They'll recommend Chrome (I am assuming the content blocker cannot persist across UIWebviews or WKWebViews). "If you want to view this content, download and install Chrome"
In this case, I expect Google and the advertiser's interests to align.
> All telling me to use Chrome would do is guarantee i never visit your website again.
Why should amartya916 care? If you'd have ads blocked, your visit would only use up bandwidth anyway, without a chance to generate revenue through ads. So without the "use chrome" wall for Safari users, s/he wouldn't generate ad views. With that wall, there's at least the chance of people switching to chrome.
* > He should care because you will go to his competition.*
Yes, thats an option. But with web publishing, which is mostly inbound traffic through search engines, that doesn't matter. That isn't exactly a niche where sustainable customer relationships are top priority.
* option 1: Safari user with ad blocker visits site. bandwidth costs: yes. ad revenue: no -> net negative
* option 2: Safari user gets chrome-walled. bandwidth costs: no. ad revenue: no, but slight chance of switch to chrome -> net neutral with slight chance of net positive
* option 3: Safari user goes to competition (= different google result). bandwidth costs: no. ad revenue: no -> net neutral.
If that happens, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple disabled iOS WebKit's ability to use custom user agent strings (i.e. all iOS WebKit browsers look like Safari to servers). That's all it'd take to stop discrimination of iOS browsers by content producers.
Really though, I doubt that much will happen. I imagine that only reasonably tech savvy iOS users will install ad blockers and the overall impact will be minimal, just like its been for every other browser that supports ad blocking.
In this case, I expect Google and the advertiser's interests to align.