
Collateral Damage - secalex
http://textslashplain.com/2015/06/10/collateral-damage/
======
tommoose
Those who would class this move by Apple as the first volley in this war fail
to have noticed the ad creep - sites are _only_increasing_ the amount of space
per page allocated to advertising. When was the last time a site you visited
reduced the number of ads?

The way I see it, ads are trying to do two things: 1\. Monetise content 2\.
Drive sales/brand growth

Advertisers have tried to make up for ineffectiveness by increasing quantity
rather than quality. If the focus was quality, everyone would win.

There's probably more to it, but more and more obnoxious advertising is a poor
user experience; I don't think the audience will tolerate it for much longer.

~~~
fr0styMatt2
There is absolutely nothing worse than a site that pops up a full-screen ad
over the page content on a touch device. Especially when using a mobile
browser that's resource constrained as it is. I feel like more sites are using
these pop-over ads even though I've never seen it described anywhere in any
good terms.

Possibly up there with auto-playing ads that make any kind of noise (I don't
necessarily mind the ones so much that don't expand unless you mouse over
them).

I'm not against ads, I don't use an ad-blocker. I don't even mind ads on
YouTube. I mean, after all I'm getting all this content for free and they have
to be paid somehow. Some of the YouTube ads are actually quite clever and I've
ended up watching many of them on purpose. Still glad Apple is doing this, but
it's a shame that designers/developers couldn't show some restraint to let it
get to this point in the first place.

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

I don't understand. If I get linked to a website that requires me to download
their iOS app, I'll just close the tab. It's an annoyance, granted, but it's
not some new unfathomable horror.

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

~~~
baddox
I don't really want to access that content, by definition. I've always said
that. I use Adblock, and it's trivial for websites to detect that and make it
difficult to view the content. I fully support their right to do so, and if
they do, I'll just close the tab as soon as I realize there's no content
there. It's really not a problem.

~~~
rtpg
Someone at work sends you a link to the WSJ asking for your comments on it (a
thought piece on a competitor? who knows). The WSJ is now available only
through an app. How do you deal with this?

A hypothetical, but your web experience could become collateral damage as
well.

~~~
vbezhenar
Sending links to protected content is considered bad manners, even if only
registration or login via Facebook required. I would ask that person to send
me printed PDF copy of that article instead of link.

------
jcrei
Very good analysis. In the end, this combined with Spotlight having more and
deeper search results displayed, means that Google is under threat to both the
search and ad business. Game, Set... match?

------
4684499
I don't understand the logic behind this. Google still allow Chrome users
install extensions like ABP, right?

~~~
Kurtz79
I agree: my understanding is that Apple is releasing just an API, and allowing
ad-blocking EXTENSIONS, basically putting Safari and their mobile web browsing
(almost) on par with desktop browsers (including Chrome, as you say).

I don't see how the "most users" that are tolerant towards ads, which usually
do not install adblocking extensions on their desktop browsers, although they
have the possibility, have will feel the need of doing so in their
iPhone/iPad.

About the users that ARE bothered by ads and before they didn't have a choice,
and now they have.

------
amm
I don't get the point. Ad-blockers are available for Android and most non-tech
people don't even know that ad-blockers exist. So for the large majority,
nothing will change unless Apple ships with ad-blocking on by default (which
they won't).

I also think that blocking ads is everyones right just as it's your right to
record stuff on TV and filter/fast-forward ads. If business models based on
advertisement don't work out anymore because of blockers (which i highly
doubt), companies will adapt and start monetising their content in another
way.

Apples search integration is a different story, though.

------
josephlord
I don't like ads but I don't block them. What I really hate and like to
minimise is cross site tracking/profiling so I use NoScript and don't allow
common analytics and ad serving scripts to run. I'm really looking forward to
having options to do this sort of thing on iOS.

NoScript does stop many ads but that is a side affect from my point of view.

------
epaga
I think this is pretty insightful, especially since many web sites have
already started to go down this road: one example is ultimate-guitar.com,
usually the top Google result when searching "<song title> chords".

If you enter their site on iPad or iPhone, they display the chords but pop up
an ad for their native app (which is limited as a free version) that is nearly
impossible to click away and often automatically redirects to the App Store.
It is infuriating to see the results I want underneath an ad but not be able
to reach it.

I fear ad blocking will cause this effect to be all the more stronger rather
than weaker: sites will entirely move away from displaying content to users on
iOS and will force users to download their app.

The thing is that most users will become angry with the individual sites, but
very few will put any blame on Apple themselves...so it really is a pretty
brilliant evil plan on Apple's part.

------
liviu
This is a great announcement for regular users.

And think about: On the iOS, Apple has the control of annoying/fake/phishing
ads. On the web does not have. Even if ads will be shown on native apps, the
experience will be more pleasant for users and will reduce abuses.

~~~
owenwil
Regular users simply don't care.

~~~
liviu
I'm sure regular users care about their browsing experience and security, even
if they don't know/want to express their feelings.

------
abritishguy
Apple need to be careful, I'm surprised they haven't had an antitrust lawsuit
already.

------
ShirsenduK
Will the adoption go beyond the "tech crowd"? Most of my tech friends use
adblocks but those not linked with tech don't even care, they actually like
it! The ads that is.

~~~
makomk
That was true a few years ago, but apparently ad blockers hit the mainstream
recently, especially amongst younger people. According to surveys a quarter of
all web users and 40% of 18-29 year olds are using ad blockers.

