19 ms·

The adblocking revolution is months away

253 points by r0h1n 11y ago

forgotmypassw 11y ago
I wouldn't call ad blocking feature "revolutionary", but whatever.
Mahn 11y ago
The question that I always wonder is, is it really that devastating if people who don't want ads and wouldn't click on them hide them? I can't help but think that the kind of person that uses adblock-like software is also not likely to be the target group for most ads. It's only a tiny minority those who do click on ads after all.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  I'm sorry, but this argument has never been anything more than entitled bullshit.
  - keithpeter 11y ago
    Is your rejection of the argument based on the value of data generated by the tracking cookies? Is there some other reason behind your response? Just interested.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      My rejection of the argument is based on the entitlement of people who make it. "I never would have paid for something, therefore I deserve it for free!"
      - keithpeter 11y ago
        I was hoping that you had some insight into the relative revenue generated by tracking and by clicks on the advert. The tracking I find onerous because of privacy and bandwidth concerns and I imagine will be regulated soon. The click-able adverts I have less objection to as I do not in fact click on adverts on Web pages - mainly because the products advertised are usually laughably irrelevant to my concerns and the subject of the article I am attempting to read (a point made by OP).
bargl 11y ago
Yesterday I started looking for an ad blocker that would randomly click ads in some of the sites I visit so as not to punish the website for the ads they are adding. I couldn't find anything, does anyone know if that exits?
- austerity 11y ago
  Why do you think punishing the advertisers is any better? They seem to be even less deserving of it.
  - bargl 11y ago
    Honestly I haven't fully formed my opinion on this, I was really just curious. It sounds like an interesting problem. Right now, I tend to lean toward the idea that rather then fighting people tracking me I'd prefer to add white noise so they can't really tell where I'm at, but I really prefer this more for GPS then ads. I don't really care if ads know what I'm doing, if I want someone who won't track my searches I go to duck duck go. EDIT: If I REALLY don't want to be tracked I go to TOR + VPN, but I don't typically want to go through all that.
- quadrangle 11y ago
  https://dhowe.github.io/AdNauseam/ https://dhowe.github.io/AdNauseam/
antonmks 11y ago
Could be a good idea for Windows 10 - blocking all ads by default, including those delivered through browsers. It could seriously affect and even kill many current and potential Microsoft competitors like Google and Facebook.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  So you're killing ads in apps now too? Sounds like another great reason to avoid developing for your platform.
LoSboccacc 11y ago
Mobile Safari account for 10% of the whole browser market share (desktop + mobile) and ALL other platform already had the possibility of installing an adblocker, so I don't share the sensationalism of the article. what is pushing the adblockers is the resurgence of annoying ads that spam windows all over the place and/or redirect the current page to a temporary site. internet population at large can now use a search engine and look up 'block annoying advertisement' (first result, adblock plus) and 90% of them are in a position of installing an adblocker, Mobile Safari is just jumping late on the trend because awareness of it's customer, not because apple is ahead of the game.
EugeneOZ 11y ago
Good call to start revolution from the another side - from side of web entrepreneurs. If monetization of your web project done with ads, do FIGHT with ad blockers, such as AdBlock, AdBlock Plus and others. Change markup, track html changes after page load, find other ways to resist - don't let them ruin your business. It's important to stay "good citizens" - don't use popups, don't use huge banners, but it's up to users to decide if there is too much ads on your pages - not up to blockers. Blockers should start with empty black lists and only add records on demand.
- dhimes 11y ago
  Starting with known offenders is ok- a kind of collective intelligence on the worst ones. The trackers. Fuck them.
nemoniac 11y ago
Put "Apple" or "iOS 9" or something in the title.
joesmo 11y ago
"But wait, what about the moral dimension? The fact that if you block the ads, the sites lose their income?" What a ridiculous point. Sure the advertisers want to make this into a moral issue, but is it? No. It's not. Advertisers just feel entitled. They are not actually entitled to display their ads or make money. Even bringing up this point like it's a valid point for debate drags the quality of the article down. Advertisers not making money off people using ad blockers is NOT a moral issue. It's a failing of their business model. Nothing more and nothing less. Are we now going to say that they are too "insert adjective of choice here" to fail? Insanity!
- hammerzeit 11y ago
  Forget ethical questions, then, and let's talk economics. If you're not generating revenue for them, why should anybody who hopes to make money off of content choose to show you anything? What value do you represent to them? Why should they believe you?
  - beerbajay 11y ago
    > why should anybody who hopes to make money off of content choose to show you anything? Nobody is forcing them to use advertizing to support their work/site. If they're not making money, they should change their business model.
  - flavor8 11y ago
    I'll take "your broken business model is not my problem" for 200 points. There are plenty of places that I can buy content that I'm interested in. I'd far rather pay for quality content than put up with ads all over the web. As a plus side, paid for content might fix the journalism crisis. The death of content farms is not going to be a huge loss to the web ecosystem. Anything useful enough that people are willing to pay for it will survive.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      No, that's a fucking cop out. Answer the question: why do you feel entitled to view the content that others have worked to create for free? Why should we not expect the same of you? Why should we not expect you to work for free?
SG- 11y ago
Adblocking is already a thing on desktops/laptops and iOS 9 isn't going to ship with an Adblocker turned on or included. People will have to go download one in the App Store just like how they'd currently do in their desktop browsers. The only thing happening is that the functionality is going to be added letting people do this. I suppose the fact that the App Store is really simple to use will make it easier on top of likely having a good Adblocker featured on top. I'm already running iOS 9 dev build and have built my own Adblocker using the new APIs and it's been great, personally it makes me actually want to browse more content on my iPhone than before. Previously I'd just give up on some sites and switch to the laptop or not even load the content to begin with because of long loads and too many ads.
fvdessen 11y ago
I've been a happy Android user for a long time, but mobile ads are so bad that I'm seriously considering switching to iOS just for the adblocking.
- GvS 11y ago
  I use adblocking on Android for years. Have you tried this? https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=org.adaway https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=org.adaway
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    >Requires root: Yes Some of us can't be bothered.
    - anc84 11y ago
      You are missing out.
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        No, not really.
- biafra 11y ago
  Why not use Firefox and an Ad-Blocking plugin?
  - robmcm 11y ago
    They could be referring to the app landscape too.
    - soylentcola 11y ago
      I'm a bit more torn on this one. I've used Adfree Android before in this way but for the most part, if an app is good, I'll buy the full version. If it's something I just use a few times for a single purpose (and it's still useful), I'd like the dev to at least see some payment for it. If it's utter shit and full of obtrusive and annoying ads, I'd rather just uninstall it and give it a bad rating.
mrkmcknz 11y ago
The amount of companies that are providing some form of tracking or advanced analytics based on traditional mobile advertising is pretty huge. This could eventually be an event significant enough to kill a number of companies.
- luso_brazilian 11y ago
  And when that happens it will be interesting to see what happens to all the user data they amassed. Good chances it will be a cross between the user data sale by RadioShack [1] and the scramble to acquire Nortel patents [2]. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/paularosenblum/2015/03/24/bankrupt-radioshacks-attempts-to-sell-customer-data-meets-resistance/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/paularosenblum/2015/03/24/bankru... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/01/nortel-patents-sold-apple-sony-microsoft http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/01/nortel-pat...
  - danieldk 11y ago
    I think it is safe to assume that they will lobby to make ad blocking illegal before they go down.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  And I for one would say: good riddance.
vilmosi 11y ago
The overall article is of good quality but it reeks of Apple bias I personally find distasteful. >>> User experience is what Apple puts above pretty much everything else, and they’ve decided that they don’t like it the experience available through the ad-supported web, and so they’re going to do something about it. The reason Apple does this is to push content creators away from the Web and into native apps. Apple gets a cut on any money made from apps but not from Web ads. It's a strategic move that's not fueled by wanting better UX for users. I'll bet Apple won't consider "Install from Apple Store" type messages as ads. >>>That also plays into Apple’s other general message, about how it doesn’t track what you do when you’re using its products Bullshit. They have their own advertising network they want to push. That's the whole reason they're allowing Web ads to be blocked. So you'll see more of iAds. Nothing to do about "caring for your privacy".
