9 ms·

Global internet ad spend superseding global TV ad spend finally. Ad-blocking as high as 26% in some countries (Germany) and rising. Looks like there is a battle

Global internet ad spend superseding global TV ad spend finally. Ad-blocking as high as 26% in some countries (Germany) and rising. Looks like there is a battle for attention being waged, I wonder who will win...

ice109 9y ago
i don't understand mobile-adblocking. i thought you couldn't block mobile ads without rooting?
- lanius 9y ago
  I use uBlock Origin on Firefox for Android without root.
- uptown 9y ago
  Mobile Safari supports content-blocking extensions. https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2015/511/ https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2015/511/ Presumably there's something similar on Android.
- unit91 9y ago
  Local VPN-based solutions do the job without root. Check out AdClear, Adguard, etc.
- schoen 9y ago
  Is there maybe an ambiguity between "blocking mobile ads in apps" and "blocking web ads in a mobile browser"? The former might require lower-level tampering, while the latter might just require using a mobile browser that blocks ads or can run extensions.
- PKop 9y ago
  Not on iOS, presumably since Apple isn't making their money from advertising. They would have no reason not to sell the feature of "better user experience" from blocking ads / trackers. I use https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-block-ads-and-tracking-browse-in-peace/id1030156203?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-block-ads-and-trackin...
- sergiotapia 9y ago
  On the iPhone you can block ads on non-rooted phones! It's awesome. I use AdBlock Fast, but I say "use" casually since it's just an app you install and you're done with it. I never actually opened it after installing it months ago. No more ads ever on mobile.
  - briandear 9y ago
    Crystal is my ad blocker of choice on iOS -- I love how Apple made these apps possible. Huge savings on my data consumption!
- patwolf 9y ago
  I used to use a VPN solution on Android without root, but I eventually switched from Chrome to Brave, which has worked quite well. https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/
- real-hacker 9y ago
  In China, some routers provide the optional feature of blocking ads by domain names.
- tomaskafka 9y ago
  On Samsung with Knox (surely S6 and later, maybe S5?), AdHell works just like if it had root. Best thing ever.
wutbrodo 9y ago
I wonder how a couple countries (like India) manage 28% mobile ad blocking while only about 1% desktop ad blocking. (for the US it's reversed, 1%/18%)
- vishnugupta 9y ago
  In India, most of the new users arriving on the internet via mobile are from tier-2/3 cities. Which implies limited bandwidth due to infrastructure as well as being price conscious. So the majority of mobile users are very paranoid about data consumption, to the extent that they toggle the data just to check FB/WA. Upshot of this is one of the first thing they do on a new phone is install ad-blocker
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    I figured as much, but if ad blocking is already in people's technological Overton window, why isn't it similarly popular on desktop?
    - vishnugupta 9y ago
      Two reasons I can think of, again specific to India. Desktops are typically connected to wired broadband which is way cheaper and also desktop users are usually better off than mobile only users. And only a fraction of new users are coming from desktop. Infact India is one of those countries where cinsumers leapfrogged desktops to go from no computer to smartphones.
      - wutbrodo 9y ago
        Yea, I was more or less aware of all this, but I was thinking more of people like my grandparents/cousins in Delhi. I could understand them and people like them not using ad blockers for the same reason as people don't in the US (lack of awareness), but it's tough for me to do so when every person with a phone seems to be familiar with it (though this is belied by the explanation elsewhere on this thread that the popular browser in use has it built-in). The bandwidth caps at my grandparents' Delhi house being super-draconian (they're about as upper-middle/upper-class as you'd expect). Though I guess their cap (a couple GB) is in this middle range where it seems low from the perspective of video streaming etc (and I don't even really watch TV) but is high enough that ads aren't really presenting much of a problem. This would be in contrast to the presumably much-tinier caps (and correspondingly higher incentive to block ads) that mobile users are presented with. At any rate, thanks for the explanations!
H1Supreme 9y ago
I realize the ad revenue is a big part of online businesses, and I don't mind that. But, what most people mind is being bombarded by non-stop ads. There are a few popular sites I refuse to visit because of this. Pages constantly scrolling because of new ads loading from every angle.
