
Crystal, iOS ad blocker, to accept money to let ads through - NN88
http://www.wsj.com/articles/propelled-by-apple-ad-blocking-cottage-industry-emerges-1443115929
======
byoogle
Open source, free, and no “acceptable” ads!:
[https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock-
fast/id1032930802](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock-fast/id1032930802)

I’m one of the devs and here’s the code:
[https://github.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast](https://github.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast)

~~~
pduan
How come none of these ad blockers work on iPhone 5?

~~~
numair
You have to have a 64-bit iPhone for the "content filtering" functions. The
iPhone 5 is the last 32-bit CPU-based iPhone.

~~~
dave_sullivan
Yeah, I love how they make it sound like old iphones "weren't powerful enough
to handle blocking ads!" when blocking ads actually significantly cuts down on
the resource usage. What's frustrating is that on their new phones you can
block ads in Safari proper, but apparently not from within an app like
Flipboard. I guess they're saving that particular "feature".

~~~
yuanchuan
Correct me if I'm wrong. I watched the Safari Content Blocker video that is
presented in WWDC 2015 and it mentioned that the list of content to be
filtered is compiled to bit code instead of reading it as a JSON file, which
makes it more efficient and less draining on CPU. Since it is compiled down to
bit code, 32-bit will not be compatible to 64-bit and that's why only the
newer iPhones and iPads are compatible. It is not that iPhone 5 is not
powerful enough but simply the CPU architecture doesn't support.

~~~
toyg
That's the most artificially overengineered solution I've seen in a while.
Since the adblock list is custom, it would have to be "compiled" on the phone
anyway, so arch mismatch simply doesn't apply. Even if it did, it could be
done at phone startup. It's "compiling" a list of strings, not building an
office suite...

There are so many high-performance/low-power ways to solve the extremely
complicated problem of "does a given string appear in a given list?"... this
is just Apple looking for excuses to force people on 5 to upgrade, as usual.

~~~
kalleboo
If Apple was looking for excuses to force people on 5 to upgrade, they'd
simply not support iOS 9 on that device at all...

~~~
vbezhenar
Supporting old devices is kind of marketing against Android. How those devices
actually work with new OS is another matter.

------
Karunamon
And just like that, Crystal was uninstalled.

Didn't take long for the conflicts of interest to show up!

 _" According to Mr. Murphy, he isn’t adding the option for financial gain,
but rather to make sure publishers aren’t overburdened by all-out blocking of
ads on their sites."_

My response to which is: "Who do you think you're fooling? You are taking
money to allow people to defeat the core purpose of your application."

 _Secret Media plans to only work with “premium” publishers who don’t bombard
users with large amounts of low-quality advertising._

Is there any other kind?

~~~
adiabatty
> > large amounts of low-quality advertising.

> Is there any other kind?

I'd say The Deck manages to be high-quality, low-volume advertising. One of
their rules is "our ad is the only ad on the page".

[http://decknetwork.net/](http://decknetwork.net/)

Artisanal ad networks targeted to web workers don't exactly _scale_ to the
rest of the ad industry, but non-irritating advertising exists.

~~~
tedunangst
This is where the people making the blocklists get stuck. Marcus Aurelius, ad
block developer, decides that the deck ads aren't that annoying, don't break
the page they're on, are low bandwidth, don't track you, etc. And so MA leaves
them out of the list. But everyday he gets 100 bug reports "I still see
ads!!!" from users who never want to see a single advertisement on any site
ever. What's MA going to do? Probably give up.

~~~
kawera
Or maybe build a "Block this" feature on touching.

~~~
tedunangst
The architecture of iOS content blockers seems not to allow that. No
information is allowed to flow from safari to the ad block app (to allay
concerns that the app itself is spying on you).

------
lukezli
For a free alternative that allows full customization of content blockers, try
out my app, Safari Blocker: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/safari-
blocker/id1011678834?...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/safari-
blocker/id1011678834?ls=1&mt=8)

~~~
arete
Safari Blocker is great, thanks Luke! Being able to add rules on the fly is
really handy.

~~~
lukezli
Thanks a ton! Lots of great features planned in updates: user whitelisting in
Safari, better default blockers, native iPad support, OSX extension. Will
continue to be free

------
noobie
Purify: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-
simplest...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-
simplest/id1030156203?mt=8)

Safari Blocker: [https://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/safari-
blocker/id1011678834?...](https://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/safari-
blocker/id1011678834?l=en&mt=8)

------
fwn
> Eyeo declined to disclose which companies are on its “whitelist”—those that
> escape ad-blocking.

Yeah, right.. [https://easylist-
downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...](https://easylist-
downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt)

~~~
equalarrow
Seriously.. This is unbelievable.