- kazinator 11y ago
  You are spot on. Apple's obvious point of view is this: random websites not affiliated with Apple are using our devices to advertize to the user. That must be stopped! We own the device, after all, and if the user is going to be advertized to, we give the permission for that and want a cut. Plus the wild and wooly ads are obnoxious. We can decide what is acceptable to our users and how it is presented, for a better (though not ad-free) experience.
  - dhimes 11y ago
    Imagine LG doing something like this with their TVs...
    - fuzzy76 11y ago
      Adblocking? I'd buy it in a heartbeat!
- Steko 11y ago
  > The reason Apple does this is to push content creators away from the Web and into native apps. This is baloney, Apple hosts free apps at a loss. The idea that Apple wants you to have an app for every website is absolutely ridiculous. Safari is one of the most used iOS apps today and will be so for at least the better part of the next decade. > Bullshit. They have their own advertising network they want to push. iAds is a rounding error on Apple's business. In all likelihood Apple sees a competitive browser advantage: people like X, Google will not do X on Android. They'll load up The Verge during the keynote and show that it takes 1/X the time that the top of the line Android phones do and 11 year olds will walk around telling each other that Safari is X times faster than Chrome.
alecco 11y ago
Good. The 2015 web sucks for mobile. Advertising is out of control and there's never going to be regulation to control. Thank you Apple! Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9940202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9940202
- mrweasel 11y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree, but there's also the possibility that mobile (and touch) is just a generally worse interface for navigation and content that a laptop or desktop PC. It has been a while since I used a phone or even an iPad for anything, the quality of the interface seems more like a gimmick or something that you would only use as a last resort. To me touch is the part that doesn't work, combined with the small screen size.
BukhariH 11y ago
As expected this is going to have a negative affect on ad revenues but what people forget is that publishers won't just accept lower revenues. They're going innovate. The easiest thing to implement would be a paywall but after the paywall we are going to see a rise in microtransactions for content. That being said there are advantages to the subscription model. Maybe, publishers will stop posting click-baity headlines and misleading content if they know they've got users locked down and dont have to worry about them going to other sources as much. But, on the other hand microtransactions are going to make content even more click-baity in order to convince users to pay for the content based on a headline and abstract.
- alecco 11y ago
  Good, no more blogspam/clickbait crap.
  - sergiotapia 11y ago
    Precisely! I'm all for this quite honestly.
- biafra 11y ago
  Another way publishers can fight this, is to not show the content if they detect ad blocking.
- tonyblundell 11y ago
  The web is 20 years old. I think if this was going to happen, it would have happened by now. Outside of a few niches, people just aren't willing to pay to read websites. What I could see happening is premium content being bundled by ISPs. Pay for X package from Y ISP, get content from A, B and C websites. Kind-of like how TV channels are bundled. In all likelihood though, I think advertising will continue as is. Advertisers will just come up with cleverer ways of presenting it.
  - FroshKiller 11y ago
    >The web is 20 years old. I think if this was going to happen, it would have happened by now. That's a failure of imagination right there. It took decades for cable to come along and disrupt broadcast television. You never know what's going to happen.
2bit_encryption 11y ago
"The uptake of AdBlock and its commercial sibling Adblock Plus has been gradual" Adblock Plus is in no way a commercial offshoot of Adblock. I thought Adblock went defunct, Adblock Plus picked up where they left off (plus extra features), and then at a later point Adblock returned. Despite the name, it's not some industrial commercial version of Adblock. They're different plugins, with different people behind them..... right? ABP is open source, too (according to its site).
- r1ch 11y ago
  Adblock Plus is semi commercial, they sell whitelisting services to publishers (you can pay them to have your non-intrusive ads show by default).
theseatoms 11y ago
I'm looking forward to the increased number of affordable subscription-based news and entertainment sources that spring up due to the inability to rely on bottom-of-the-barrel style ad revenue. (A model that isn't working for the majority of providers or consumers.) We've seen an explosion in quantity of content. I'm looking forward to an uptick in quality.
biafra 11y ago
I don't see any reason or indicator for a revolution. Ad-Blocking has been around for years. Also on mobile. It is nice that Apple finally has hooks for plugins in their mobile browser, but it is by no means a game changer or a revolution.
- stephenr 11y ago
  iOS has a substantial percentage of mobile web usage. In many parts of the world mobile devices are overtaking desktop devices particularly for casual web browsing etc.
jfoster 11y ago
Are Apple and Google needlessly destroying each others margins, here? Apple pushing ahead with this will just make Google desperately push Android as hard as they can. If Google's ecosystem were left alone on iOS, Google would have fewer reasons to push Android heavily. On the other hand, if Google need Android devices out there in order for their ecosystem to survive, they might be more willing to see Android devices put into consumers' hands at break-even (or even loss-making) prices. Apple will either see market share decline or need to sacrifice part of their margins to maintain share.
- charlesarthur 11y ago
  "Apple pushing ahead with this will just make Google desperately push Android as hard as they can." What does that mean, exactly? "they might be more willing to see Android devices put into consumers' hands at break-even (or even loss-making) prices" That already happens. Samsung's profits and phone shipments are substantially down, LG made 1.5cents operating profit per phone in Q2, Sony made a loss, HTC made a loss; and those are the premium handset makers, most of them part of conglomerates. All selling Android. "Apple will either see market share decline or need to sacrifice part of their margins to maintain share." This is a common refrain since about 2010. Hasn't happened so far.
  - qq66 11y ago
    > This is a common refrain since about 2010. Hasn't happened so far. iOS market share has declined tremendously since 2010, from approximately 80% to approximately 20%.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > iOS market share has declined tremendously since 2010. Has it? It looks to me like most measures have current iOS smartphone marketshare at or above 2010, but down from a peak in 2011-2012. Android is a lot higher than in 2010, having eaten most of everything that isn't iOS
    - charlesarthur 11y ago
someuser1 11y ago
Honestly, the experience on some of these mobile websites is so horrible that I've actually started boycotting them when they're just too bad to endure. It's funny, as the screens get larger, the content space stays the same or shrinks. I think, "ooh more content on one page!" and they think "ooh more ads to cram in!" It's just the worst. Ads with tiny close buttons, ads that mimic the content on the page in order to get you to click, banners at the top and bottom of the screen. I DON'T WANT YOUR SHIT. I can't wait till all of that goes away.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >Ads with tiny close buttons I recently encountered an ad with a tiny close button that jittered, making it impossible to touch without triggering the ad popup. How clever.
  - profinger 11y ago
    Which is why people want to block them completely lol
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Indeed. If you, as a content provider, depend on such ads then I'm sorry, but your business deserves to die. I wonder how long it takes for people to learn that they can earn money by not being assholes to their customers?
      - vinbreau 11y ago
        AT least many vloggers are moving to Patreon or similar services. I've funded vloggers whose content I've enjoyed and I've seen many make a living that way. I think that's the modal we should shoot for. You build an audience and then you monetize that audience in non-intrusive ways.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
zodPod 11y ago
>>Of course, at this point we should step back and ask “why were the adverts there in the first place?” Oh yes, because they help pay for the content. In some – well, many, almost all – cases, they pay for all of the content. Honestly? I don't give a crap. Too many places have abused it and thrown stupid crap in just so they can make money. Just like the idiots who are careless with fireworks and then states ban them, the idiots have ruined it. It may not be fair or completely make sense but I don't want to see your ad NOR do I want your stupid newsletter so I'm going to block the modal window along with every ad on your site just so you end up losing money. My favorite has been the "Complete survey to continue reading the article" or "Become a member to continue reading the article". Both of which cause me to just go, "Ok, well screw your site then. I'll go find one of the million other publishers of the exact same article on the internet. You don't have a scare resource anymore because you're just another bullshit media rewriter."
- redblacktree 11y ago
  When I'm presented with "answer a survey to continue" ads, I purposefully don't read the question and pick an answer at random. I hope others do the same, so that the survey results are entirely useless.
  - x0 11y ago
    Well, I do as well, so that's two at least.
  - zodPod 11y ago