nothis 9y ago
>Ad-blocking as high as 26% in some countries (Germany) and rising. So they will get more aggressive (we already can barely distinguish an ad from a post on most websites) and more annoying and more manipulative. And they'll keep crossing lines that will cause shit storms and ad-blockers will get more aggressive and more clever and more political. Personally, I have big hopes for new models emerging where you pay a fixed, reasonable flat-rate sum once a month ($10 or $15) to access "premium" content across multiple sites. The reality is, from most higher quality sources, I read maybe 0 to 3 articles a month but there's dozens of them. I won't pay $10 to each of them, monthly, but I'd pay $10 to access them all. The question is just how to split the money. Most views? That would almost cause the same clickbait problem we have now. Some quality measurement (likes, upvotes, etc)? Would lead to pandering. If some company could come up with a smart way to solve this and convince a few sites to jump on board with premium content, I'd be in. It's a hard problem. Kinda like search engines...
- sheeshkebab 9y ago
  The problem is - even on sites where you pay to see content (nyt, wsj, etc), they still show you ads, to a paying logged in subscriber, which is completely ridiculous.
  - barking 9y ago
    The telegraph in the UK does this, they even show you a full screen Matt cartoon that begs you to turn off adblocker, on EVERY new tab/window. Even if you're a paying customer.
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    Is it ridiculous though? People buy newspapers (nyt, wsj, etc) and they always had ads in them since time immemorial. The same goes for magazines and cable/satellite TV.
    - alexanderdmitri 9y ago
      This is what I remember the Washington Post looking like when I read it back in the 90's: http://large.stanford.edu/prizes/nobel/news/wp/images/wpbig.jpg http://large.stanford.edu/prizes/nobel/news/wp/images/wpbig.... I don't remember ever seeing ads mixed in with the main content. I think it was general practice to section them off somewhere else or put them in the classifieds. Compare with: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/10/22/the-nobel-committee-got-it-wrong-ngugi-wa-thiongo-is-the-writer-the-world-needs-right-now/?utm_term=.4e466392ab6b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/... Then check out the parties sending js to your browser behind the scene. Apples and oranges IMO.
Eerie 9y ago
>I wonder who will win... Ad-blocking had already won. I haven't (involuntary) seen ads for several years now. There were a few regressions here and there, but they were all fixed extremely fast. The new fancy ad-block detectors were defeated in a matter of days. 26% ad-blocking is a nice start, but the real fun begins when it is at +96%, and Google/Facebook/InsertNameHere lose their main source of income. I think a very strong and concerted push to outlaw ad-blocking is almost inevitable, but ultimately it will be as futile as trying to outlaw the BitTorrent protocol. Will the ad-supported crap-manufacturing eyeball factory that is the modern Internet crash and burn, leaving only Patreon to stand atop the pile of ruins? We can but hope.
- aggie 9y ago
  > as futile as trying to outlaw the BitTorrent protocol It doesn't need to be eradicated, just kept underground to limit adoption. Millions use torrent, yes, but many more do not and the movie studios are still raking in money.
- fauigerzigerk 9y ago
  >I think a very strong and concerted push to outlaw ad-blocking is almost inevitable Is there any indication for such a push? What might get outlawed is paid unblocking, because that is arguably extortion, but free, non-commercial, browser based ad blockers will never be outlawed. I think what will happen once advertising growth can no longer outrun ad blocking is one or both of these two things: a) Commercial content producers move to unblockable platforms, i.e off the open web. b) Google et al come up with a server side solution that creates trust between advertisers, ad networks and websites so that browsers no longer need to make blockable requests to third party sites in order to retrieve ads and send clicks. That would force any ad blockers to become a lot more resource intensive because they would have to analyse the content itself, which would slow down the page massively.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  >but the real fun begins when it is at +96%, and Google/Facebook/InsertNameHere lose their main source of income. You don't really think it'll ever get anywhere near that percentage, right? When the major players start devoting time and resources to defeating ad blockers that's when the real fun will begin.