I think there's a lot of room for devs that will stand for their users. My
friend is actually releasing a pretty killer, no holds barred blocker (it's in
the approval process):

Halcyon Blocker:
[http://www.halcyonblocker.com](http://www.halcyonblocker.com)

He's the only one I've seen come forward saying he's 100% committed to privacy
and his app does not download anything. He curates the lists himself (I've
helped profiling some of his block rules).

I have a beta and it's fast, clean, and works. Can't wait for it to come out.
He's pretty excited too.

~~~
lorenzhs
There's no information flow from Safari to the adblocker app, so that privacy
point is really moot. Baking in the filter lists instead of downloading them
from a server seems like a pointless restriction, preventing users from
customizing the filter lists.

------
kylec
In addition to deleting Crystal, I also suggest writing a review and
requesting a refund.

~~~
542458
It sounds like it's optional. I can understand why you'd want to leave a
negative review, but it seems a little extreme to demand a refund when the old
functionality is still there and presumably fairly simple to switch to. It
still does exactly what you paid for.

~~~
Gys
No, it does not what I expected. I expected it to block all ads. Not to only
block ads that do not pay them money.

------
jrochkind1
If I as a user pay double for the Crystal app, can I block the ads even of
those companies that has paid them to let the ads through? Hm, then maybe
Crystal could charge companies double to get their ads through even double-
paying consumers... then there could be a triple-pay tier... I think I see the
business model.

~~~
hackerboos
> business model

Extortion isn't a business model.

------
Gys
Taking money from both sides ? I don't like that. Just bought it and got
refunded when I reported it as a problem: 'wanted to buy another one'. But
maybe that is something that only works in Europe ? Refunding, I mean ?

~~~
fnayr
No, Apple will give a refund to anyone in any country that asks for any
purchase on an app or IAP.

------
gglitch
The word for this is "bait and switch."

------
polysaturate
Good ole computer age extortion! I think I may continue to wait out the iOS ad
blocking apps, as these things continue to shake out.

I, however, am genuinely interested to see if this generates and revenue or if
everyone just disregards the app(consumers and publishers)

------
akramhussein
Unreal. These content blockers aren't hard to make. I started one the other
day and couldn't believe they charge for them. Maybe I'm missing something?

~~~
trimbo
No it's just the traditional "first to the app store with new feature" cash
grab.

------
MattOfNZ
This is what concerns me most about as blockers; the potential for collusion.
Without transparency around rulesets, they are fundamentally untrustworthy.

That comment in the iOS content blocker screen where it says that a blocker
cannot send information back to the app is very literal; while it can't
communicate with the app, it could communicate with the outside world.

I wrote a proof of concept showing how a content blocker can be used to
disclose a unique tracking token across all domains - seeing collusion
happening with one of the biggest blockers makes me think that this could
actually happen. It's a little inelegant, but it shows that it's possible.

Proof of concept for those interested -
[https://github.com/MattOfNZ/Hypercookie](https://github.com/MattOfNZ/Hypercookie)

Any feedback on how practical this seems would be appreciated, I am not sure
if my concerns are real or unfounded.

Edit: swapped 'seeing this' for 'seeing collusion'

------
jobu
All of these blockers use SFContentBlockerManager which only blocks ads for
Safari and any apps that use SFSafariViewController (basically none).

Does anyone know if it's possible to do ad blocking through the
NEFilterProvider classes?
([https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Networ...](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/NetworkExtension/Reference/NEFilterProviderClassRef/index.html))
This looks like it would block requests at a lower level, possibly for all
Apps. Has anyone else tried digging into it?

~~~
anonred
A quick search shows that NEFilterProvider requires the device to be
supervised to work.

~~~
vbezhenar
It's not hard to supervise the device. Majority of users won't bother, but
there's still market, I'm sure.

