
The adblocking revolution is months away - r0h1n
https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/the-adblocking-revolution-is-months-away-with-ios-9-with-trouble-for-advertisers-publishers-and-google/
======
vilmosi
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".

~~~
danieldk
That's too simple. Apple (and others) have relentlessly tried to optimize
power saving. People like phones with a good battery time, plus I assume that
there can be significant cost saving if you can use smaller capacity
batteries.

They have probably come to a point where a significant amount of power use
during mobile browsing is caused by ads (both rendering and the extra network
use that it incurs). Blocking ads could be a welcome power saver.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
I would venture to say that the relentless push to move as much as possible to
the client has much more impact on battery life than the handful of ads we
typically see.

~~~
ska
What do you base this on?

Every measurement (not many) I've seen suggest that screen (size/resolution)
and network are the main culprits, outside of very intense CPU/GPU client
(e.g. games). I don't think I've seen a really good analysis, though, so would
be interested if you've got a reference.

~~~
saiya-jin
number one killer of my battery with last 2 phones? Wifi enabled. Doesn't
matter that much if actually used. Turn it off completely, phone lasts 2-3x
more.

~~~
collyw
Without wifi it might make the phone kind of useless, especially if you are
using it outside of your home country.

------
AlexMuir
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.

~~~
STRML
One optimization I do often - don't load the FB scripts until someone actually
hovers over an FB like button or share box. 99.9% of the time, they never do.
In the meantime, just mock the look of the button. We even mocked the like
counts et al by polling FB's API from teh server.

~~~
redthrowaway
What if they click the button before the script loads?

~~~
tvararu
If the buttons are rendered on the client, they won't show up at all before
the script loads.

------
zodPod
>>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
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
Well, I do as well, so that's two at least.

------
wiremine
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-an...](https://adblockplus.org/blog/content-blocking-in-safari-9-and-
ios-9-good-news-or-the-death-knell-of-ad-blocking-on-safari)

[2] [https://www.hackingwithswift.com/safari-content-blocking-
ios...](https://www.hackingwithswift.com/safari-content-blocking-ios9) (quote
is third paragraph from the bottom...)

------
someuser1
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
> _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
Which is why people want to block them completely lol

~~~
TeMPOraL
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
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
Indeed, even my favourite blogger whose articles I enjoy moved to Patreon and
I'm planning to budget money for him from next paycheck :). I'm much happier
to support people this way than through ads.

I'll be very happy to pay for content now that I am an adult and earn money
(there's a problem though; I owe my career in part thanks to a lot of free
content I could use as a kid). But I suspect that prices will have to drop -
the typical use pattern of the Internet is that of breadth, not depth. Myself
I visit many dozen different sites daily, often different the next day than
the day before. I derive value from all of them, but not enough to pay each of
them a few dollars of monthly subscription.

Or maybe this will finally incentivize people to build their websites to
attract and keep customers instead of clickbaiting and carpet-bombing with
unwanted ads.

~~~
vinbreau
"Or maybe this will finally incentivize people to build their websites to
attract and keep customers instead of clickbaiting and carpet-bombing with
unwanted ads."

This is it. We're suffering from the effects the "Content is king" mantra.
Instead of sites having highly focused content, the drive is to constantly
have fresh content. It's easy for a monthly magazine to have focused content
due to the schedule. When a site has to have new content every single day, or
worse, multiple pieces of content every day, of course that's going to lead to
excessive fluff of all sorts. The sites with the best content I visit seem
less concerned with frequency and more focused on quality. We're in a quantity
> quality phase of the web.

------
rsync
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
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.

------
joesmo
"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!

~~~
s73v3r
Apparently just like you feel entitled to enjoy the content others have made
for free.

~~~
thatswrong0
When a webpage is served to you, you are under no obligation to not modify
that webpage in any way. They gave the bytes to you for free. You can do
whatever you want to them once you get them.

If my modification of that content is depriving them of income, then that's a
flaw in their business model, not my ethics.

~~~
s73v3r
No, it's entirely a violation of your ethics. You are explicitly modifying
them for the express purpose of denying them income.

~~~
kinghajj
> No, it's entirely a violation of your ethics.

 _Your_ ethics, perhaps.

> express purpose of denying them income.

No, the "express purpose" is to deny the creator's intent for how to interpret
the markup, which has a side effect of denying content. Saying that the
"express purpose" is to deny content isn't a fair characterization.

------
dmritard96
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
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
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
Or shift the responsibility for displaying content onto the ad network! At
least the page might load more quickly if Google are serving it.

~~~
pjc50
This inversion seems likely to be the way it goes. Networks buying content (TV
model), rather than publishers buying ads (newspaper model).

