>>> 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".
Apple won't consider anything as ads. What they provided was the hooks for developers to implement "Content Blocking Safari Extensions" . To quote the docs:
"Your app extension is responsible for supplying a JSON file to Safari. The JSON consists of an array of rules (triggers and actions) for blocking specified content. Safari converts the JSON to bytecode, which it applies efficiently to all resource loads without leaking information about the user’s browsing back to the app extension."
There will be competing AdBlocking extensions just like on Firefox, for instance. It will be up to the developers to create the rules of what should be blocked and what should be allowed.
a) do not track you
b) do not take up disproportionate amount of network bandwidth and CPU/battery
c) do not interrupt your viewing after the initial scroll down
My guess is that they would initially, then relax the blocking. Seems to be the preferred way to manipulate the populace these days (unless you have fear as a tool- fear is way better).
You might disagree, which is fine. Whether something is an "ad" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Which is why this stuff ought to be configurable.
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.
While the article isn't about mobile versions of these browsers, it speaks both to the importance of this issue as well adds to the debate about whether "User experience is what Apple puts above pretty much everything else."
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.
Look at how the iPod+iTunes morphed as soon as Apple realized how much money could be generated by adding DRM and a store.
> The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.
"Thoughts on Music" | Steve Jobs | February 6, 2007
And I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you. Taking Jobs 100% at his word (i.e. Apple was dedicated to DRM-free music, was in continual negotiation with the labels to strip it, and was contractually obligated to continue to use it despite their reluctance), here's how the timeline ultimately turned out:
* October 23, 2001 - First iPod introduced
* April 28, 2003 - iTunes Store w/ Fairplay introduced
* February 6, 2007 - Job's "Thoughts on Music" letter
* April 2, 2007 - EMI agrees to sell iTunes catalog DRM free (initially for slightly higher price)
* ~ August, 2007(?) - Universal sells DRM-free tracks on iTunes Store competitors
* January-April 2009 - Apple completely(?) removes Fairplay from all iTunes Store tracks
Now, you can dig up a few different charts concerning Apple's iTunes music sales. Presumably, they're all compiled from SEC filings, so they track fairly closely. Let's use these two: http://www.asymco.com/2014/02/10/fortune-130/ or https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/tag/app-store/ (both offer absolute sales, not % breakdown)
The most notable thing to me is that around mid-'07 to '09, you start to see music sales no longer experiencing the same growth. Incidentally, app and video sales begin in approximately the same period and fill in to maintain total growth -- no one ever accused Apple of being stupid. Point being, by the time Apple removed DRM (and debatable in terms of Jobs' letter's timing depending on how their higher-fidelity internal numbers were looking), music was on the decline.
End result: Apple had 4 years of first mover advantage, then did away with DRM at a time when music sales were no longer experiencing growth.
Are savvy business / PR decisions and coincidence from an altruistic Apple both explanations for the above? Yes. Do I personally believe Apple was pushing tooth and nail to undermine a key business strength of their platform the entire time? No.
(Feel free to correct my timeline or numbers if I'm off on something. This isn't exhaustively researched!)
 Your original claim ("as soon as Apple realized how much money could be generated by adding DRM") that Apple is the one that wanted DRM on music ignores the facts of (a) every other music store that opened at the time also had DRM and (b) the fairly common knowledge that Apple's money business was selling devices and that, in the time frame we're talking about ($0.99 songs), Apple made very little profit on music sales once you factor in the cuts to the label, artist, publisher, credit card fees and store costs (some discussion at http://ask.metafilter.com/23257/Show-me-their-money).
 No one said that Apple didn't want DRM for 'altruistic reasons' or that 'Apple fought tooth and nail to remove DRM', these are straw men you injected. I just made the obvious claim that DRM was a label requirement. Apple would have loved to give away the music for free, they would have sold a lot more ipods. Why would Steve Jobs write a letter about DRM at all if Apple secretly wanted to keep DRM?
