEFilterProviderClassRef/index.html https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Networ...) This looks like it would block requests at a lower level, possibly for all Apps. Has anyone else tried digging into it?

anonred 11y ago
A quick search shows that NEFilterProvider requires the device to be supervised to work.
- vbezhenar 11y ago
  It's not hard to supervise the device. Majority of users won't bother, but there's still market, I'm sure. Another approach is to sell ad-less VPN. User will have to install custom root certificate, so VPN server can MITM secure connections in order to strip and block ads. It's certainly easier to setup.

manicdee 11y ago

I can not understand Secret Media's twisted rationalisation of simultaneously wanting to avoid bombarding users with ads, and developing techniques to bypass ad blockers. Any site that starts displaying auto-play ads with sound will not get any repeat visits from me. Surely they realise that this escalation is a bad idea?

qq66 11y ago
Well, if you're blocking a site's ad, the site probably doesn't want you as a repeat visitor.

fwn 11y ago

> Eyeo declined to disclose which companies are on its “whitelist”—those that escape ad-blocking. Yeah, right.. https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
equalarrow 11y ago
Seriously.. This is unbelievable. I think there's a lot of room for devs that will stand for their users. My friend is actually releasing a pretty killer, no holds barred blocker (it's in the approval process): Halcyon Blocker: http://www.halcyonblocker.com http://www.halcyonblocker.com He's the only one I've seen come forward saying he's 100% committed to privacy and his app does not download anything. He curates the lists himself (I've helped profiling some of his block rules). I have a beta and it's fast, clean, and works. Can't wait for it to come out. He's pretty excited too.
- lorenzhs 11y ago
  There's no information flow from Safari to the adblocker app, so that privacy point is really moot. Baking in the filter lists instead of downloading them from a server seems like a pointless restriction, preventing users from customizing the filter lists.

Gys 11y ago

Taking money from both sides ? I don't like that. Just bought it and got refunded when I reported it as a problem: 'wanted to buy another one'. But maybe that is something that only works in Europe ? Refunding, I mean ?

fnayr 11y ago
No, Apple will give a refund to anyone in any country that asks for any purchase on an app or IAP.

plg 11y ago

Come on, EFF, please develop an ad blocker

dmerrick 11y ago
I know it's not exactly what you're asking for (it's non-mobile and it's not exactly an ad blocker), but this seems like a good opportunity to plug the EFF's Privacy Badger. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger
tobltobs 11y ago
I do not think that the eff want to help to make the web a playground for big companies only. They do not have anything against small publishers, so why should they develop a adblocker?
- Spivak 11y ago
  Developing an application to block all tracking scripts would technically contain an ad blocker as a subset.

alkonaut 11y ago

So which blocker should I install now that I removed Crystal?

HSO 11y ago
Safari Blocker seems good (and honest, so far)
bobbles 11y ago
Purify is another good one. They seem to be pretty determined to soak up all the customers the others are going to lose from being dodgy bastards
- hyperbovine 11y ago
  I'm happy with purify. Try disabling scripts and images--it's not as bad as you think! Pages load like it's 1997.
seviu 11y ago
AdMop is quite good, and it has a very decent level of support (disclaimer: given by me, I am the developer)

supercanuck 11y ago

This is like Tivo 10 years ago but now that we're talking jnternet companies instead of old stodgy broadcasr companies, hallelujah, We've found Jesus!

tehwebguy 11y ago

Ugh I just paid for Crystal this morning

ceejayoz 11y ago
https://reportaproblem.apple.com/ https://reportaproblem.apple.com/ lets you request an immediate, no-questions-asked refund.

jrochkind1 11y ago

If I as a user pay double for the Crystal app, can I block the ads even of those companies that has paid them to let the ads through? Hm, then maybe Crystal could charge companies double to get their ads through even double-paying consumers... then there could be a triple-pay tier... I think I see the business model.

hackerboos 11y ago
> business model Extortion isn't a business model.