Another approach is to sell ad-less VPN. User will have to install custom root
certificate, so VPN server can MITM secure connections in order to strip and
block ads. It's certainly easier to setup.

------
alkonaut
So which blocker should I install now that I removed Crystal?

~~~
bobbles
Purify is another good one. They seem to be pretty determined to soak up all
the customers the others are going to lose from being dodgy bastards

~~~
hyperbovine
I'm happy with purify. Try disabling scripts and images--it's not as bad as
you think! Pages load like it's 1997.

------
manigandham
This is the tough part about both sides.

Being all or nothing means good ad networks and publishers are hurt but
removes any arbitration and slippery slope issues.

Or they can try to do an "acceptable ads" list but in this case it's always
inevitable abused and turned into some extortion scam with the highest bidders
(who usually have the worst ads) getting through.

It would be best if there was an neutral industry group that didnt make
adblocker software or sell ads and worked with all 3 sides to come up with a
real democratically approved list of vendors.

~~~
Karunamon
What I don't get is why payment is involved in this process _at all_. If you
want to build an adblocker as a project, fine. If you want to allow ad
companies to apply for whitelisting, ehh, but at least make the option off by
default.

Taking money for the process just _screams_ corruption.

~~~
manigandham
Because its "abused and turned into some extortion scam"

The current whitelist is nothing but a business model run by an adblocking
company and makes them millions. It is NOT in the interest of the consumer and
doesn't verify ad standards for anyone. Just look at some of the companies
they let through - it includes clickbait links, in-image banners and autoplay
videos inside articles.

------
KenanSulayman
And it's deleted. Thanks

~~~
ceejayoz
Don't just delete it. Go to
[https://reportaproblem.apple.com/](https://reportaproblem.apple.com/) and get
an (instant, no questions asked) refund.

------
manicdee
I can not understand Secret Media's twisted rationalisation of simultaneously
wanting to avoid bombarding users with ads, and developing techniques to
bypass ad blockers.

Any site that starts displaying auto-play ads with sound will not get any
repeat visits from me. Surely they realise that this escalation is a bad idea?

~~~
qq66
Well, if you're blocking a site's ad, the site probably doesn't want you as a
repeat visitor.

------
PhasmaFelis
I would be an enthusiastic user of a curated adblocker that only allows
_actually_ non-intrusive, non-deceptive ads. (No autoplaying video or sound,
no popovers, nothing that flashes or vibrates, no "one weird trick"...) I
really would like to support the sites I use, if I could find a happy medium
that let me do so without undue irritation or excessive effort on my own part.

Anything that requires the ad company to pay seems like the wrong way to go
about it, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. This would require a fair
bit of active, ongoing curation, and that has to be paid for somehow.

~~~
geoelectric
Same here.

If someone were just completely up front about what they were doing and came
out with "BlockCrappyAds," I'd run it in a heartbeat. I'm OK with small
filesize, static ads. I just don't want anything active.

Get me something that will only download ads if they're under some certain
acceptable size (with size attributes declared in HTML), only on the base
layer of the page (no modal overlays), and only jpgs/pngs/text with no active
content. I'd run that.

------
kemayo
Looks like Purify (the previous number two blocker) picked a pretty good time
to announce it was having a sale [1], and also say they'll never do this [2].

[1]: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-
simplest...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-
simplest/id1030156203?mt=8) [2]:
[https://twitter.com/purify_app/status/647188444720951296](https://twitter.com/purify_app/status/647188444720951296)

------
supercanuck
This is like Tivo 10 years ago but now that we're talking jnternet companies
instead of old stodgy broadcasr companies, hallelujah, We've found Jesus!

------
anonymousab
An advertising industry where content is still 'free' (paid for by
advertising) but the actual curation and safety costs are foisted onto the
advertiser rather than the consumer - through a third party - is a nice
middleground to strive towards.

But if this app doesn't allow pre-existing owners to turn off this feature,
that's a pretty blatant bait-and-switch. Extremely anti-consumer at that as
well.

------
argklm
I would be glad to see something like this
[https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/](https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/)

I'm glad supporting people deserving it. I'll stick to my whitelist on iOS for
a non greedy adblocker. Sadly, this is getting about who makes more money
rather than offering a better web...

------
yoz-y
I really hope that someday there will be a good, curated and vetted ad-
blocking list which will take into consideration how intrusive ads are.

I don't want to block all of the ads since it is how the content producers get
paid. But the current situation is really either/or. I don't seem to find any
ad blocker that just removes unacceptable ads.

Demanding ad networks to pay is plain extortion.

