4 ms·

While I usually am fine with Ad blockers, Apple's position here is completely incoherent. They decided not to pay artists for a trial period, they've decided we

While I usually am fine with Ad blockers, Apple's position here is completely incoherent. They decided not to pay artists for a trial period, they've decided websites don't deserve to advertise. Why it's almost like the only way to deal with Apple users is to sell to them through Apple, and therefore give up at least 30%.

onion2k 11y ago
they've decided websites don't deserve to advertise To be fair to Apple (or to be generous, depending on your point of view) the Safari Content Blocker isn't an ad blocker. It'll block anything you define in a JSON file. If that happens to be ads then so be it, but it could just as easily be malware, or images, or Javascript, or anything served by the government, and so on. If Content Blocker is Apple deciding that websites don't deserve to advertise then so are the developers of NoScript, ImageBlock, FlashBlock, GifBlock, CookieBlock, etc - but most people see those as privacy tools rather than anti-advertising tools. Obviously people will use Content Blocker it to block adverts, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's Apple attacking the ad industry and Google. Remember that Apple own an ad network of their own, and this feature will hurt that too.
thelambentonion 11y ago
> They decided not to pay artists for a trial period... Small nit to pick on this one, but presumably Apple had negotiated this with the artists' labels. My (totally unfounded) assumption is that record labels saw the return on Apple Music being better/more consistent than album sales, and worth foregoing those initial three months of revenue. > ... they've decided websites don't deserve to advertise. I think that we're only seeing adblockers this late in Mobile Safari's lifecycle because advertisements have become such a pain point for users. I'd imagine that Apple saw an opportunity to make ads less intrusive, more consistent, and add them to their revenue stream in one move.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Minor nitpick. I don't believe Apple ever pays artists. The labels pay artists. The labels need to go back to the artists and explain why they chose to allow Apple to forgo payment for 3 mos. Sure, Apple has some culpability in this as they negotiated for it, but the labels pay artists and they need to speak up on why they chose to negotiate with Apple on this.

onion2k 11y ago

they've decided websites don't deserve to advertise To be fair to Apple (or to be generous, depending on your point of view) the Safari Content Blocker isn't an ad blocker. It'll block anything you define in a JSON file. If that happens to be ads then so be it, but it could just as easily be malware, or images, or Javascript, or anything served by the government, and so on. If Content Blocker is Apple deciding that websites don't deserve to advertise then so are the developers of NoScript, ImageBlock, FlashBlock, GifBlock, CookieBlock, etc - but most people see those as privacy tools rather than anti-advertising tools. Obviously people will use Content Blocker it to block adverts, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's Apple attacking the ad industry and Google. Remember that Apple own an ad network of their own, and this feature will hurt that too.

thelambentonion 11y ago

> They decided not to pay artists for a trial period... Small nit to pick on this one, but presumably Apple had negotiated this with the artists' labels. My (totally unfounded) assumption is that record labels saw the return on Apple Music being better/more consistent than album sales, and worth foregoing those initial three months of revenue. > ... they've decided websites don't deserve to advertise. I think that we're only seeing adblockers this late in Mobile Safari's lifecycle because advertisements have become such a pain point for users. I'd imagine that Apple saw an opportunity to make ads less intrusive, more consistent, and add them to their revenue stream in one move.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

Minor nitpick. I don't believe Apple ever pays artists. The labels pay artists. The labels need to go back to the artists and explain why they chose to allow Apple to forgo payment for 3 mos. Sure, Apple has some culpability in this as they negotiated for it, but the labels pay artists and they need to speak up on why they chose to negotiate with Apple on this.