lukezli 11y ago

For a free alternative that allows full customization of content blockers, try out my app, Safari Blocker: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/safari-blocker/id1011678834?ls=1&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/safari-blocker/id1011678834?...

arete 11y ago
Safari Blocker is great, thanks Luke! Being able to add rules on the fly is really handy.
- lukezli 11y ago
  Thanks a ton! Lots of great features planned in updates: user whitelisting in Safari, better default blockers, native iPad support, OSX extension. Will continue to be free
icanhackit 11y ago
Thanks Luke, great app. I like the UI and color-scheme as well, to my eyes it seems inspired by Android 4.1 but with space and color used to delineate UI elements instead of hard borders/buttons.
nacs 11y ago
Just uninstalled Crystal and installed your Safari Blocker. Works great so far and has a far larger filtering list (and customizable lists too it seems). Thanks!
pkamb 11y ago
I'm surprised that name made it through App Review. No issues?
tdkl 11y ago
Any chance to include and keep up to date an Eu cookie policy block list ? Here's a good one: https://github.com/r4vi/block-the-eu-cookie-shit-list https://github.com/r4vi/block-the-eu-cookie-shit-list I'd add it myself just aren't sure how to keep it updated.
11y ago

gecko 11y ago

What's a good ad-blocking browser on Android, if any? I want to like Firefox with uBlock, but it's honestly just a lot slower than Chrome.

byoogle 11y ago

Open source, free, and no “acceptable” ads!: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock-fast/id1032930802 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock-fast/id1032930802 I’m one of the devs and here’s the code: https://github.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast https://github.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pduan 11y ago
How come none of these ad blockers work on iPhone 5?
- psophis 11y ago
  Apples framework for ad blockers is 64bit only.
- numair 11y ago
  You have to have a 64-bit iPhone for the "content filtering" functions. The iPhone 5 is the last 32-bit CPU-based iPhone.
  - pduan 11y ago
    Thanks! Although jailbroken ad blockers were working. Guess it's an Apple framework limitation.
    - userbinator 11y ago
      Most definitely an artificial limitation. There's nothing about blocking ads that requires a 64-bit CPU.
      - hughes 11y ago
        What if there are (2^32)+1 ads on the screen!?

rajacombinator 11y ago

Reading through comments here that Taboula and Outbrain can be blocked has me interested in ad blockers for the first time ever.

akramhussein 11y ago

Unreal. These content blockers aren't hard to make. I started one the other day and couldn't believe they charge for them. Maybe I'm missing something?

trimbo 11y ago
No it's just the traditional "first to the app store with new feature" cash grab.

vortico 11y ago

Again, using free/libre software on your device would solve this problem. Any users of the software could modify the source code of the program and then share the change with other users of the software, making this a non-issue.

tlong 11y ago

Weak Crystal. Maybe the ad bloc guy will release one. He's cooler

werber 11y ago

eh, they were going to be kicked out by a better free version anyways. it's nice to see such a fast change of face. It used to take a decade or so

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

I would be an enthusiastic user of a curated adblocker that only allows actually non-intrusive, non-deceptive ads. (No autoplaying video or sound, no popovers, nothing that flashes or vibrates, no "one weird trick"...) I really would like to support the sites I use, if I could find a happy medium that let me do so without undue irritation or excessive effort on my own part. Anything that requires the ad company to pay seems like the wrong way to go about it, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. This would require a fair bit of active, ongoing curation, and that has to be paid for somehow.

geoelectric 11y ago
Same here. If someone were just completely up front about what they were doing and came out with "BlockCrappyAds," I'd run it in a heartbeat. I'm OK with small filesize, static ads. I just don't want anything active. Get me something that will only download ads if they're under some certain acceptable size (with size attributes declared in HTML), only on the base layer of the page (no modal overlays), and only jpgs/pngs/text with no active content. I'd run that.

calcsam 11y ago

Ad-sponsored services make you the product. These paid ad blockers make you and the advertisers the product.

Spivak 11y ago
What? The advertisers are explicitly the customer.