    In my case, if I actually answer it, I read the question and pick the exact opposite of what applies. "What is your age range: 0-17 18-25 26-35 <-Normal 35-50 50+ <- My answer" That way, if they're using the information for anything then I've hopefully screwed up their targeting at least a little!
- AUmrysh 11y ago
  My opinion is that they are serving me data, I can view/consume that data however I would like. It's not my responsibility to view the ads they put on their page, and if I want to increase the font size or disable javascript, that's my business.
sergiotapia 11y ago
I can't wait to try this out once it launches! I remember when the web wasn't littered with all this garbage and I'm happy that we can go back to those roots. Did you see how fast everything loaded when it didn't have to load 27 popups and tracker beacons? Next step is for Apple to enable a default privacy blocking block-filter and enable it on first boot. I'm going to buy my wife an iPhone 6 once this lands to send a message loud and clear to Apple that what they're doing is great for users.
blinkingled 11y ago
How long will this revolution last if content providers decide to not show content to iOS users? I mean if they exist to make money and they can't on iOS would it matter that there were hundreds of millions of them? With ad blocking it would be as if they never existed in first place. Perhaps the idea is for Apple to get the content providers to make apps so they get their cut? Perhaps it is better for the content providers if they make content for-pay only for iOS users and make it work because Apple's users don't mind paying for stuff? This is definitely not about Apple's good will for its users or love for the UX though - interesting how Apple and its fans like the perpetuate everything under "because Apple cares" banner!
- thescrewdriver 11y ago
  > How long will this revolution last if content providers decide to not show content to iOS users? Which begs the question: How long will content providers last if they decide to not show content to iOS users?
  - verinus 11y ago
    depends on the market share and monetization I think. It would hurt content providers targeting the US much more than those who target the global market where iOS has a much lower market share...
  - blinkingled 11y ago
    More like how long will content providers last if iOS users block their ads? Showing the content doesn't mean anything if they can't monetize it.
  - danielweber 11y ago
    Someone has to pay the bills. It's conceivable that the iOS users are all loss-leaders telling their non-ad-blocking friends to read the article, but that's kind of stretching it.
    - thescrewdriver 11y ago
onion2k 11y ago
Surely the overwhelming majority of ads delivered on mobile devices are in apps, and iOS9 won't block those as far as I understand. This will drive more content sites to develop their own apps (and presumably wind down their mobile web offering). It won't kill companies; it'll kill the web.
- jaydz 11y ago
  The web would become a second class citizen on iOS and native apps would be the only way to access content. Those cheering this have not thought this through.
- frio80 11y ago
  This. I think this is going to be really bad for the web. Next year, we will all be screaming when we see more of "If you want to read this article and much more, download our App!"
cognivore 11y ago
>> If the site generates the ad, it’s suddenly a lot harder to block. << Seems to me that this is the loophole in the entire ad-block plan. Seems like it'd be relatively straightforward to make a system that pulls in the ads from various sources, brings them locally, and then displays them from the website's domain. Seems so obvious I'd think someone is already doing it.
- zubspace 11y ago
  What I would love to see is putting this whole advertising market into the hands of the webmasters. A system installed on the webserver, where the webmaster offers ad-space which can be bought directly by the advertiser. Ads will be hosted from the same url as the page. I believe, this could be a win-win situation for the website owner and the advertiser. - More revenue for websites - Better adds, because webmasters are interested in keeping their site nice and clean. - To spice this up, there could be a central authority which simply brings together those offers. The only one who loses are current ad networks.
  - greghendershott 11y ago
    Yes, this seems to be the root of most of the problems described by OP and some comment threads here. In old school print ads, the publisher decides what is appropriate advertising for their readers. This needs to be possible for web site publishers, too. With status quo ad networks, AFAICT it's not possible. It seems that ad networks are a necessary evil to match many small advertisers with many small web sites. (No revolutionary "disintermediation" here; quite the opposite.) The question with distributors is, which end do they feel they work for? Today's ad networks view advertisers as the customer to serve. Instead, although I don't know if it's economically viable, it seems like we need ad networks who view the web site publisher as a client to serve. And who give publishers the tools to accept only ads they deem appropriate in terms of content as well as ad tech.
  - Mahn 11y ago
    Except this wouldn't work well when you are an advertiser looking to advertise on hundreds of medium size sites simultaneously. That's one of the reasons middlemen like ad networks exist in the first place, so that you don't have to contact, negotiate and set up advertising with every single site individually.
midnitewarrior 11y ago
The side effect of this that Apple doesn't mind at all, is that it will help kill the Web and make people more dependent on apps.
dmritard96 11y ago
And the Ad-network rearchetechture is probably already built. The way all of these adblockers are typically implemented is an IP/DNS Name black list where the requests to those locations are stopped short. There is a super simple solution though, those who want to leverage ads for revenue can just bundle the advertising material into the content of the page rather than including the ads via third party ajax calls. Sure perhaps you could then play another iteration of cat and mouse by trying to tease out ads from NLP or with some sort of visual hashing, but at the end of the day, that is a much more difficult technical challenge than blocking ajax calls or bundling content.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Apparently the reason they're loaded separately in the first place is fraud detection. Bundling it into the page provides no easy way of independently verifying impressions.
  - lifty 11y ago
    Theoretically, you could shift the responsibility of displaying ads and tracking users to the publishers, with requirements to publish back to the ad networks granular information about every impression. The ad networks could then check for cheating by randomly accessing the publishing website to make sure all the requests are reported back by the publishers.
    - 7952 11y ago
      Or shift the responsibility for displaying content onto the ad network! At least the page might load more quickly if Google are serving it.
      - dazmax 11y ago
        The Facebook Instant Articles thing is in a good position for this. Move content to special-purpose browsers controlled by the company serving the ads.
      - 11y ago
lottin 11y ago
It seems a little presumptuous to call this a revolution. "Catch up with the rest of the world" would probably be better term.
AlexMuir 11y ago
I completely understand why people use Adblock - it improves the user experience. Ironically hiding adverts is a just a side-effect; the improvement comes from speeding up page loads, and cutting down on cpu usage and bandwidth use. (I install Adblock for my mother to stop her seeing scams, but that's another thing entirely.) I've spent the past week optimising How a Car Works for speed (mobile is 55% of our traffic now). The average uncached weight of an article is 1.1 MB, of which 70% is Google Adsense and Facebook (the only two 3rd party scripts I include). I can't trim it any further and it's very frustrating - suggestions welcome btw. Almost the only suggestions that Google's Page Speed tool has left are to minify the scripts that Google and Facebook themselves are serving. I use Adsense because it's easy, pays fine, and the ads seem reasonably relevant. But the weight of crap being downloaded is absurd and I hate the idea of wasting some Kenyan's precious data allowance on an irrelevant advert that might earn me $0.01. In fact, I'm going to use geolocation to not include Adsense in countries where I earn nothing.
- dublinben 11y ago
  >I can't trim it any further It seems pretty obvious that you could reduce your page size by 70% by simply removing Google and Facebook scripts.
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    So obvious that they almost certainly considered it...
- Vexs 11y ago
  Thats one of the reasons I like uBlock origin- supposedly, it says the ad was displayed/clicked on a webpage, which means I don't deal with ads and websites don't deal with money loss.
  - quadrangle 11y ago
    uBlock doesn't click ads in the background. That would be https://dhowe.github.io/AdNauseam/ https://dhowe.github.io/AdNauseam/
kuni-toko-tachi 11y ago
"People are getting p*ssed off with the huge data loads pages impose without their consent" This is an absurd statement. Users know that many sites are ad-supported. Whether they like it or not is independent of that, but consent is given by visiting them. Complaining that sites need ad revenue to support their operations is childish. The fair solution is not ad-blocking tools, but a general browser settings that says that you do not wish to see ads at all. This information should be transmitted to the site requested so that the content provider can offer you a subscription if they provide one or to serve you a blank page that says politely to buzz off. Doing an end-run around ads is no different that sneaking into the backdoor of a venue without buying a ticket.
- gorena 11y ago
  Consent? I send an HTTP request. Server sends an HTTP response. My browser (or not browser - is cURL violating "consent"?) interprets that as I wish. If you don't want to show me content, return a 3XX/4XX/5XX.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    And then you'd cry and moan that the big bad website is forcing you to view ads.