 "Apple would have loved to give away the music for free, they would have sold a lot more ipods." This is where we disagree. I believe that they would have sold fewer iPods, as the incentives for purchasing another iPod over the an alternative player in  would no longer be present.
Per that belief, I consider the statements "Apple didn't want DRM for altruistic reasons" and "Apple would have loved to give away the music for free, they would have sold a lot more ipods" to be equivalent. If you don't accept the premise that Fairplay was vendor lock-in (as both Realplayer and a few lawsuits alleged), then obviously that wouldn't be altruism.
"Apple fought tooth and nail to remove DRM" is a question of motive and effort. The fact is they eventually did away with DRM because the market dictated it. The question is whether they did away with it (a) as soon as possible, (b) purely as a market response, or (c) as late as possible.
The statement that "Apple didn't want DRM, the labels insisted on it" is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether they made financial gain from employing DRM, and, if so, whether that impacted their timeline and dedication to removing it.
"Why would Steve Jobs write a letter about DRM at all if Apple secretly wanted to keep DRM?" That's where I thought the timeline was interesting. To me, it wasn't that Steve Jobs wrote a letter about DRM, it's that Steve Jobs wrote a letter about DRM after the growth portion of music sales was finished.
*Again, if you don't feel Apple benefited financially from the vendor lock-in provided by Fairplay, all of this is a moot point as we're going to arrive at radically different conclusions anyway.
- Ban flash. Biggest competition to native apps.
- Cripple the iOS web browser just enough that web apps trying to have native style performance will struggle.
- Release their own map to push Google out of their ecosystem. When that didn't work now
they are trying this.
Apple's business model is pretty simple. Aquire a user through very aggressive marketing converted into a device purchase. Use that device purchase a an entry point to take over all points of monetary action of that user. That means nothing(web, flash, credit card) should go through anything but them. You don't need bias to see something as obvious as this now is.
That's not why that happened. Flash wasn't "banned," Apple chose not to allow support for it in Mobile Safari from the beginning. It was never removed or banned.
Flash was a dog. Power hungry, slow, inefficient. I recently had to touch the codebase for an Adobe Air iOS app and the runtime is pretty horrific. Adobe never got flash good enough for mobile, and Apple was right to call them out on it.
Flash was never any good on Android either. Otherwise it'd still be around.
> Cripple the iOS web browser just enough that web apps trying to have native style performance will struggle.
Mobile Safari is a good browser. It's fast and is not crippled. It consistently beats browsers on other mobile platforms despite running on often slower hardware. A great mobile web browser is what made the iPhone a great product.
> Release their own map to push Google out of their ecosystem. When that didn't work now they are trying this.
This is because Apple's contract with Google expired and they had to renew on terms that they could not agree to. My recollection of this is that Google wanted a bigger branding presence on the iOS home screen and refused to license mapping data for turn-by-turn navigation (I believe they wanted the Apple-developed Google Maps application to be branded "Google Maps" rather than just "Maps"). Apple saw no way out aside from investing in their own mapping data and infrastructure.
> and lo it came to pass.
So Apple jettisoned Google to do it themselves. Then Apple discovered that mapping isn't nearly as easy as Google made it look when their users were unhappy with a decidedly inferior product.
There is no way Apple was going to brand iOS, which is understandable — that would be like seeing an "Intel Inside" sticker on a MacBook.
And there was no way Google would just "hand over" a differentiating feature of Android to their biggest competitor.
Google, Mozilla disable Flash over security concerns http://www.marketwatch.com/story/google-mozilla-disable-flas...
Even this Flash proponent admits, "Jobs was slightly ahead of his time" in You don't have to be a villain to say Flash must die* http://www.macworld.com/article/2948131/software-web/you-don...
Banning Flash has been a boon to HTML5 uptake.
YouTube Switches to the HTML5 Player in Chrome http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2014/05/youtube-switches-to...
RIP Flash: Why HTML5 will finally take over video and the Web this year
How Adobe Is Moving on From Flash to Embrace HTML5 http://www.cio.com/article/2376661/internet/how-adobe-is-mov...
