3 ms·

> If you thought that websites’ “Install our app” prompts were annoying before, imagine what’s going to happen when the only way to reliably show ads is via a n

by baddox 11y ago

> If you thought that websites’ “Install our app” prompts were annoying before, imagine what’s going to happen when the only way to reliably show ads is via a native app. I don't understand. If I get linked to a website that requires me to download their iOS app, I'll just close the tab. It's an annoyance, granted, but it's not some new unfathomable horror.

wingerlang 11y ago
I think he means that they will /become/ an "unfathomable horror". Something like: if they can not show ads in safari, they will make the "install our app" prompts more intrusive.
- wildpeaks 11y ago
  The "automatically leaves the webbrowser and opens the Appstore app" trick is already quite annoying at the moment indeed.
cynix 11y ago
What if you really wanted to access that content? Previously you could click on the "no thanks" link and keep going. Now you'll be forced to install their app.
- baddox 11y ago
  I don't really want to access that content, by definition. I've always said that. I use Adblock, and it's trivial for websites to detect that and make it difficult to view the content. I fully support their right to do so, and if they do, I'll just close the tab as soon as I realize there's no content there. It's really not a problem.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    Someone at work sends you a link to the WSJ asking for your comments on it (a thought piece on a competitor? who knows). The WSJ is now available only through an app. How do you deal with this? A hypothetical, but your web experience could become collateral damage as well.
    - greyboy 11y ago
      Read it later when around a computer, perhaps?
    - vbezhenar 11y ago
      Sending links to protected content is considered bad manners, even if only registration or login via Facebook required. I would ask that person to send me printed PDF copy of that article instead of link.
    - baddox 11y ago
      I say "I cannot read anything on that link you sent me."
fenomas 11y ago
His implication is that ad-supported sites will have to move their content into apps, and stop serving it as web pages. Considering that "ad-supported sites" is most of the web, if he's right it would be a little more than an annoyance.

by baddox 11y ago

wingerlang 11y ago

I think he means that they will /become/ an "unfathomable horror". Something like: if they can not show ads in safari, they will make the "install our app" prompts more intrusive.

wildpeaks 11y ago
The "automatically leaves the webbrowser and opens the Appstore app" trick is already quite annoying at the moment indeed.

cynix 11y ago

What if you really wanted to access that content? Previously you could click on the "no thanks" link and keep going. Now you'll be forced to install their app.

baddox 11y ago
I don't really want to access that content, by definition. I've always said that. I use Adblock, and it's trivial for websites to detect that and make it difficult to view the content. I fully support their right to do so, and if they do, I'll just close the tab as soon as I realize there's no content there. It's really not a problem.
- rtpg 11y ago
  Someone at work sends you a link to the WSJ asking for your comments on it (a thought piece on a competitor? who knows). The WSJ is now available only through an app. How do you deal with this? A hypothetical, but your web experience could become collateral damage as well.
  - greyboy 11y ago
    Read it later when around a computer, perhaps?
  - vbezhenar 11y ago
    Sending links to protected content is considered bad manners, even if only registration or login via Facebook required. I would ask that person to send me printed PDF copy of that article instead of link.
  - baddox 11y ago
    I say "I cannot read anything on that link you sent me."

fenomas 11y ago

His implication is that ad-supported sites will have to move their content into apps, and stop serving it as web pages. Considering that "ad-supported sites" is most of the web, if he's right it would be a little more than an annoyance.