- yoklov 11y ago
  Nothing would prevent content providers from sending ads even if you selected that setting. In fact, that is almost certainly what would always happen, since it would require exactly no change from the current state.
- zodPod 11y ago
  It's not consent when you go to a mostly-text site and are served 14-15MB of content that you don't even see. Not when I have 2GB of available data a month. I am referencing a previous post on here but I don't remember any of the details except that the site they were using as the demo used like 14MB of data but was a page with a couple paragraphs of text on it because it was pulling in a bunch of ad information.
andrepd 11y ago
There are ad-blockers for virtually every PC browser and for Android. Why is a revolution impending because iOS 9 will have it too?
wiremine 11y ago
Some other data points to consider: a. The AdBlock Plus team has stated, "in it's current state there are still some issues, which render Content Blocking Extensions insufficient" to use as an and blocking platform. [1] b. Apple states that "if the rule compiler detects that a set of rules would negatively impact user experience, it refuses to load them and returns and error. [2] So, at least in iOS 9, it doesn't seem to be a complete solution for the type of ad blockers we see on the desktop. After reading about this, it feels like Apple isn't trying to kill the web in this version of the technology. Instead, it is warning shot across the bow, so to speak, for publishers with really crappy experiences. [1] https://adblockplus.org/blog/content-blocking-in-safari-9-and-ios-9-good-news-or-the-death-knell-of-ad-blocking-on-safari https://adblockplus.org/blog/content-blocking-in-safari-9-an... [2] https://www.hackingwithswift.com/safari-content-blocking-ios9 https://www.hackingwithswift.com/safari-content-blocking-ios... (quote is third paragraph from the bottom...)
shkkmo 11y ago
I don't see why this article mentions all those add blockers, discuses the moral implications, and then completely fails to mention Privacy Badger. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger > Because Privacy Badger is primarily a privacy tool, not an ad blocker. Our aim is not to block ads, but to prevent non-consensual invasions of people's privacy because we believe they are inherently objectionable. We also want to create incentives for advertising companies to do the right thing. Of course, if you really dislike ads, you can also install a traditional ad blocker. If more people used this type of plugin, it would provide incentive for advertisers and advertising to behave better while still allowing for the existence of add-supported business models. I don't even see any mentions of that plugin in the comments on this page? Are people not aware of it? Do they not like it? I do find that it isn't perfect. Some of the scripts that is blocks are sometimes required for website funcitonality. When page is broken I sometimes have to check and modify the rules for that page. This isn't ideal for normal users, but should be acceptable by people with sufficient technical ability (such as users of this site). As more people use it, I am sure this feedback will improve the rulesets that privacy badger uses.
ypcx 11y ago
One could say that Google has killed the internet, in the sense that information is fabricated, copied, rehashed and stolen with the exclusive aim of getting a "click" or a "page view". However, the drive to push or peddle information - to convince someone of something - is intrinsic to human behavior or consciousness. And in fact, every piece of information delivered from a brain of one individual to the brain of another individual can be broadly classified as a marketing of sorts, e.g. a parent marketing good behavior to his/her child. In that sense, in the internet domain, we have primary marketing/propaganda in the form of the main article text, and secondary marketing in the form of what we call "ads". This secondary (or even meta) approach has never really worked that much (despite appearing so, given the sheer size of internet), and due to aggressive optimization and competition it has gotten out of hand to the point where people, and now big business, are reacting against it. Given all that, what I think will happen, is that the force behind the secondary type (ad, popup, flash) of marketing will regroup into the more stealth (and more effective) primary form of marketing, and new ways of tracking the success of it will have to be developed.
misterbwong 11y ago
I've worked in the industry for some time and I can definitely say that this is a big problem for publishers and that it isn't going to turn out how everyone wants. Ads are huge business and the main source of revenue for lots of small-mid sized businesses. I often see comments about how companies should move to a subscription (or pay per article) model but what you need to realize is that it will work for some (small number of) publishers, but is not tenable for most. Adblock is just an annoyance to publishers right now but once the industry starts moving on this, you will see MORE intrusive ads, not less. We're talking native in-content ads, "sponsored content" indiscernible from real content, first party scripts with evercookies...the works. Why? Because the publishing business is built on the 3rd party advertising model and this is the next logical evolution. Every publisher can't (and probably wouldn't want to) have their own sales, ad dev and ad servicing teams. This is what happens when adblock gains popularity and, unfortunately, it's not pretty.
subbz 11y ago
A big problem on all the adblocking is that it will result in more "sponsored content" - that can't be what we're looking for.
hsod 11y ago
A thought experiment for the "there's nothing wrong with AdBlock" set: Imagine a blog with quality original content that is relevant to your interests. Imagine that, the first time you go to that site, you see the following text: "This site and it's content are supported by advertisement. If you would like to read our content the only thing we ask is that you do not use an ad blocker on our pages. If this arrangement is unacceptable to you, we understand and there are no hard feelings, we simply ask that you refrain from accessing the site. There is no enforcement mechanism-- this agreement is based on the honor system." Would you still block ads on the site? If you answered no, a follow up question: Are all ad-supported sites saying this implicitly?
- kinghajj 11y ago
  > Would you still block ads on the site? Yes. Even the "non-obtrusive" ones. My computer, my browser, choice; I'm under no obligation to interpret their content as they intended.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    And you would still visit their site? So basically you're an ass.
    - kinghajj 11y ago
      What if a TV station were concerned about people looking away during commercials, and decided to air a message stating "If you are not comfortable watching our ads, all we ask is that you please do not tune to our channel." Would you think that someone who continued to close their eyes is an "ass"?
  - hsod 11y ago
    But aren't you entering into an implicit agreement with the site owners? Is it not wrong to intentionally violate an agreement you entered into willingly? Lets take advertisement out of it, since people feel strongly about it. What if the site asked you to donate one dollar to a particular charity? And if you are unwilling or unable, please simply stop using the site, thanks and have a nice day. Again, no enforcement-- honor system. Would it be "right" to continue using the site but refuse to donate? What if it was a cause you disagreed with? What if the money went to the site owner, not a charity?
rsync 11y ago
I think we know what a post-ad (or "blocked") landscape looks like ... just look to NPR and boingboing. At NPR: major movies, product launches, etc., are framed as stories and are given decent editorial treatment. But it's just part of the PR Blitz package that the advertiser is taking out into the marketplace. There's a TV commercial, a magazine ad, a Charlie Rose booking, a Terry Gross segment ... and a pre-written 80 second slot for "Here and Now". It's just part of the blitz and it's just pacakged slightly differently when it plays on NPR. But make no mistake that Terry Gross interview with Mr. Phoenix as "Her" was moving into theaters was not a coincidence.[1] at boingboing: constant, never-ending "stories" that are nothing but frames of words for amazon affiliate links. They've gotten very brazen about it[2], but other outfits could be more subtle and I think you'll see it. [1] Highly recommended. Hilarious interview. At one point, Phoenix forgets what her name is and at no point does he even know what show he's on. Classic. [2] Regular postings along the lines of "remember that one movie ... man that was great ... two more lines of content ... affiliate link to the DVD".
- slfnflctd 11y ago
  I remember when "Here and Now" first appeared on my local npr affiliate. I was taken aback at how out of step with their other content it was-- unintellectual, poorly informed host(s), focused on the latest 'hot' media topics du jour (minus the insightful introspection found on other npr programs)... for me, it added nothing of value, and felt like a waste of my time, so I stopped listening and assumed others did the same. I can't believe it's still airing.
gukov 11y ago
"All of Facebook's revenue growth since it went public comes from one source: mobile ads" - http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-mobile-ads-responsible-for-all-growth-since-ipo-2015-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-mobile-ads-responsib...
psychomotikon 11y ago
Seems to me that ad blocking, if it becomes widely adopted could push advertisers and publishers to work together to place ads in a more dedicated way with individual publishers, skipping the ad server networks altogether. This would put user data back, and the control over ads back into the hands of the publishers and advertisers. Maybe not efficient at first, but closer to the original model that the writer describes for print ads.