In other words Apple has helped HTML5. Intentionally crippling the iOS web browser? What usaphp said.
As to Maps, Google pushed themselves out: Apple ditched Google Maps over turn-by-turn navigation spat http://news.yahoo.com/apple-ditched-google-maps-over-turn-tu...
That was a version of flash, and after the bug was fixed, it was reenabled. How is that in any way comparable?
"The full Safari engine is inside of iPhone. And so, you can write amazing Web 2.0 and Ajax apps that look exactly and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone. And these apps can integrate perfectly with iPhone services. They can make a call, they can send an email, they can look up a location on Google Maps.
And guess what? There’s no SDK that you need! You’ve got everything you need if you know how to write apps using the most modern web standards to write amazing apps for the iPhone today. So developers, we think we’ve got a very sweet story for you. You can begin building your iPhone apps today."
There was no SDK initially. Webapps were the _only_ way to put your app on the iPhone. My understanding is that developers demanded an SDK, though.
It seems that part of the reason for not wanting native Apps is because Jobs felt that policing an app store would be too difficult. As to whether the current browser is purposely crippled for the sake of directing people to native apps, I think that might be a bit difficult to prove. Is it perhaps instead that native apps naturally provide better performance, developers demanded it, and so Apple focuses its resources there? Shrug.
Some more detail here: http://www.cultofmac.com/125180/steve-jobs-was-originally-de...
Are you saying that web apps run on android browser smoother than on iOs Safari? I don't think so...
> "Ban Flash. Biggest competition for apps".
I think Flash was banned because it's crap in terms of security and battery drainer, not much because its a competition to apps.
You seem to be pretty bias in your comments...
> 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.
My points were evidence to the contrary of that statement. I was not discussing the motivations of Google in regards to their users.
My point is that Apple's business model is about expansive control of a highly profitable user base. It uses an expensive device purchase(which increases the pain point of a user leaving) through aggressive marketing to attempt to be the primary source of as many monetary behaviors of that user as possible.
Flash(and upcoming AIR) was at the time a true contender for becoming the cross platform desktop/native type application interface. Once Apple banned Flash, companies moved away from the platform and it withered.
Since you brought up the Android browser, we can use it as an example of a company who would prefer to increase the use of the web. Google actively tries to increase adoption of the mobile Chrome browser as it cannot control the the updating schedules of phone vendors. Bases upon browser statistics it appears Google is having some success.
Google is not any better, but we can look at the difference in their behavior as an example of a difference in business model. Google and Facebook are somewhat dependent(at this time) on some attributes of the web. This difference in these companies(including Apple) can be shown in their support for deep linking.
And to prove I am not picking on Apple directly, part of Google's business model is to leverage their search results to expand into other monetary behaviors of their users as well.
Technology implementations by large tech companies are typically more indicative of their business intentions as opposed to their abilities. I'm not saying that Apple is any worse than any other company. Only that their particular business model at this time is, in my opinion, the most dangerous to the overall ecosystem and tech economy.
Simply not true. Flash continued to be made available for Android, and Adobe boasted of the number of installs it would have (200m by the end of 2011, it claimed ). Apple had, and has, a small share of the mobile and desktop market. But nobody could get Flash to work well on mobile. That is why it died.
 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/feb/14/mobil... (disclosure: by me. I was there.)
Well, except native apps didn't exist when the iPhone launched and Steve Jobs was famously opposed to them.
If you think that, you should watch this https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2015/?id=501
Because Flash was buggy as all hell, and ran like absolute shit on mobile. Remember the short time it was available for Android? Remember how no one really used it, because it was crap? Remember how Adobe gave up because they couldn't do it worth a damn?
"- Cripple the iOS web browser just enough that web apps trying to have native style performance will struggle."
You're gonna need a citation for that one.
"Release their own map to push Google out of their ecosystem. When that didn't work now they are trying this."
Yeah, no. Apple and Google had a dispute over licensing. They were unable to resolve their differences, and so they parted ways amicably. Google Maps is still freely available for iOS, and developers are still able to use it in their apps.