People keep trying to start paid-for publishing networks. Maybe Netflix will
start reaching out to prominent youtubers and take them on as series? Maybe
Reddit should find a way of giving "gold" to the link target of a post as well
as just commentators?

------
blinkingled
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
> 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?

~~~
danielweber
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.

~~~
josteink
Considering how ios is the last platform to gain ad blocking, something
android, the majority platform has had for years, it's definitely stretching
it.

I don't think anyone would be able to make that argument with a straight face.

------
BukhariH
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.

~~~
tonyblundell
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.

~~~
hellofunk
Before the web, it was quite standard for nearly everyone to pay for their
daily newspaper. People obviously have no problem paying a little for the
news. Take away quality free content, and natural human interest will lead to
a successful pay model, possibly.

~~~
tonyblundell
True, but I don't think it necessarily follows that they'd pay for the same
content digitally.

One thing the web has shown us is that people still value tangible things
differently to non-tangible things.

You also have to consider the reason's people paid for newspapers... it might
have been the only way to get reliable content... to purport a certain image,
social status or political allegiance... to keep in-line with peers - did you
see this? did you read that?.. simply to pass time.

If you have a smartphone and five minutes to waste, you can cover all those
bases without paying for a news article. You can use Facebook, Reddit, Youtube
and discussion forums for subjects that interest you, for example.

Remember in the 90s when online store catalogues were pretty much just uploads
of print catalogues - designed with pages of content and no search
functionality. Or when people tried to make 'online malls' \- directories of
stores people might want to use in one visit, like they would a brick and
mortar mall? They didn't work because the analog to digital conversion isn't
just a straight upload process. It's much more complicated than that.

People interact with and consume digital content different to paper content.
Just uploading and charging a few pence to read isn't going to work IMHO.

~~~
hellofunk
Music is somewhat intangible and widely available for free, but it appears it
is also moving to a pay subscription model successfully.

------
alecco
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
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.

------
LoSboccacc
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.

------
SG-
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.

------
mrkmcknz
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
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/bankru...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/paularosenblum/2015/03/24/bankrupt-
radioshacks-attempts-to-sell-customer-data-meets-resistance/)

[2] [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/01/nortel-
pat...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/01/nortel-patents-sold-
apple-sony-microsoft)

~~~
danieldk
I think it is safe to assume that they will lobby to make ad blocking illegal
before they go down.

------
fvdessen
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.

~~~
pakled_engineer
If you have SU/root, or build your own system.img you can use a hosts file to
kill 99.9% of all in-app ads or apparently Adblock Plus has this feature too.
The only time my hosts file failed was some simple weather app that refused to
work when it detected no access to it's ad server so I rewrote it myself.

If you don't have root you can build your own VPN that can kill all ad
traffic, a service that offers this must exist somewhere. If this all sounds
too complicated buy an iPhone until Android enables an easy way to kill
annoying mobile ads.

~~~
soylentcola
Another option is to use something like AdFree Android which includes a hosts
file/blacklist that is frequently updated if you don't feel like making your
own.

------
theseatoms
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.

------
shkkmo
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
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.

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

------
2bit_encryption
"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
Adblock Plus is semi commercial, they sell whitelisting services to publishers
(you can pay them to have your non-intrusive ads show by default).

------
biafra
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
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.

------
misterbwong
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.

------
cognivore
>> 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
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.

~~~
Mahn
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.

~~~
interpol_p
You could still make the attempt to advertise on hundreds of sites
simultaneously, it would just require the authors of those sites to approve
your content and deem it suitable for their readers.

This is something that should be in your interest as an advertiser too,
because if an author thinks your ad won't do well with her readers, then you
are wasting your money by targeting them.

------
Mahn
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
I'm sorry, but this argument has never been anything more than entitled
bullshit.

~~~
keithpeter
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
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
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).

------
onion2k
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
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.

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

------
sergiotapia
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.

------
midnitewarrior
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.

------
hsod
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
> 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.

~~~
hsod
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?

~~~
kinghajj
So long as their HTTP server responds to requests received from me, then it is
"right" for me to perform whichever operations I choose with their response.
Once data is on my machine, I get to decide how to process it, not them. If
they don't want me to have their data, it is well within their rights not to
provide it to me.

~~~
hsod
Why must the restriction be technical? This is the whole concept of an honor
system. Why can't you use someone else's server under their (reasonable and
clearly communicated) terms?

I could leave a bowl of candy on my desk with a sign that says "take one"\--
there's nothing physically stopping you from taking the whole bowl, but that
doesn't make it OK.

~~~
kinghajj
> Why can't you use someone else's server under their (reasonable and clearly
> communicated) terms?