253 points by r0h1n 11y ago

I wouldn't call ad blocking feature "revolutionary", but whatever.

Mahn 11y ago

The question that I always wonder is, is it really that devastating if people who don't want ads and wouldn't click on them hide them? I can't help but think that the kind of person that uses adblock-like software is also not likely to be the target group for most ads. It's only a tiny minority those who do click on ads after all.

s73v3r 11y ago
I'm sorry, but this argument has never been anything more than entitled bullshit.
- keithpeter 11y ago
  Is your rejection of the argument based on the value of data generated by the tracking cookies? Is there some other reason behind your response? Just interested.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    My rejection of the argument is based on the entitlement of people who make it. "I never would have paid for something, therefore I deserve it for free!"
    - keithpeter 11y ago
      I was hoping that you had some insight into the relative revenue generated by tracking and by clicks on the advert. The tracking I find onerous because of privacy and bandwidth concerns and I imagine will be regulated soon. The click-able adverts I have less objection to as I do not in fact click on adverts on Web pages - mainly because the products advertised are usually laughably irrelevant to my concerns and the subject of the article I am attempting to read (a point made by OP).

bargl 11y ago

Yesterday I started looking for an ad blocker that would randomly click ads in some of the sites I visit so as not to punish the website for the ads they are adding. I couldn't find anything, does anyone know if that exits?

austerity 11y ago
Why do you think punishing the advertisers is any better? They seem to be even less deserving of it.
- bargl 11y ago
  Honestly I haven't fully formed my opinion on this, I was really just curious. It sounds like an interesting problem. Right now, I tend to lean toward the idea that rather then fighting people tracking me I'd prefer to add white noise so they can't really tell where I'm at, but I really prefer this more for GPS then ads. I don't really care if ads know what I'm doing, if I want someone who won't track my searches I go to duck duck go. EDIT: If I REALLY don't want to be tracked I go to TOR + VPN, but I don't typically want to go through all that.
quadrangle 11y ago
https://dhowe.github.io/AdNauseam/ https://dhowe.github.io/AdNauseam/

antonmks 11y ago

Could be a good idea for Windows 10 - blocking all ads by default, including those delivered through browsers. It could seriously affect and even kill many current and potential Microsoft competitors like Google and Facebook.

s73v3r 11y ago
So you're killing ads in apps now too? Sounds like another great reason to avoid developing for your platform.

LoSboccacc 11y ago

Mobile Safari account for 10% of the whole browser market share (desktop + mobile) and ALL other platform already had the possibility of installing an adblocker, so I don't share the sensationalism of the article. what is pushing the adblockers is the resurgence of annoying ads that spam windows all over the place and/or redirect the current page to a temporary site. internet population at large can now use a search engine and look up 'block annoying advertisement' (first result, adblock plus) and 90% of them are in a position of installing an adblocker, Mobile Safari is just jumping late on the trend because awareness of it's customer, not because apple is ahead of the game.

EugeneOZ 11y ago

Good call to start revolution from the another side - from side of web entrepreneurs. If monetization of your web project done with ads, do FIGHT with ad blockers, such as AdBlock, AdBlock Plus and others. Change markup, track html changes after page load, find other ways to resist - don't let them ruin your business. It's important to stay "good citizens" - don't use popups, don't use huge banners, but it's up to users to decide if there is too much ads on your pages - not up to blockers. Blockers should start with empty black lists and only add records on demand.

dhimes 11y ago
Starting with known offenders is ok- a kind of collective intelligence on the worst ones. The trackers. Fuck them.

nemoniac 11y ago

Put "Apple" or "iOS 9" or something in the title.

joesmo 11y ago

"But wait, what about the moral dimension? The fact that if you block the ads, the sites lose their income?" What a ridiculous point. Sure the advertisers want to make this into a moral issue, but is it? No. It's not. Advertisers just feel entitled. They are not actually entitled to display their ads or make money. Even bringing up this point like it's a valid point for debate drags the quality of the article down. Advertisers not making money off people using ad blockers is NOT a moral issue. It's a failing of their business model. Nothing more and nothing less. Are we now going to say that they are too "insert adjective of choice here" to fail? Insanity!

hammerzeit 11y ago
Forget ethical questions, then, and let's talk economics. If you're not generating revenue for them, why should anybody who hopes to make money off of content choose to show you anything? What value do you represent to them? Why should they believe you?
- beerbajay 11y ago
  > why should anybody who hopes to make money off of content choose to show you anything? Nobody is forcing them to use advertizing to support their work/site. If they're not making money, they should change their business model.
- flavor8 11y ago
  I'll take "your broken business model is not my problem" for 200 points. There are plenty of places that I can buy content that I'm interested in. I'd far rather pay for quality content than put up with ads all over the web. As a plus side, paid for content might fix the journalism crisis. The death of content farms is not going to be a huge loss to the web ecosystem. Anything useful enough that people are willing to pay for it will survive.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    No, that's a fucking cop out. Answer the question: why do you feel entitled to view the content that others have worked to create for free? Why should we not expect the same of you? Why should we not expect you to work for free?

SG- 11y ago

Adblocking is already a thing on desktops/laptops and iOS 9 isn't going to ship with an Adblocker turned on or included. People will have to go download one in the App Store just like how they'd currently do in their desktop browsers. The only thing happening is that the functionality is going to be added letting people do this. I suppose the fact that the App Store is really simple to use will make it easier on top of likely having a good Adblocker featured on top. I'm already running iOS 9 dev build and have built my own Adblocker using the new APIs and it's been great, personally it makes me actually want to browse more content on my iPhone than before. Previously I'd just give up on some sites and switch to the laptop or not even load the content to begin with because of long loads and too many ads.

fvdessen 11y ago

I've been a happy Android user for a long time, but mobile ads are so bad that I'm seriously considering switching to iOS just for the adblocking.

GvS 11y ago
I use adblocking on Android for years. Have you tried this? https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=org.adaway https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=org.adaway
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >Requires root: Yes Some of us can't be bothered.
  - anc84 11y ago
    You are missing out.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      No, not really.
biafra 11y ago
Why not use Firefox and an Ad-Blocking plugin?
- robmcm 11y ago
  They could be referring to the app landscape too.
  - soylentcola 11y ago
    I'm a bit more torn on this one. I've used Adfree Android before in this way but for the most part, if an app is good, I'll buy the full version. If it's something I just use a few times for a single purpose (and it's still useful), I'd like the dev to at least see some payment for it. If it's utter shit and full of obtrusive and annoying ads, I'd rather just uninstall it and give it a bad rating.

mrkmcknz 11y ago

The amount of companies that are providing some form of tracking or advanced analytics based on traditional mobile advertising is pretty huge. This could eventually be an event significant enough to kill a number of companies.

luso_brazilian 11y ago
And when that happens it will be interesting to see what happens to all the user data they amassed. Good chances it will be a cross between the user data sale by RadioShack [1] and the scramble to acquire Nortel patents [2]. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/paularosenblum/2015/03/24/bankrupt-radioshacks-attempts-to-sell-customer-data-meets-resistance/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/paularosenblum/2015/03/24/bankru... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/01/nortel-patents-sold-apple-sony-microsoft http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/01/nortel-pat...
- danieldk 11y ago
  I think it is safe to assume that they will lobby to make ad blocking illegal before they go down.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
And I for one would say: good riddance.

vilmosi 11y ago

The overall article is of good quality but it reeks of Apple bias I personally find distasteful. >>> User experience is what Apple puts above pretty much everything else, and they’ve decided that they don’t like it the experience available through the ad-supported web, and so they’re going to do something about it. The reason Apple does this is to push content creators away from the Web and into native apps. Apple gets a cut on any money made from apps but not from Web ads. It's a strategic move that's not fueled by wanting better UX for users. I'll bet Apple won't consider "Install from Apple Store" type messages as ads. >>>That also plays into Apple’s other general message, about how it doesn’t track what you do when you’re using its products Bullshit. They have their own advertising network they want to push. That's the whole reason they're allowing Web ads to be blocked. So you'll see more of iAds. Nothing to do about "caring for your privacy".

