9 ms·

Here's what's going to happen. Just a little while longer: nothing. As soon as one big party will try to make a significant impact on the ads market (more than

Here's what's going to happen. Just a little while longer: nothing. As soon as one big party will try to make a significant impact on the ads market (more than 20% at once), a big shift will happen, uniting Publishers all around and shutting adblocking visitors out completely in a coordinated manner. Just like Microsoft's opt-out only DNT-Field, the tide will quickly turn against Apple, as soon as you can't read 50% of all web pages anymore because ads are blocked by default (or a majority). Same thing with this Filter startup that wants to block ads on a mobile provider level (forgot the name). As soon as people realize that all the stuff on the internet isn't "free", but ad financed, they will finally have to make the real choice themselves by opting in or paying.

threeseed 11y ago
There are some problems with this theory though. (a) On average iOS users have more disposable income than Android users, (b) iOS users have shown a proclivity for spending that money on mobile content and (c) iOS are responsible for more web traffic than Android. So if publishers adopt a freemium model (the most common) and they present a crappy experience to users who block ads then they won't be willing to buy a subscription. That's why most websites today don't punish users who block ads and that position will likely continue on mobile as well.
- endymi0n 11y ago
  True. But don't underestimate the efforts of a multiple billion dollars content industry with their back against the wall (a lot of them ads only without any freemium option). Robbed of any monetization strategy for a whole segment (unlike the ads vs. paywall wars between publishers), I see much more collaboration coming against a too invasive force with their own objectives.
- lelandbatey 11y ago
  Your third point is completely false. According to Opera Mediaworks, as of Q1 2015, Android makes up 65% of mobile traffic, 3x more than iOS with 22%, as well as beating iOS out of the top spot for ad revenue. You can read this report here: http://operamediaworks.com/sites/default/files/file_attachment/sma_q1_2015_compressed.pdf http://operamediaworks.com/sites/default/files/file_attachme... (page 2)
  - threeseed 11y ago
    Not completely false. From that document the revenue for iOS/Android is nearly identical across all media types and for video/rich media (the most lucrative revenue wise) is much higher for iOS. It just reaffirms my argument that iOS users are too much of a valuable and lucrative audience to treat poorly. And I am sure those numbers are worldwide when really US revenue is the most relevant for US publishers (which are the bulk of major news sites). In which case Apple dominates: http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-outshines-android-in-us-mobile-web-traffic/ http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-outshines-android-in-us-mobil...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
modeless 11y ago
I think it's more likely that ad networks will come up with a way for publishers to start serving the ads from their own domains and with randomized filenames etc. You can't block ads if you can't differentiate them from the content in an automated way.
- seiji 11y ago
  You give them way too much credit. The simplest ad blocker is just a user stylesheet that hides "class='ad'". The complex ad blockers include variants of that as well as network-blocking bad domains, but publishers+advertisers are really really dumb in aggregate.
  - modeless 11y ago
    They're not "dumb", it's just not worth the effort for them to obfuscate their ads yet. That will change.
    - seiji 11y ago
      Postulate: there's no automated ad-injection platform that also can't be hidden or blocked by automation. Google could transcode ads directly into YouTube videos, but they don't. They preroll or popover and both can be blocked. If YouTube did transcode pre-roll ads, we'd have an auto-skipper. If YouTube transcoded hard popovers on videos, well, that would probably upset more video authors than consumers.
      - untog 11y ago
        Easy - they just get more pernicious. For an example, try this product placement in I, Robot, back in 2004: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HpIZrOH4zc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HpIZrOH4zc Even though it's set in the future they manage to sell them as being retro cool. It's almost impressive. I take the pessimistic viewpoint that ads are going to seep in no matter what. The harder you make it, they more they'll mask themselves. Personally, I'd prefer banner ads.
seiji 11y ago
Network-level blocking gets you a long way: https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/607745974644043777 https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/60774597464404377... Publishers have been brainwashed that everything must have: an ad, a tracking widget, and a user survey. Oh, and each page gets ten of those elements and each element comes from 3 to 5 unique externally hosted providers. Have you tried browsing popular sites on an iPad? Every 3rd site has an ad unit that ejects you to the App Store to download a freemium game. It's insane. Block those advertisers and never look back. (Yes, Apple shouldn't easily allow eject-to-app-store from a Safari tab, but they also want users to be able to click-to-go-to-appstore on demand. It's a hacky abuse of javascript by ad networks to simulate false user intent.) Since all of those elements are "as a service" you just block the invading services and all is well again.
- eli 11y ago
  "Brainwashed"? Imagine you're a small publisher. You want to spend most of your time creating awesome content and you don't want to put up a paywall. So do you try to hire an ad sales person to sell direct placements on your site? Or do you use some sort of network, which necessarily requires some level of aggregate tracking and profiling to deliver ads that are at all relevant.
  - seiji 11y ago
    Just because it's easy doesn't make it right.
    - eli 11y ago
      I don't follow what part of that is wrong. What do you think publishers should do instead?
  - egypturnash 11y ago
    I'm a small publisher who wants to spend all her time creating awesome content. I hate paywalls. I hate ads. Thankfully, I'm making enough money off of Patreon that I've long since reached my first goal of "no more ads on my current comic". Everyone who wants to see it can see it for free, thanks to the generosity of a small part of my audience.
facepalm 11y ago
Can you reliably check that ads are blocked?
- fwn 11y ago
  I don't know what counts as reliable, it works most of the time. You can check for cosmetic filtering (CSS reapplied to your ad-divs) by checking their width or something like that. You can check for blocked domains by getting this information channeled back somehow. There are only so much relevant filter lists (maybe 15?) out there. They are freely accessible & parsable, so generating an URL on the fly which should be blocked on your domain in one of those filterlists shouldn't be too hard.
  - facepalm 11y ago
    Sure, with the existing methods. But since Apple is in control of the browser, couldn't they come up with something undetectable?
    - fwn 11y ago
      Hmm. I can't imagine how. Maybe if the Browser would simulate a pageview without adblock but somehow manages to hide the ad page elements. I'm sure that might break pages and (since resources can't be blocked) might reduce the use of adblockers drastically.
hn_user2 11y ago
> the tide will quickly turn against Apple I would think that the people savvy enough to install 3rd party ad blocking extensions are smart enough to know that the issue is their extension. Not Apple. But who knows.
- dmd 11y ago
  And yet, I constantly see people filing bugs that occur because they installed the "cloud to butt" extension and then forgot about it.
  - therealidiot 11y ago
    I used to forget about it and then I'd get a few chuckles. Of course I'd never go and raise a bug for such behaviour, as I instantly remembered what it was whenever it struck.
guntars 11y ago
Sounds pretty good to me, looking forward to that day.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
Haha there is no way this would come to fruition. Users, on average, abandon websites within 10 seconds or less. 10 SECONDS! If someone blocked out the page because of an ad blocker the user will go to it, not see the content they wanted, and leave less likely to return.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- WWKong 11y ago
  Yup. The publisher won't want those users on their site anyway if they can't be monitized.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    I was confused because your comment seemed to support and not support my statement. But I disagree with your statement of: > The publisher won't want those users on their site anyway if they can't be monitized. Remember if those users with ad block find it a bad experience and never come back, this means less times they click on links to that site which means less referrals to use as ranking in search engines. If it's a large enough group (hell even a small group in a highly competitive area) can make a difference causing the site to lose readers due to search rankings.