Well, for one, clearly communicated to who, and when? Before I ever receive
the first request, I cannot a priori know of any terms. Even afterwards,
you're assuming that a person has read and comprehended the information, which
is often not true. I suppose you'd say that's alright, but that when or if the
terms are even comprehended, from that point forward they should be obeyed. I
would still disagree, however. The crucial difference from your bowl of candy
is that sending an HTTP request is a kind of speech act. Having those kind of
terms on a web site fundamentally violates my right to apply whichever
voltages across wires I own. A better analogy would be a company that sets up
an automated mail-receiving machine that automatically sends a piece of candy
--along with a printed ad, let's say--back to the originator. It wouldn't be
right for such a company to demand that I open their reply in a certain way--
for example, by requiring that I look at the ad that came along with the candy
--because at that point, the candy and ad are mine, and if I wish to construct
a candy-extracting machine that prevents me from seeing the ads, then that's
my right.

------
bargl
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
Why do you think punishing the advertisers is any better? They seem to be even
less deserving of it.

~~~
bargl
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.

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

------
antonmks
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
So you're killing ads in apps now too? Sounds like another great reason to
avoid developing for your platform.

------
jfoster
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
"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
> 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%.

~~~
charlesarthur
"iOS market share has declined tremendously since 2010, from approximately 80%
to approximately 20%."

Not so. IDC data: iPhones shipped in 2010: 47.45m. Total smartphones shipped
worldwide in 2010: 303.9m. iPhone share: 15.6%.

iPhones shipped in 2014: 192.6m. Total smartphones: 1.295bn. iPhone share:
14.8%.

As a percentage of _all_ mobile phones (including featurephones), iPhone
shipments have risen steadily from about 3.3% (average across 2010) to 11.8%
(average first two quarters of 2015).

I don't know where you got your numbers from, but they don't match any I
recognise. (Equally, if you're using "market share" to mean "install base" \-
don't. They're not congruent.)

------
psychomotikon
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.

------
subbz
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.

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

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

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

------
kuni-toko-tachi
"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.

~~~
unprepare
>Doing an end-run around ads is no different that sneaking into the backdoor
of a venue without buying a ticket.

This is a curious statement.

Tickets are sold in limited quantities

Venues have limited available space

Those alone make the comparison completely moot.

A better comparison would be:

If I video tape (download) a tv show (website), and then watch it by fast-
forwarding through commercials (ad-blocking) - have i done something akin to
sneaking into a concert? Have i stolen something? I've certainly kept the
content creators from gaining an additional ad impression, which is how they
make money. What exactly was wrong here?

In what way is adblocking any different from using a DVR to skip commercials?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I find it very curious indeed. In my browser on my hardware in my home, the
marketing types are insisting that I _MUST_ watch their ads or I am cheating.

This is of course a natural impulse, for them. They put a lot of effort into
creating manipulative words and images, and there I go ignoring them. Must be
frustrating. But to claim I'm in the wrong is a species of hubris I don't
subscribe to.

When I buy the sunday newspaper, I dump the wad of ads in the trash before I
leave the convenience store. Nobody jumps out of the bushes and claims I'm
stealing.

In fact I make an effort to ignore ads all day long, whether its ignoring
billboards, posters, spam email etc. None of that is 'stealing'.

I sympathize with folks who see their livelihood disappearing as the Internet
evolves. But blamethrowing isn't going to move us forward. They'll just have
to come up with something new.

~~~
keithpeter
Actually, I rather like a clever advertising hoarding (aka billboard). Some of
the little ads you get on buses can be quite funny. These things occupy a tiny
percentage of my field of view for a few seconds. They may leave a trace of
positivity about the thing being advertised in a general sort of way.

The thing about intrusive adverts in Web pages is the visual noise and the
tracking of behaviour across sites. The latter will probably become regulated
in some way as the legislative systems respond to the properties of this new
medium. The former will prove self defeating ultimately - the more strident
the intrusion, the more people will use whatever settings/programs they can to
avoid it. I recently actually used a command line Web browser to read the
_text_ of an article - a few hundred words - because I could not actually see
the text in Firefox because of the huge file load contained in the page.

~~~
unprepare
Great post, i think you just missed one increasingly important aspect:

You dont have a monthly cap on how much of your surroundings you can take in;
many people have caps placed on how much data they can download.

There is an actual measurable cost to advertisements over a metered data plan.
It literally costs you money to even see an ad.

If it was 50 cents per MB, are you still going to enjoy that delightful little
advertisement that just cost you 3 bucks to see? (obviously a hyperbolic
price, but its the concept that matters here)

If you are 1MB away from your data limit and you go to some small website that
loads 2MB worth of ads - are you going to be okay with paying an overage
charge for viewing that advertisement?

~~~
keithpeter
I take your point - I have no hard and fast cap on this adsl broadband over
copper connection. Reminds me in a way of the annoyance with faxed adverts we
used to have decades ago - that might be a useful analogy if you are dealing
with PHBs.