kazinator 11y ago
You are spot on. Apple's obvious point of view is this: random websites not affiliated with Apple are using our devices to advertize to the user. That must be stopped! We own the device, after all, and if the user is going to be advertized to, we give the permission for that and want a cut. Plus the wild and wooly ads are obnoxious. We can decide what is acceptable to our users and how it is presented, for a better (though not ad-free) experience.
- dhimes 11y ago
  Imagine LG doing something like this with their TVs...
  - fuzzy76 11y ago
    Adblocking? I'd buy it in a heartbeat!
Steko 11y ago
> The reason Apple does this is to push content creators away from the Web and into native apps. This is baloney, Apple hosts free apps at a loss. The idea that Apple wants you to have an app for every website is absolutely ridiculous. Safari is one of the most used iOS apps today and will be so for at least the better part of the next decade. > Bullshit. They have their own advertising network they want to push. iAds is a rounding error on Apple's business. In all likelihood Apple sees a competitive browser advantage: people like X, Google will not do X on Android. They'll load up The Verge during the keynote and show that it takes 1/X the time that the top of the line Android phones do and 11 year olds will walk around telling each other that Safari is X times faster than Chrome.

alecco 11y ago

Good. The 2015 web sucks for mobile. Advertising is out of control and there's never going to be regulation to control. Thank you Apple! Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9940202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9940202

mrweasel 11y ago
I don't necessarily disagree, but there's also the possibility that mobile (and touch) is just a generally worse interface for navigation and content that a laptop or desktop PC. It has been a while since I used a phone or even an iPad for anything, the quality of the interface seems more like a gimmick or something that you would only use as a last resort. To me touch is the part that doesn't work, combined with the small screen size.

BukhariH 11y ago

As expected this is going to have a negative affect on ad revenues but what people forget is that publishers won't just accept lower revenues. They're going innovate. The easiest thing to implement would be a paywall but after the paywall we are going to see a rise in microtransactions for content. That being said there are advantages to the subscription model. Maybe, publishers will stop posting click-baity headlines and misleading content if they know they've got users locked down and dont have to worry about them going to other sources as much. But, on the other hand microtransactions are going to make content even more click-baity in order to convince users to pay for the content based on a headline and abstract.

alecco 11y ago
Good, no more blogspam/clickbait crap.
- sergiotapia 11y ago
  Precisely! I'm all for this quite honestly.
biafra 11y ago
Another way publishers can fight this, is to not show the content if they detect ad blocking.
tonyblundell 11y ago
The web is 20 years old. I think if this was going to happen, it would have happened by now. Outside of a few niches, people just aren't willing to pay to read websites. What I could see happening is premium content being bundled by ISPs. Pay for X package from Y ISP, get content from A, B and C websites. Kind-of like how TV channels are bundled. In all likelihood though, I think advertising will continue as is. Advertisers will just come up with cleverer ways of presenting it.
- FroshKiller 11y ago
  >The web is 20 years old. I think if this was going to happen, it would have happened by now. That's a failure of imagination right there. It took decades for cable to come along and disrupt broadcast television. You never know what's going to happen.

2bit_encryption 11y ago

"The uptake of AdBlock and its commercial sibling Adblock Plus has been gradual" Adblock Plus is in no way a commercial offshoot of Adblock. I thought Adblock went defunct, Adblock Plus picked up where they left off (plus extra features), and then at a later point Adblock returned. Despite the name, it's not some industrial commercial version of Adblock. They're different plugins, with different people behind them..... right? ABP is open source, too (according to its site).

r1ch 11y ago
Adblock Plus is semi commercial, they sell whitelisting services to publishers (you can pay them to have your non-intrusive ads show by default).

theseatoms 11y ago

I'm looking forward to the increased number of affordable subscription-based news and entertainment sources that spring up due to the inability to rely on bottom-of-the-barrel style ad revenue. (A model that isn't working for the majority of providers or consumers.) We've seen an explosion in quantity of content. I'm looking forward to an uptick in quality.

biafra 11y ago

I don't see any reason or indicator for a revolution. Ad-Blocking has been around for years. Also on mobile. It is nice that Apple finally has hooks for plugins in their mobile browser, but it is by no means a game changer or a revolution.

stephenr 11y ago
iOS has a substantial percentage of mobile web usage. In many parts of the world mobile devices are overtaking desktop devices particularly for casual web browsing etc.

jfoster 11y ago

Are Apple and Google needlessly destroying each others margins, here? Apple pushing ahead with this will just make Google desperately push Android as hard as they can. If Google's ecosystem were left alone on iOS, Google would have fewer reasons to push Android heavily. On the other hand, if Google need Android devices out there in order for their ecosystem to survive, they might be more willing to see Android devices put into consumers' hands at break-even (or even loss-making) prices. Apple will either see market share decline or need to sacrifice part of their margins to maintain share.

charlesarthur 11y ago
"Apple pushing ahead with this will just make Google desperately push Android as hard as they can." What does that mean, exactly? "they might be more willing to see Android devices put into consumers' hands at break-even (or even loss-making) prices" That already happens. Samsung's profits and phone shipments are substantially down, LG made 1.5cents operating profit per phone in Q2, Sony made a loss, HTC made a loss; and those are the premium handset makers, most of them part of conglomerates. All selling Android. "Apple will either see market share decline or need to sacrifice part of their margins to maintain share." This is a common refrain since about 2010. Hasn't happened so far.
- qq66 11y ago
  > This is a common refrain since about 2010. Hasn't happened so far. iOS market share has declined tremendously since 2010, from approximately 80% to approximately 20%.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > iOS market share has declined tremendously since 2010. Has it? It looks to me like most measures have current iOS smartphone marketshare at or above 2010, but down from a peak in 2011-2012. Android is a lot higher than in 2010, having eaten most of everything that isn't iOS
  - charlesarthur 11y ago

someuser1 11y ago

Honestly, the experience on some of these mobile websites is so horrible that I've actually started boycotting them when they're just too bad to endure. It's funny, as the screens get larger, the content space stays the same or shrinks. I think, "ooh more content on one page!" and they think "ooh more ads to cram in!" It's just the worst. Ads with tiny close buttons, ads that mimic the content on the page in order to get you to click, banners at the top and bottom of the screen. I DON'T WANT YOUR SHIT. I can't wait till all of that goes away.

forgetsusername 11y ago
>Ads with tiny close buttons I recently encountered an ad with a tiny close button that jittered, making it impossible to touch without triggering the ad popup. How clever.
- profinger 11y ago
  Which is why people want to block them completely lol
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Indeed. If you, as a content provider, depend on such ads then I'm sorry, but your business deserves to die. I wonder how long it takes for people to learn that they can earn money by not being assholes to their customers?
    - vinbreau 11y ago
      AT least many vloggers are moving to Patreon or similar services. I've funded vloggers whose content I've enjoyed and I've seen many make a living that way. I think that's the modal we should shoot for. You build an audience and then you monetize that audience in non-intrusive ways.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago

zodPod 11y ago

>>Of course, at this point we should step back and ask “why were the adverts there in the first place?” Oh yes, because they help pay for the content. In some – well, many, almost all – cases, they pay for all of the content. Honestly? I don't give a crap. Too many places have abused it and thrown stupid crap in just so they can make money. Just like the idiots who are careless with fireworks and then states ban them, the idiots have ruined it. It may not be fair or completely make sense but I don't want to see your ad NOR do I want your stupid newsletter so I'm going to block the modal window along with every ad on your site just so you end up losing money. My favorite has been the "Complete survey to continue reading the article" or "Become a member to continue reading the article". Both of which cause me to just go, "Ok, well screw your site then. I'll go find one of the million other publishers of the exact same article on the internet. You don't have a scare resource anymore because you're just another bullshit media rewriter."