threeseed 11y ago

There are some problems with this theory though. (a) On average iOS users have more disposable income than Android users, (b) iOS users have shown a proclivity for spending that money on mobile content and (c) iOS are responsible for more web traffic than Android. So if publishers adopt a freemium model (the most common) and they present a crappy experience to users who block ads then they won't be willing to buy a subscription. That's why most websites today don't punish users who block ads and that position will likely continue on mobile as well.

endymi0n 11y ago
True. But don't underestimate the efforts of a multiple billion dollars content industry with their back against the wall (a lot of them ads only without any freemium option). Robbed of any monetization strategy for a whole segment (unlike the ads vs. paywall wars between publishers), I see much more collaboration coming against a too invasive force with their own objectives.
lelandbatey 11y ago
Your third point is completely false. According to Opera Mediaworks, as of Q1 2015, Android makes up 65% of mobile traffic, 3x more than iOS with 22%, as well as beating iOS out of the top spot for ad revenue. You can read this report here: http://operamediaworks.com/sites/default/files/file_attachment/sma_q1_2015_compressed.pdf http://operamediaworks.com/sites/default/files/file_attachme... (page 2)
- threeseed 11y ago
  Not completely false. From that document the revenue for iOS/Android is nearly identical across all media types and for video/rich media (the most lucrative revenue wise) is much higher for iOS. It just reaffirms my argument that iOS users are too much of a valuable and lucrative audience to treat poorly. And I am sure those numbers are worldwide when really US revenue is the most relevant for US publishers (which are the bulk of major news sites). In which case Apple dominates: http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-outshines-android-in-us-mobile-web-traffic/ http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-outshines-android-in-us-mobil...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

modeless 11y ago

I think it's more likely that ad networks will come up with a way for publishers to start serving the ads from their own domains and with randomized filenames etc. You can't block ads if you can't differentiate them from the content in an automated way.