~~~
tobltobs
And of course the guys curating this list should do this for free, just for
the fun of it.

------
pavornyoh
So what does the creator of Crystal consider "acceptable ads" based on this
post? “Given how popular Crystal has become, it doesn’t provide any way for
users to support publishers,” he said. “I decided that’s a good feature to
provide, and from what I’ve seen the ‘acceptable ads’ policy doesn’t let
through what I’d classify as bad ads.”

Why take money?

~~~
kylec
The acceptability of the ad is determined by how much the ad company is
willing to pay him to let it through.

------
bandicity
I recommend Patreon vs. traditional Internet ads.

Then I know what Content Creators can budget in from month to month.

Plus people block ads in a variety of ways.

------
calcsam
Ad-sponsored services make you the product. These paid ad blockers make you
_and_ the advertisers the product.

~~~
Spivak
What? The advertisers are explicitly the customer.

------
kctess5
It's interesting to me how the "Acceptable Ads" thing has managed to inserted
itself in the middle of all of this - for a price of course. Yet another
middleman which skims off money from the content producers, but this time
under the guise of helping them get impressions.

------
vortico
Again, using free/libre software on your device would solve this problem. Any
users of the software could modify the source code of the program and then
share the change with other users of the software, making this a non-issue.

------
WWLink
The word I want to use to describe a developer that sells their program, and
then does something like this to their customers.. yeah I'm not going to allow
myself to use that word here.

~~~
bobbles
I guess what it means is that the advertisers were willing to throw more money
at him for doing this than he made from selling the app.

Sounds like a stupid plan though as the users will obviously go for something
better and the deals will end up being worthless

------
CIPHERSTONE
It's called "Bait & Switch". Crystal dev - If you read this, you should be
ashamed of yourself. Very convenient for you after you have my money.

------
gecko
What's a good ad-blocking browser on Android, if any? I want to like Firefox
with uBlock, but it's honestly just a lot slower than Chrome.

------
amelius
Why is this acceptable in the App store? I was under the impression that this
store had strict rules in order to guarantee user satisfaction.

~~~
nicky0
Yes, rule 5.6: Apps must satisfy the user. Apps not deemed to be deeply
satisfying will be removed from the store.

------
rajacombinator
Reading through comments here that Taboula and Outbrain can be blocked has me
interested in ad blockers for the first time ever.

------
plg
Come on, EFF, please develop an ad blocker

~~~
tobltobs
I do not think that the eff want to help to make the web a playground for big
companies only. They do not have anything against small publishers, so why
should they develop a adblocker?

~~~
Spivak
Developing an application to block all tracking scripts would technically
contain an ad blocker as a subset.

------
berberous
"Mr. Murphy said he has taken Eyeo up on its offer, and plans to implement an
option within his app whereby “acceptable” ads will be displayed to users. The
feature will be switched on by default, Mr. Murphy said, and he will receive a
flat monthly fee from Eyeo in return."

Whether or not this is in bad faith, so long as there is an option to switch
it off, I don't really care.

~~~
kylec
How hard do you think he will continue to work to block the ads of his
business partners? Even if there's a switch, his incentives are not aligned
with the users of his app.

------
cheshire137
Moving on to Purify. "Acceptable" ads don't say anything about blocking
trackers.

------
werber
eh, they were going to be kicked out by a better free version anyways. it's
nice to see such a fast change of face. It used to take a decade or so

------
tehwebguy
Ugh I just paid for Crystal this morning

~~~
ceejayoz
[https://reportaproblem.apple.com/](https://reportaproblem.apple.com/) lets
you request an immediate, no-questions-asked refund.

------
chocolait
It is chaos :)

Company pays to put ads in web pages.

You pay ad blocker to remove ads from web pages.

Company pays ad blocker to put ads back in the web pages.

You pay another ad blocker company to remove ads from web pages.

...