ice109 9y ago

i don't understand mobile-adblocking. i thought you couldn't block mobile ads without rooting?

lanius 9y ago
I use uBlock Origin on Firefox for Android without root.
uptown 9y ago
Mobile Safari supports content-blocking extensions. https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2015/511/ https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2015/511/ Presumably there's something similar on Android.
unit91 9y ago
Local VPN-based solutions do the job without root. Check out AdClear, Adguard, etc.
schoen 9y ago
Is there maybe an ambiguity between "blocking mobile ads in apps" and "blocking web ads in a mobile browser"? The former might require lower-level tampering, while the latter might just require using a mobile browser that blocks ads or can run extensions.
PKop 9y ago
Not on iOS, presumably since Apple isn't making their money from advertising. They would have no reason not to sell the feature of "better user experience" from blocking ads / trackers. I use https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-block-ads-and-tracking-browse-in-peace/id1030156203?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-block-ads-and-trackin...
sergiotapia 9y ago
On the iPhone you can block ads on non-rooted phones! It's awesome. I use AdBlock Fast, but I say "use" casually since it's just an app you install and you're done with it. I never actually opened it after installing it months ago. No more ads ever on mobile.
- briandear 9y ago
  Crystal is my ad blocker of choice on iOS -- I love how Apple made these apps possible. Huge savings on my data consumption!
patwolf 9y ago
I used to use a VPN solution on Android without root, but I eventually switched from Chrome to Brave, which has worked quite well. https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/
real-hacker 9y ago
In China, some routers provide the optional feature of blocking ads by domain names.
tomaskafka 9y ago
On Samsung with Knox (surely S6 and later, maybe S5?), AdHell works just like if it had root. Best thing ever.

wutbrodo 9y ago

I wonder how a couple countries (like India) manage 28% mobile ad blocking while only about 1% desktop ad blocking. (for the US it's reversed, 1%/18%)

vishnugupta 9y ago
In India, most of the new users arriving on the internet via mobile are from tier-2/3 cities. Which implies limited bandwidth due to infrastructure as well as being price conscious. So the majority of mobile users are very paranoid about data consumption, to the extent that they toggle the data just to check FB/WA. Upshot of this is one of the first thing they do on a new phone is install ad-blocker
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  I figured as much, but if ad blocking is already in people's technological Overton window, why isn't it similarly popular on desktop?
  - vishnugupta 9y ago
    Two reasons I can think of, again specific to India. Desktops are typically connected to wired broadband which is way cheaper and also desktop users are usually better off than mobile only users. And only a fraction of new users are coming from desktop. Infact India is one of those countries where cinsumers leapfrogged desktops to go from no computer to smartphones.
    - wutbrodo 9y ago
      Yea, I was more or less aware of all this, but I was thinking more of people like my grandparents/cousins in Delhi. I could understand them and people like them not using ad blockers for the same reason as people don't in the US (lack of awareness), but it's tough for me to do so when every person with a phone seems to be familiar with it (though this is belied by the explanation elsewhere on this thread that the popular browser in use has it built-in). The bandwidth caps at my grandparents' Delhi house being super-draconian (they're about as upper-middle/upper-class as you'd expect). Though I guess their cap (a couple GB) is in this middle range where it seems low from the perspective of video streaming etc (and I don't even really watch TV) but is high enough that ads aren't really presenting much of a problem. This would be in contrast to the presumably much-tinier caps (and correspondingly higher incentive to block ads) that mobile users are presented with. At any rate, thanks for the explanations!