redblacktree 11y ago
When I'm presented with "answer a survey to continue" ads, I purposefully don't read the question and pick an answer at random. I hope others do the same, so that the survey results are entirely useless.
- x0 11y ago
  Well, I do as well, so that's two at least.
- zodPod 11y ago
  In my case, if I actually answer it, I read the question and pick the exact opposite of what applies. "What is your age range: 0-17 18-25 26-35 <-Normal 35-50 50+ <- My answer" That way, if they're using the information for anything then I've hopefully screwed up their targeting at least a little!
AUmrysh 11y ago
My opinion is that they are serving me data, I can view/consume that data however I would like. It's not my responsibility to view the ads they put on their page, and if I want to increase the font size or disable javascript, that's my business.

sergiotapia 11y ago

I can't wait to try this out once it launches! I remember when the web wasn't littered with all this garbage and I'm happy that we can go back to those roots. Did you see how fast everything loaded when it didn't have to load 27 popups and tracker beacons? Next step is for Apple to enable a default privacy blocking block-filter and enable it on first boot. I'm going to buy my wife an iPhone 6 once this lands to send a message loud and clear to Apple that what they're doing is great for users.

blinkingled 11y ago

How long will this revolution last if content providers decide to not show content to iOS users? I mean if they exist to make money and they can't on iOS would it matter that there were hundreds of millions of them? With ad blocking it would be as if they never existed in first place. Perhaps the idea is for Apple to get the content providers to make apps so they get their cut? Perhaps it is better for the content providers if they make content for-pay only for iOS users and make it work because Apple's users don't mind paying for stuff? This is definitely not about Apple's good will for its users or love for the UX though - interesting how Apple and its fans like the perpetuate everything under "because Apple cares" banner!

thescrewdriver 11y ago
> How long will this revolution last if content providers decide to not show content to iOS users? Which begs the question: How long will content providers last if they decide to not show content to iOS users?
- verinus 11y ago
  depends on the market share and monetization I think. It would hurt content providers targeting the US much more than those who target the global market where iOS has a much lower market share...
- blinkingled 11y ago
  More like how long will content providers last if iOS users block their ads? Showing the content doesn't mean anything if they can't monetize it.
- danielweber 11y ago
  Someone has to pay the bills. It's conceivable that the iOS users are all loss-leaders telling their non-ad-blocking friends to read the article, but that's kind of stretching it.
  - thescrewdriver 11y ago

onion2k 11y ago

Surely the overwhelming majority of ads delivered on mobile devices are in apps, and iOS9 won't block those as far as I understand. This will drive more content sites to develop their own apps (and presumably wind down their mobile web offering). It won't kill companies; it'll kill the web.

jaydz 11y ago
The web would become a second class citizen on iOS and native apps would be the only way to access content. Those cheering this have not thought this through.
frio80 11y ago
This. I think this is going to be really bad for the web. Next year, we will all be screaming when we see more of "If you want to read this article and much more, download our App!"

cognivore 11y ago

>> If the site generates the ad, it’s suddenly a lot harder to block. << Seems to me that this is the loophole in the entire ad-block plan. Seems like it'd be relatively straightforward to make a system that pulls in the ads from various sources, brings them locally, and then displays them from the website's domain. Seems so obvious I'd think someone is already doing it.

zubspace 11y ago
What I would love to see is putting this whole advertising market into the hands of the webmasters. A system installed on the webserver, where the webmaster offers ad-space which can be bought directly by the advertiser. Ads will be hosted from the same url as the page. I believe, this could be a win-win situation for the website owner and the advertiser. - More revenue for websites - Better adds, because webmasters are interested in keeping their site nice and clean. - To spice this up, there could be a central authority which simply brings together those offers. The only one who loses are current ad networks.
- greghendershott 11y ago
  Yes, this seems to be the root of most of the problems described by OP and some comment threads here. In old school print ads, the publisher decides what is appropriate advertising for their readers. This needs to be possible for web site publishers, too. With status quo ad networks, AFAICT it's not possible. It seems that ad networks are a necessary evil to match many small advertisers with many small web sites. (No revolutionary "disintermediation" here; quite the opposite.) The question with distributors is, which end do they feel they work for? Today's ad networks view advertisers as the customer to serve. Instead, although I don't know if it's economically viable, it seems like we need ad networks who view the web site publisher as a client to serve. And who give publishers the tools to accept only ads they deem appropriate in terms of content as well as ad tech.
- Mahn 11y ago
  Except this wouldn't work well when you are an advertiser looking to advertise on hundreds of medium size sites simultaneously. That's one of the reasons middlemen like ad networks exist in the first place, so that you don't have to contact, negotiate and set up advertising with every single site individually.

midnitewarrior 11y ago

The side effect of this that Apple doesn't mind at all, is that it will help kill the Web and make people more dependent on apps.

dmritard96 11y ago

And the Ad-network rearchetechture is probably already built. The way all of these adblockers are typically implemented is an IP/DNS Name black list where the requests to those locations are stopped short. There is a super simple solution though, those who want to leverage ads for revenue can just bundle the advertising material into the content of the page rather than including the ads via third party ajax calls. Sure perhaps you could then play another iteration of cat and mouse by trying to tease out ads from NLP or with some sort of visual hashing, but at the end of the day, that is a much more difficult technical challenge than blocking ajax calls or bundling content.

pjc50 11y ago
Apparently the reason they're loaded separately in the first place is fraud detection. Bundling it into the page provides no easy way of independently verifying impressions.
- lifty 11y ago
  Theoretically, you could shift the responsibility of displaying ads and tracking users to the publishers, with requirements to publish back to the ad networks granular information about every impression. The ad networks could then check for cheating by randomly accessing the publishing website to make sure all the requests are reported back by the publishers.
  - 7952 11y ago
    Or shift the responsibility for displaying content onto the ad network! At least the page might load more quickly if Google are serving it.
    - dazmax 11y ago
      The Facebook Instant Articles thing is in a good position for this. Move content to special-purpose browsers controlled by the company serving the ads.
    - 11y ago

lottin 11y ago

It seems a little presumptuous to call this a revolution. "Catch up with the rest of the world" would probably be better term.

AlexMuir 11y ago

I completely understand why people use Adblock - it improves the user experience. Ironically hiding adverts is a just a side-effect; the improvement comes from speeding up page loads, and cutting down on cpu usage and bandwidth use. (I install Adblock for my mother to stop her seeing scams, but that's another thing entirely.) I've spent the past week optimising How a Car Works for speed (mobile is 55% of our traffic now). The average uncached weight of an article is 1.1 MB, of which 70% is Google Adsense and Facebook (the only two 3rd party scripts I include). I can't trim it any further and it's very frustrating - suggestions welcome btw. Almost the only suggestions that Google's Page Speed tool has left are to minify the scripts that Google and Facebook themselves are serving. I use Adsense because it's easy, pays fine, and the ads seem reasonably relevant. But the weight of crap being downloaded is absurd and I hate the idea of wasting some Kenyan's precious data allowance on an irrelevant advert that might earn me $0.01. In fact, I'm going to use geolocation to not include Adsense in countries where I earn nothing.

dublinben 11y ago
>I can't trim it any further It seems pretty obvious that you could reduce your page size by 70% by simply removing Google and Facebook scripts.
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  So obvious that they almost certainly considered it...
Vexs 11y ago
Thats one of the reasons I like uBlock origin- supposedly, it says the ad was displayed/clicked on a webpage, which means I don't deal with ads and websites don't deal with money loss.
- quadrangle 11y ago
  uBlock doesn't click ads in the background. That would be https://dhowe.github.io/AdNauseam/ https://dhowe.github.io/AdNauseam/

kuni-toko-tachi 11y ago

"People are getting p*ssed off with the huge data loads pages impose without their consent" This is an absurd statement. Users know that many sites are ad-supported. Whether they like it or not is independent of that, but consent is given by visiting them. Complaining that sites need ad revenue to support their operations is childish. The fair solution is not ad-blocking tools, but a general browser settings that says that you do not wish to see ads at all. This information should be transmitted to the site requested so that the content provider can offer you a subscription if they provide one or to serve you a blank page that says politely to buzz off. Doing an end-run around ads is no different that sneaking into the backdoor of a venue without buying a ticket.

