6 ms·
We already have Wipr 2 (https://kaylees.site/wipr2.html https://kaylees.site/wipr2.html) on the App store which is a pretty dang great ad blocker and well worth
by trenchpilgrim 1y ago
We already have Wipr 2 (https://kaylees.site/wipr2.html https://kaylees.site/wipr2.html) on the App store which is a pretty dang great ad blocker and well worth the price.
- 404mm 1y agoDoesn’t look like it supports Family Sharing, is that right?
- trenchpilgrim 1y agoI'm not sure I know what that is. It's a single purchase for a lifetime multi device license.
- seivan 1y ago[dead]
- tapete2 1y ago[flagged]
- MangoToupe 1y agoBetter than viewing ads.
- troupo 1y ago[flagged]
- pasteldream 1y agoImagine asking the browser on my hardware to do things I don’t want it to do, and acting shocked when I tell it not to.
- threatofrain 1y agoImagine there's a business that can't really enforce whether you walk out without providing compensation. You realize you have the home court advantage on enforcement and guess what, you don't want to pay. It's your browser/wallet and that's your prerogative. But what does that mean about how tempting their goods are? Do we have prerogative to these goods? Should we live in a world where we only permit business models that require customers pay directly or don't enter at all?
- pasteldream 1y agoYou know, I do not actually know that a website had ads before clicking on a link to it; I would be happy to only visit websites without ads. It’s scummy to shove ads in my face without at least warning me and giving me a chance to leave, I think.
- threatofrain 1y agoFair point. There should be a header to reveal whether the payload has ads. Then you can refuse right there.
- wewtyflakes 1y agoOf course there is a means to enforce payment, paywalls. Ads are a particular model for monetization, it does not mean it is the only one. How about when you want to see a movie, nobody will let you in unless you have bought a ticket. Now of course theaters know that you have paid, but they still say, hey, here are 30 minutes of ads to go with your movie, but then it is then fair for us to show up late.
- troupo 1y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45749983 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45749983
- pasteldream 1y agoYeah, sorry, I realized after I commented.
- fsflover 1y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45177601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45177601
- troupo 1y agoMy reply was about not willing to pay for an ad blocker. The state of ads on the web is abysmal, but I'm not beyond paying someone for the work they do to create, test and update the extension that gets rid of them
- nxpnsv 1y agoYeah, the ad situation really is so horrible it is worth paying to get out of it. Also supporting an inde dev to provide a useful app with the equivalent of a nice cup of coffee doesn't feel all that bad.
- bigyabai 1y agoWell, it's a $5 app on the App Store. ~$3.20 will go towards paying the indie dev, and most of the remaining ~$1.50 will go directly into Apple's coffers as a reward for doing such a good job locking down their operating system. Kinda feels like Apple is deliberately making it horrible so you view paying them as the only ethical solution. For example, I don't have to do this song-and-dance to block ads on non-monopolized platforms.
- lapcat 1y ago> Well, it's a $5 app on the App Store. ~$3.20 will go towards paying the indie dev, and most of the remaining ~$1.50 will go directly into Apple's coffers as a reward for doing such a good job locking down their operating system. This is not a defense but merely a correction: The small developer program is 85%/15% rather than 70%/30% for anyone making less than $1 million per year.
- teekert 1y agoI think this is sarcastic? I mean I pay on several websites to not see ads, so it (paying to remove ads) seems like the normalest thing. And it should be the normalest thing. The only weird thing here is that we pay a party that is not the one serving the ads, so the primary misses income from ads and potentially paying customers. But I suspect that is what you meant with your remark. Moreover, paying on every website is just insane overkill and very expense compared to the value you get from occasional visits (the sites I subscribe to I visit multiple times a day and they provide business value). Something like Alby [0] could solve this though. But Crypto currency has become a dirty word around here ;) (Alby does allow fractions of cents to be transferred, like a stream, on website visits, it (among others) also powers per-second paying for Podcasts streams, splitting revenue between multiple podcast hosts, the podcast app and the central index if set up that way. It's hard to set up though, something fiat-currency, based with 0 overhead would be nice...). [0] https://getalby.com/ https://getalby.com/
- johnisgood 1y agoNo. Not having ads is the "normalest" thing. I would never pay. I would use an ad blocker, and if that does not work, I would not use the website at all. This is the "normalest" thing to do, not giving them money for using ads. You are enabling them and paying them for using ads. How is that the "normalest" or even normal thing to do? How do you expect them to stop showing ads if not only the ads themselves work, but even the ones who don't click ads pay them for having ads (to not show them, but ultimately it is for them having ads)?
- teekert 1y agoI think you misunderstood. I'm saying The normalest thing is to offer value for value. Value for the gathered information, as money, or you let them influence you via ads. It is not normal to expect something for free. You do not have the right to someone else's productivity on your terms, you have it on theirs.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y agoI got this far down in the comments before I realized that this subject was such a big deal to everyone because, for them, their phones are what they use to interact with websites. It's bizarre. Last year I needed to watch a video to do a simple furnace repair, and I could not watch it on my phone... I'd have to keep going back to my desk to watch it there, and then return to do the fix. Even the laptop's difficult to do much on unless I have it plugged into the dock and the two monitors. I'm not sure when everyone and myself diverged, but it feels pretty strange.
- mrklol 1y agoI mean… putting the app onto the store costs a yearly fee + development costs. I don’t think the dev should pay that out of their own pocket.
- raw_anon_1111 1y agoI paid a one time lifetime fee of $6 for 1Blocker over 10 years ago for iOS. They have a new version that is now $40 for a lifetime license. But the old version still works.
- nottorp 1y agoIs it better than Wipr 1? Because I paid for that one and it's kinda ... unsatisfactory. Edit: at least compared to full uBlock Origin on desktop Firefox. No idea how good or bad are the other mobile solutions. Most of the time i solve my mobile ad blocking needs by ... not browsing on mobile.
- latexr 1y agoYes. I used to use Wipr 1 and also found it underwhelming, eventually settling on 1Blocker. Eventually I decided to give Wipr 2 a shot and it’s much improved. It also now allows blocking even outside of Safari. Though that requires iOS/macOS 26, which I have no intention of installing any time soon, so can’t speak for how effective that is. https://kaylees.site/wipr-filtr.html https://kaylees.site/wipr-filtr.html
- Synaesthesia 1y agoAdguard works well and is free. I did pay for Wipr 1 but now switched to Adguard.
- Mistletoe 1y agoYeah AdGuard seems to work great for me. Any reason to switch to unlock Origin Lite?
- Mistletoe 1y ago*uBlock
- Synaesthesia 1y agoAs someone who is using AdGuard on Safari and uBlock origin on Firefox, no. Both equally good IMO. I'm not seeing any ads!
- rckt 1y agoI've been using Wipr for a long time. Both on iOS and macOS and it works perfectly. I don't see any ads. When I happen to use or see other people's devices I'm amazed by the amount of ads on the screen.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jjice 1y agoI use both Wipr 2 and Adguard Pro. $15 total and well worth it. Adguard is mostly just to run custom rules for blocking elements.