MattOfNZ 11y ago

This is what concerns me most about as blockers; the potential for collusion. Without transparency around rulesets, they are fundamentally untrustworthy. That comment in the iOS content blocker screen where it says that a blocker cannot send information back to the app is very literal; while it can't communicate with the app, it could communicate with the outside world. I wrote a proof of concept showing how a content blocker can be used to disclose a unique tracking token across all domains - seeing collusion happening with one of the biggest blockers makes me think that this could actually happen. It's a little inelegant, but it shows that it's possible. Proof of concept for those interested - https://github.com/MattOfNZ/Hypercookie https://github.com/MattOfNZ/Hypercookie Any feedback on how practical this seems would be appreciated, I am not sure if my concerns are real or unfounded. Edit: swapped 'seeing this' for 'seeing collusion'

mark_lee 11y ago

Using ad block is equal to infringing copyright, simplest don't use the app or web stupid

mdpopescu 11y ago
Hmm... Good point, thanks. (Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with the second part - I'll continue to ignore both copyrights and ads - but I do agree with the analogy.)

brisance 11y ago

How is this not a bait-and-switch? And thus fail the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose?

nicky0 11y ago
Ask for a refund and you shall get one.

kemayo 11y ago

Looks like Purify (the previous number two blocker) picked a pretty good time to announce it was having a sale [1], and also say they'll never do this [2]. [1]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-simplest/id1030156203?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-simplest... [2]: https://twitter.com/purify_app/status/647188444720951296 https://twitter.com/purify_app/status/647188444720951296

WWLink 11y ago

The word I want to use to describe a developer that sells their program, and then does something like this to their customers.. yeah I'm not going to allow myself to use that word here.

bobbles 11y ago
I guess what it means is that the advertisers were willing to throw more money at him for doing this than he made from selling the app. Sounds like a stupid plan though as the users will obviously go for something better and the deals will end up being worthless

bandicity 11y ago

I recommend Patreon vs. traditional Internet ads. Then I know what Content Creators can budget in from month to month. Plus people block ads in a variety of ways.

anonymousab 11y ago

An advertising industry where content is still 'free' (paid for by advertising) but the actual curation and safety costs are foisted onto the advertiser rather than the consumer - through a third party - is a nice middleground to strive towards. But if this app doesn't allow pre-existing owners to turn off this feature, that's a pretty blatant bait-and-switch. Extremely anti-consumer at that as well.

amelius 11y ago

Why is this acceptable in the App store? I was under the impression that this store had strict rules in order to guarantee user satisfaction.

nicky0 11y ago
Yes, rule 5.6: Apps must satisfy the user. Apps not deemed to be deeply satisfying will be removed from the store.

chocolait 11y ago

It is chaos :) Company pays to put ads in web pages. You pay ad blocker to remove ads from web pages. Company pays ad blocker to put ads back in the web pages. You pay another ad blocker company to remove ads from web pages. ...

jlebrech 11y ago

Looks like extortion to me.

yoz-y 11y ago

I really hope that someday there will be a good, curated and vetted ad-blocking list which will take into consideration how intrusive ads are. I don't want to block all of the ads since it is how the content producers get paid. But the current situation is really either/or. I don't seem to find any ad blocker that just removes unacceptable ads. Demanding ad networks to pay is plain extortion.

tobltobs 11y ago
And of course the guys curating this list should do this for free, just for the fun of it.

astannard 11y ago

Sounds like a protection racket

ypcx 11y ago

Refund coming in fast.

cheshire137 11y ago

Moving on to Purify. "Acceptable" ads don't say anything about blocking trackers.

CIPHERSTONE 11y ago

It's called "Bait & Switch". Crystal dev - If you read this, you should be ashamed of yourself. Very convenient for you after you have my money.

argklm 11y ago

I would be glad to see something like this https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ I'm glad supporting people deserving it. I'll stick to my whitelist on iOS for a non greedy adblocker. Sadly, this is getting about who makes more money rather than offering a better web...