------
adsr
Another point is the fact that mobile Safari wont allow the use of plugins. A
wild guess is that ad blockers are the most common plugin that people use, so
it doesn't seem unreasonable to add this in the browser itself as an opt-in
feature.

I don't really see the difference from using an ad blocker in the form of a
plugin, and blocking ads by turning on the feature in the browser itself. Ad
blocking is also a feaure built into the latest Firefox release.

~~~
planb
But Safari in iOS9 doesn't have an ad blocker, it provides an interface for
extensions to efficiently implement content blocking.

------
tempodox
_All is fair in love and war._

Up until now, building a web app seemed a viable alternative to being caught
up in a mobile platform you don't own. If you're ad-financed, that way is
blocked now.

The Internet used to be a means around those market access controls that were
exercised by the powers that be. It's not really a surprise that someone
finally found a way to grab this control for themselves, at least for one
revenue model.

------
malandrew
This would be a huge win if the DOJ brings an anti-trust case and somehow
forces Apple to treat ad-blocking to be treated equally in Safari and in
native. i.e. The consumer can choose ads everywhere or ads nowhere, but it's
not possible to opt into ads only in native apps. It would be double-plus-good
if enabling ad-block also prevents advertising that a native app exists.

------
facepalm
On the other hand, it might lead to users preferring web sites over apps,
because only the later would have ads.

------
xbmcuser

       This could backfire on Apple. Instead of asking people to install app websites can just show that this website is not supported in Safari on Ios and they should install chrome or Opera to view it. Just like they stop you from viewing a page if you have an adblocker installed.

~~~
Aissen
You can't have an alternative browser (engine) on iOS.

------
owenwil
We don't even know if it's an ad-blocking API yet, or simply used for things
like tracker blockers. It's a big question mark- how will Apple police what ad
blockers can do inside Safari? Yeah, the API exists, but we have no idea what
Apple is going to allow app developers to actually do yet.

Anyway, the premise that it's all "positive collateral damage" is reaching. I
agree some ad companies abuse it, but in general advertising has gotten
better, not worse, in my opinion. Most people -- non-tech folks -- simply
don't care.

The consequence of universal ad blocking could be that it becomes harder to
access quality content for free. I don't know what that consequence will be,
but it sure seems like a lot of content will just be paywalled or bungled into
native apps, which users will be forced into downloading to view what they
wanted in the first place.

I doubt we'll actually get to a point where the majority of the general
population utilizes ad blockers, however, and I'm skeptical about what this
change is _actually_ for.

------
rcostin
If a site gets its money solely from ads, then it can restrict its content
delivery to those who runs IOS/Android/whateverOS & browser AND displays the
ads. An ad blocker may determine displaying only of a partial content...

------
geuis
The argument that this is a move against Google is just dumb.

"The open web? Collateral damage." Also dumb.

Here's the thing. Actually _using_ the web is getting more and more difficult
from the phone. I have simply lost count of the number of content sites I
visit that completely destroy the ability to _actually read the content_ by
placing ads.

There are ads popping in once the page loads. I can see the content, then its
covered by some thing. Or there's a badly placed share bar or buttons covering
something. God forbid you visit a local/regional news site. If you don't get
hit with a "Click on the bottom to add us to your home page" button you're
luckier than a Russian playing roulette.

Like many other readers, I also spend a lot of time on reddit. I've noticed in
the last few weeks that Imgur is now hosting the _extremely_ annoying ads that
bounce you out of Safari and to some promoted app in the App Store. Imgur is
the primary source of image hosting for reddit and they're beginning to do
some shitty, spammy tactics. In many subreddits, and yes I'll cop to some of
them being porn related, its a literal crapshoot to tap on a link and not have
it do the same thing.

Apple's only responsibility is to its customers. This invasive ad stuff has
gotten so bad that its negatively affecting the ability of Apple's customers
to use their products in a good, user-friendly way. Its not Apple's
responsibility to guarantee some marginally successful monetization tactic
(advertising) that way too many companies try to use, poorly. Apple needs to
make their platform good for the people that paid them money for their
products, and those are the steps they're taking in this case.

Another point, Google has a dominant share of the mobile market with Android.
Why isn't Android the dominant source of mobile web traffic? Because its a bad
experience compared to mobile Safari. Google needs to improve their native
experience, and in turn you'll find them eventually building in similar ad-
control mechanisms with their browsers. You have to go to where your customers
are leading. Period.

Last thing is about the "open web collateral damage" thing. Advertising in
itself is fine. There's a huge need for people making and selling products and
services to let people hear about them.

Again, its not the responsibility of browser makers to let 3rd parties do
abusive things to their users, however. Advertising has gotten _out of hand_.
This utter drive for cpm has been driven to the extreme and its at the point
that companies have forgotten that their users and visitors are people, not
aggregated dots in a plot chart in Google Analytics. Spam/scam advertising is
not a viable industry long term, in the same way that patent trolls and record
labels suing their customers hasn't been.

------
tramov
Google always has the option to change its ranking algorithm. The more your
pay, the higher your ranking. Someone clicks on your link, you pay.

It used to be Google that was different from the other search engines by
putting its advertisings next to its search results instead of the search
results being the advertising.

~~~
errtnsd
False. You can't pay to get your page to show higher in organic results.