gorena 11y ago
Consent? I send an HTTP request. Server sends an HTTP response. My browser (or not browser - is cURL violating "consent"?) interprets that as I wish. If you don't want to show me content, return a 3XX/4XX/5XX.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  And then you'd cry and moan that the big bad website is forcing you to view ads.
yoklov 11y ago
Nothing would prevent content providers from sending ads even if you selected that setting. In fact, that is almost certainly what would always happen, since it would require exactly no change from the current state.
zodPod 11y ago
It's not consent when you go to a mostly-text site and are served 14-15MB of content that you don't even see. Not when I have 2GB of available data a month. I am referencing a previous post on here but I don't remember any of the details except that the site they were using as the demo used like 14MB of data but was a page with a couple paragraphs of text on it because it was pulling in a bunch of ad information.

andrepd 11y ago

There are ad-blockers for virtually every PC browser and for Android. Why is a revolution impending because iOS 9 will have it too?

wiremine 11y ago

Some other data points to consider: a. The AdBlock Plus team has stated, "in it's current state there are still some issues, which render Content Blocking Extensions insufficient" to use as an and blocking platform. [1] b. Apple states that "if the rule compiler detects that a set of rules would negatively impact user experience, it refuses to load them and returns and error. [2] So, at least in iOS 9, it doesn't seem to be a complete solution for the type of ad blockers we see on the desktop. After reading about this, it feels like Apple isn't trying to kill the web in this version of the technology. Instead, it is warning shot across the bow, so to speak, for publishers with really crappy experiences. [1] https://adblockplus.org/blog/content-blocking-in-safari-9-and-ios-9-good-news-or-the-death-knell-of-ad-blocking-on-safari https://adblockplus.org/blog/content-blocking-in-safari-9-an... [2] https://www.hackingwithswift.com/safari-content-blocking-ios9 https://www.hackingwithswift.com/safari-content-blocking-ios... (quote is third paragraph from the bottom...)

shkkmo 11y ago

I don't see why this article mentions all those add blockers, discuses the moral implications, and then completely fails to mention Privacy Badger. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger > Because Privacy Badger is primarily a privacy tool, not an ad blocker. Our aim is not to block ads, but to prevent non-consensual invasions of people's privacy because we believe they are inherently objectionable. We also want to create incentives for advertising companies to do the right thing. Of course, if you really dislike ads, you can also install a traditional ad blocker. If more people used this type of plugin, it would provide incentive for advertisers and advertising to behave better while still allowing for the existence of add-supported business models. I don't even see any mentions of that plugin in the comments on this page? Are people not aware of it? Do they not like it? I do find that it isn't perfect. Some of the scripts that is blocks are sometimes required for website funcitonality. When page is broken I sometimes have to check and modify the rules for that page. This isn't ideal for normal users, but should be acceptable by people with sufficient technical ability (such as users of this site). As more people use it, I am sure this feedback will improve the rulesets that privacy badger uses.

ypcx 11y ago

One could say that Google has killed the internet, in the sense that information is fabricated, copied, rehashed and stolen with the exclusive aim of getting a "click" or a "page view". However, the drive to push or peddle information - to convince someone of something - is intrinsic to human behavior or consciousness. And in fact, every piece of information delivered from a brain of one individual to the brain of another individual can be broadly classified as a marketing of sorts, e.g. a parent marketing good behavior to his/her child. In that sense, in the internet domain, we have primary marketing/propaganda in the form of the main article text, and secondary marketing in the form of what we call "ads". This secondary (or even meta) approach has never really worked that much (despite appearing so, given the sheer size of internet), and due to aggressive optimization and competition it has gotten out of hand to the point where people, and now big business, are reacting against it. Given all that, what I think will happen, is that the force behind the secondary type (ad, popup, flash) of marketing will regroup into the more stealth (and more effective) primary form of marketing, and new ways of tracking the success of it will have to be developed.

misterbwong 11y ago

I've worked in the industry for some time and I can definitely say that this is a big problem for publishers and that it isn't going to turn out how everyone wants. Ads are huge business and the main source of revenue for lots of small-mid sized businesses. I often see comments about how companies should move to a subscription (or pay per article) model but what you need to realize is that it will work for some (small number of) publishers, but is not tenable for most. Adblock is just an annoyance to publishers right now but once the industry starts moving on this, you will see MORE intrusive ads, not less. We're talking native in-content ads, "sponsored content" indiscernible from real content, first party scripts with evercookies...the works. Why? Because the publishing business is built on the 3rd party advertising model and this is the next logical evolution. Every publisher can't (and probably wouldn't want to) have their own sales, ad dev and ad servicing teams. This is what happens when adblock gains popularity and, unfortunately, it's not pretty.

subbz 11y ago

A big problem on all the adblocking is that it will result in more "sponsored content" - that can't be what we're looking for.

hsod 11y ago

A thought experiment for the "there's nothing wrong with AdBlock" set: Imagine a blog with quality original content that is relevant to your interests. Imagine that, the first time you go to that site, you see the following text: "This site and it's content are supported by advertisement. If you would like to read our content the only thing we ask is that you do not use an ad blocker on our pages. If this arrangement is unacceptable to you, we understand and there are no hard feelings, we simply ask that you refrain from accessing the site. There is no enforcement mechanism-- this agreement is based on the honor system." Would you still block ads on the site? If you answered no, a follow up question: Are all ad-supported sites saying this implicitly?

kinghajj 11y ago
> Would you still block ads on the site? Yes. Even the "non-obtrusive" ones. My computer, my browser, choice; I'm under no obligation to interpret their content as they intended.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  And you would still visit their site? So basically you're an ass.
  - kinghajj 11y ago
    What if a TV station were concerned about people looking away during commercials, and decided to air a message stating "If you are not comfortable watching our ads, all we ask is that you please do not tune to our channel." Would you think that someone who continued to close their eyes is an "ass"?
- hsod 11y ago
  But aren't you entering into an implicit agreement with the site owners? Is it not wrong to intentionally violate an agreement you entered into willingly? Lets take advertisement out of it, since people feel strongly about it. What if the site asked you to donate one dollar to a particular charity? And if you are unwilling or unable, please simply stop using the site, thanks and have a nice day. Again, no enforcement-- honor system. Would it be "right" to continue using the site but refuse to donate? What if it was a cause you disagreed with? What if the money went to the site owner, not a charity?

rsync 11y ago

I think we know what a post-ad (or "blocked") landscape looks like ... just look to NPR and boingboing. At NPR: major movies, product launches, etc., are framed as stories and are given decent editorial treatment. But it's just part of the PR Blitz package that the advertiser is taking out into the marketplace. There's a TV commercial, a magazine ad, a Charlie Rose booking, a Terry Gross segment ... and a pre-written 80 second slot for "Here and Now". It's just part of the blitz and it's just pacakged slightly differently when it plays on NPR. But make no mistake that Terry Gross interview with Mr. Phoenix as "Her" was moving into theaters was not a coincidence.[1] at boingboing: constant, never-ending "stories" that are nothing but frames of words for amazon affiliate links. They've gotten very brazen about it[2], but other outfits could be more subtle and I think you'll see it. [1] Highly recommended. Hilarious interview. At one point, Phoenix forgets what her name is and at no point does he even know what show he's on. Classic. [2] Regular postings along the lines of "remember that one movie ... man that was great ... two more lines of content ... affiliate link to the DVD".

slfnflctd 11y ago
I remember when "Here and Now" first appeared on my local npr affiliate. I was taken aback at how out of step with their other content it was-- unintellectual, poorly informed host(s), focused on the latest 'hot' media topics du jour (minus the insightful introspection found on other npr programs)... for me, it added nothing of value, and felt like a waste of my time, so I stopped listening and assumed others did the same. I can't believe it's still airing.

gukov 11y ago

"All of Facebook's revenue growth since it went public comes from one source: mobile ads" - http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-mobile-ads-responsible-for-all-growth-since-ipo-2015-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-mobile-ads-responsib...

psychomotikon 11y ago

Seems to me that ad blocking, if it becomes widely adopted could push advertisers and publishers to work together to place ads in a more dedicated way with individual publishers, skipping the ad server networks altogether. This would put user data back, and the control over ads back into the hands of the publishers and advertisers. Maybe not efficient at first, but closer to the original model that the writer describes for print ads.