H1Supreme 9y ago

I realize the ad revenue is a big part of online businesses, and I don't mind that. But, what most people mind is being bombarded by non-stop ads. There are a few popular sites I refuse to visit because of this. Pages constantly scrolling because of new ads loading from every angle.

nothis 9y ago

>Ad-blocking as high as 26% in some countries (Germany) and rising. So they will get more aggressive (we already can barely distinguish an ad from a post on most websites) and more annoying and more manipulative. And they'll keep crossing lines that will cause shit storms and ad-blockers will get more aggressive and more clever and more political. Personally, I have big hopes for new models emerging where you pay a fixed, reasonable flat-rate sum once a month ($10 or $15) to access "premium" content across multiple sites. The reality is, from most higher quality sources, I read maybe 0 to 3 articles a month but there's dozens of them. I won't pay $10 to each of them, monthly, but I'd pay $10 to access them all. The question is just how to split the money. Most views? That would almost cause the same clickbait problem we have now. Some quality measurement (likes, upvotes, etc)? Would lead to pandering. If some company could come up with a smart way to solve this and convince a few sites to jump on board with premium content, I'd be in. It's a hard problem. Kinda like search engines...

sheeshkebab 9y ago
The problem is - even on sites where you pay to see content (nyt, wsj, etc), they still show you ads, to a paying logged in subscriber, which is completely ridiculous.
- barking 9y ago
  The telegraph in the UK does this, they even show you a full screen Matt cartoon that begs you to turn off adblocker, on EVERY new tab/window. Even if you're a paying customer.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  Is it ridiculous though? People buy newspapers (nyt, wsj, etc) and they always had ads in them since time immemorial. The same goes for magazines and cable/satellite TV.
  - alexanderdmitri 9y ago
    This is what I remember the Washington Post looking like when I read it back in the 90's: http://large.stanford.edu/prizes/nobel/news/wp/images/wpbig.jpg http://large.stanford.edu/prizes/nobel/news/wp/images/wpbig.... I don't remember ever seeing ads mixed in with the main content. I think it was general practice to section them off somewhere else or put them in the classifieds. Compare with: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/10/22/the-nobel-committee-got-it-wrong-ngugi-wa-thiongo-is-the-writer-the-world-needs-right-now/?utm_term=.4e466392ab6b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/... Then check out the parties sending js to your browser behind the scene. Apples and oranges IMO.

Eerie 9y ago

>I wonder who will win... Ad-blocking had already won. I haven't (involuntary) seen ads for several years now. There were a few regressions here and there, but they were all fixed extremely fast. The new fancy ad-block detectors were defeated in a matter of days. 26% ad-blocking is a nice start, but the real fun begins when it is at +96%, and Google/Facebook/InsertNameHere lose their main source of income. I think a very strong and concerted push to outlaw ad-blocking is almost inevitable, but ultimately it will be as futile as trying to outlaw the BitTorrent protocol. Will the ad-supported crap-manufacturing eyeball factory that is the modern Internet crash and burn, leaving only Patreon to stand atop the pile of ruins? We can but hope.

aggie 9y ago
> as futile as trying to outlaw the BitTorrent protocol It doesn't need to be eradicated, just kept underground to limit adoption. Millions use torrent, yes, but many more do not and the movie studios are still raking in money.
fauigerzigerk 9y ago
>I think a very strong and concerted push to outlaw ad-blocking is almost inevitable Is there any indication for such a push? What might get outlawed is paid unblocking, because that is arguably extortion, but free, non-commercial, browser based ad blockers will never be outlawed. I think what will happen once advertising growth can no longer outrun ad blocking is one or both of these two things: a) Commercial content producers move to unblockable platforms, i.e off the open web. b) Google et al come up with a server side solution that creates trust between advertisers, ad networks and websites so that browsers no longer need to make blockable requests to third party sites in order to retrieve ads and send clicks. That would force any ad blockers to become a lot more resource intensive because they would have to analyse the content itself, which would slow down the page massively.
bitmapbrother 9y ago
>but the real fun begins when it is at +96%, and Google/Facebook/InsertNameHere lose their main source of income. You don't really think it'll ever get anywhere near that percentage, right? When the major players start devoting time and resources to defeating ad blockers that's when the real fun will begin.