seiji 11y ago
You give them way too much credit. The simplest ad blocker is just a user stylesheet that hides "class='ad'". The complex ad blockers include variants of that as well as network-blocking bad domains, but publishers+advertisers are really really dumb in aggregate.
- modeless 11y ago
  They're not "dumb", it's just not worth the effort for them to obfuscate their ads yet. That will change.
  - seiji 11y ago
    Postulate: there's no automated ad-injection platform that also can't be hidden or blocked by automation. Google could transcode ads directly into YouTube videos, but they don't. They preroll or popover and both can be blocked. If YouTube did transcode pre-roll ads, we'd have an auto-skipper. If YouTube transcoded hard popovers on videos, well, that would probably upset more video authors than consumers.
    - untog 11y ago
      Easy - they just get more pernicious. For an example, try this product placement in I, Robot, back in 2004: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HpIZrOH4zc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HpIZrOH4zc Even though it's set in the future they manage to sell them as being retro cool. It's almost impressive. I take the pessimistic viewpoint that ads are going to seep in no matter what. The harder you make it, they more they'll mask themselves. Personally, I'd prefer banner ads.

seiji 11y ago

Network-level blocking gets you a long way: https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/607745974644043777 https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/60774597464404377... Publishers have been brainwashed that everything must have: an ad, a tracking widget, and a user survey. Oh, and each page gets ten of those elements and each element comes from 3 to 5 unique externally hosted providers. Have you tried browsing popular sites on an iPad? Every 3rd site has an ad unit that ejects you to the App Store to download a freemium game. It's insane. Block those advertisers and never look back. (Yes, Apple shouldn't easily allow eject-to-app-store from a Safari tab, but they also want users to be able to click-to-go-to-appstore on demand. It's a hacky abuse of javascript by ad networks to simulate false user intent.) Since all of those elements are "as a service" you just block the invading services and all is well again.

eli 11y ago
"Brainwashed"? Imagine you're a small publisher. You want to spend most of your time creating awesome content and you don't want to put up a paywall. So do you try to hire an ad sales person to sell direct placements on your site? Or do you use some sort of network, which necessarily requires some level of aggregate tracking and profiling to deliver ads that are at all relevant.
- seiji 11y ago
  Just because it's easy doesn't make it right.
  - eli 11y ago
    I don't follow what part of that is wrong. What do you think publishers should do instead?
- egypturnash 11y ago
  I'm a small publisher who wants to spend all her time creating awesome content. I hate paywalls. I hate ads. Thankfully, I'm making enough money off of Patreon that I've long since reached my first goal of "no more ads on my current comic". Everyone who wants to see it can see it for free, thanks to the generosity of a small part of my audience.

facepalm 11y ago

Can you reliably check that ads are blocked?

fwn 11y ago
I don't know what counts as reliable, it works most of the time. You can check for cosmetic filtering (CSS reapplied to your ad-divs) by checking their width or something like that. You can check for blocked domains by getting this information channeled back somehow. There are only so much relevant filter lists (maybe 15?) out there. They are freely accessible & parsable, so generating an URL on the fly which should be blocked on your domain in one of those filterlists shouldn't be too hard.
- facepalm 11y ago
  Sure, with the existing methods. But since Apple is in control of the browser, couldn't they come up with something undetectable?
  - fwn 11y ago
    Hmm. I can't imagine how. Maybe if the Browser would simulate a pageview without adblock but somehow manages to hide the ad page elements. I'm sure that might break pages and (since resources can't be blocked) might reduce the use of adblockers drastically.

hn_user2 11y ago

> the tide will quickly turn against Apple I would think that the people savvy enough to install 3rd party ad blocking extensions are smart enough to know that the issue is their extension. Not Apple. But who knows.

dmd 11y ago
And yet, I constantly see people filing bugs that occur because they installed the "cloud to butt" extension and then forgot about it.
- therealidiot 11y ago
  I used to forget about it and then I'd get a few chuckles. Of course I'd never go and raise a bug for such behaviour, as I instantly remembered what it was whenever it struck.

guntars 11y ago

Sounds pretty good to me, looking forward to that day.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago

Haha there is no way this would come to fruition. Users, on average, abandon websites within 10 seconds or less. 10 SECONDS! If someone blocked out the page because of an ad blocker the user will go to it, not see the content they wanted, and leave less likely to return.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
WWKong 11y ago
Yup. The publisher won't want those users on their site anyway if they can't be monitized.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  I was confused because your comment seemed to support and not support my statement. But I disagree with your statement of: > The publisher won't want those users on their site anyway if they can't be monitized. Remember if those users with ad block find it a bad experience and never come back, this means less times they click on links to that site which means less referrals to use as ranking in search engines. If it's a large enough group (hell even a small group in a highly competitive area) can make a difference causing the site to lose readers due to search rankings.