------
astannard
Sounds like a protection racket

------
brisance
How is this not a bait-and-switch? And thus fail the implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose?

~~~
nicky0
Ask for a refund and you shall get one.

------
jlebrech
Looks like extortion to me.

------
ypcx
Refund coming in fast.

------
tlong
Weak Crystal. Maybe the ad bloc guy will release one. He's cooler

------
dang
We changed the title from "Creator of Crystal, iOS ad blocker, to accept money
to let certain ads through", which appears editorialized (unless WSJ changed
their title). Submitters: please use the original title unless it is linkbait
or misleading, and definitely please don't use the titles of HN submissions to
editorialize.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Edit: ok you guys, thanks for the feedback. We rely on you to point out the
important exceptions. Title reversion reverted.

~~~
manicdee
The original heading was not editorialised: it was not an opinion or
interpretation but a summary of the content, and in fact the only reason I
read the article in the first place.

The new title, which does not show up in RSS, would not have attracted me to
read the article.

~~~
dang
Choosing the lede, i.e. highlighting the detail you think is important and
thus framing the story for everyone, is the essence of editorializing.
However, there are exceptions for everything and this is clearly one, hence
the fix above.

------
stevenh
The only reason Apple didn't bake an ad blocker into iOS themselves is because
they didn't want to get into legal trouble for what is obviously
anticompetitive behavior toward Google (AdSense). They instead encouraged devs
to be the patsies for the damage this will do, and they boosted these devs'
blockers to #1 in their app store so everyone would see them and download
them.

Spare me any preposterous claims of corporate altruism; this wasn't enabled
and encouraged by Apple to reduce page load times on the web. If Apple had
their way, the web wouldn't even exist anymore.

It's been transparently obvious for years that Apple would like to replace the
web with their own walled garden app ecosystem. Apple would also like to
replace web ad networks such as AdSense with their iAd network. This is what
we are seeing unfold currently. Their News app with its unblockable iAds is
another tentacle of this plan.

~~~
derefr
> If Apple had their way, the web wouldn't even exist anymore.

Apple certainly doesn't run any web _technology_ —they don't have skin in the
web-app game like Google and Microsoft and Amazon do. (They have a web store,
but on iOS it heavily suggests its native-app equivalent.)

But that doesn't mean they want their _users_ to not use the web. Web-browsing
is a feature; Apple invested a lot of energy into WebKit for a reason.

Apple just don't give a damn about the _supply side_ of the web; they don't
care if they kill every _web business_ in the process of giving users the best
web-browsing experience possible.

I have high confidence that if Apple could integrate something like e.g. Tor
into Mobile Safari without a latency hit, they'd jump at the chance. Better
privacy for their users! Breaks analytics and ad targeting? Who cares?

~~~
scoreponok
>giving users the best web-browsing experience possible

Do you really believe this is Apples paramount motivation? The only reason
this is acceptable is exactly because they have nothing to lose, only
everything to gain by hurting competitors that rely on advertising revenue.
Ask yourself this -- if apple iAds was wildly successful would they be taking
the same action? To ensure the "best web-browsing experience possible"?

> Better privacy for their users! Breaks analytics and ad targeting? Who
> cares?

Maybe companies that generate revenue using these tactics? Again if this was
Apples bread and butter they wouldn't be implementing any security measures
might interfere with their bottom line, user experience would surely be taking
a back seat to profit.

~~~
jkestner
> Ask yourself this -- if apple iAds was wildly successful would they be
> taking the same action?

iAds was only ever an offensive against Google. "Success" to Apple is Google
losing ad revenue, so you might say that the content blocking extensions will
do the job iAds was meant to.

~~~
scoreponok
Exactly. Apple isn't just promoting ad blocking for purely benevolent reasons
i.e "for the best web-browsing experience possible" \- they obviously have
other motivations.

~~~
derefr
Why would a publically-traded company do _anything_ for purely benevolent
reasons? Their investors would sue them.

"Providing the best web-browsing experience possible" isn't a benevolent act,
anyway. Another way to say it is "making the most appealing-to-use software so
your customers will buy your device instead of someone else's." Providing a
better web-browsing experience makes Apple money.

------
mark_lee
Using ad block is equal to infringing copyright, simplest don't use the app or
web stupid

~~~
mdpopescu
Hmm... Good point, thanks. (Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with the
second part - I'll continue to ignore both copyrights and ads - but I do agree
with the analogy.)