"You don't need bias to see something as obvious as this now is."
No, but apparently you need a tinfoil hat.
How about all the different ways Apple breaks the web for its own sake? Things like the HTTP Protocol are fundamentally broken by Apple, and this is not ok.
They are a despicable company, a dragon only interested in increasing its cash reserves. I do not understand the support they are getting from the developer community, they shit on them constantly, make their life difficult, and forces them to buy Apple.
This latest move is even more despicable as its pushed as positive for the user, landing them good PR, when in fact its all about levering Apple's stronghold on users to push iAds. They are a company for profit, and their history shows they don't do anything for users, they do it for them.
They should be criticized and hounded as a toxic company for the web.
What do you mean?
Toady Google have more resources invested in Blink than Apple do in Safari, but don't forget how we got here.
There's no telling where things would be if Google had gone a different route. What if they bought Opera? What if they forked KHTML themselves? It could have been better, it could have been worse. I don't speculate on that, I just react to what I see. Right now, to me, Google has been better about moving things forward with Webkit than Apple has in quite a while.
Safari is just a wrapper around WebKit which is an open source project with many contributors. Yes the engine may be deficient in some areas or make choices not supported by other engines but I have never seen any malicious intent to destroy the web or undermine the standards.
No, but making up your own facts, like you have, is.
"Things like the HTTP Protocol are fundamentally broken by Apple"
"They are a company for profit"
As opposed to whom? Google?
Content-Range does not work, Cache directive are ignored to speed up user experience on Safari.
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.
It may be now, but I'll bet they don't think it will be in the future.
Unfortunately banner ads are tacky no matter what.
iAds was all about making the rising-in-popularity (at the time) free, ad-supported apps less horrid. Increasing the perceived quality of their platform, and selling more hardware.
This is the problem with many of the comments here. 90% of iOS users won't use it.
That's the real and legitimate conspiracy here. They are trying to leverage their ... qualitative ... market dominance to "urge" news content providers to shift their content to the News app where the Apple ad network is king.
I would also like to point out that Apple is not only strong-arming the news content sector, but they are also actively damaging if not destroying various other app companies that are in that space with their unfair advantage. The unfair advantage basically comes into play because they are the effective governmental regulatory body of the Apple ecosystem and therefore have disproportionate leverage and power over those in their ecosystem.
You may say, so what, it's their ecosystem, but that is inherently contradictory to having a fair and level playing-field where you compete based on merits, value, and worth.
It's quite odd that Apple really doesn't like to compete and is rather lazy when it comes to competing. They would rather strong-arm people to extract profits, which really isn't all that different than a protection racket ... "Oh, you want ad revenue? It would be a shame if you didn't get any ad revenue because something happened to your shitty little store and all the ads were stripped out. But we here at Apple would like to offer you a brand new opportunity to protect your ad revenue with Apple News."
Not if those apps are free and using non-Apple advertising networks like AdMob.
You get two technical support incidents per year: an Apple engineer will assist with code issues. They handle all necessary tax withholding in countries which require it. This is something you had to do yourself with Google Play (unsure if this is still the case). You also get access to CloudKit and various other Apple-hosted services which can be used within your apps.
I don't doubt that they make a profit on your developer enrolment fee, but it's almost nothing in the scheme of things, and you are actually paying for something.
The article isn't saying that Apple enabling ad blocking in Safari is a "revolutionary" new feature; it's saying that bringing ad blocking into the mainstream could cause a serious disruption in existing online advertising business models.
"Free with ads" should be that my favourite authors get paid to use a product or service and then write about it if they like it. I don't want to see ads for things that a computer predicts I will like, I want to see ads for things that someone I enjoy reading, and share similar tastes with, likes.
Just because it generates money doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Which for me, is the worst kind. When you accidentally click an ad (sometimes unbeknownst to you) and suddenly the browser is closing and iTunes is opening, trying to get you to install Game of War...
That said, if ad-blocking works on iOS, I think much of what he writes comes true. It will be interesting.
If there is ad blocking it will be provided by a third party.
If it is then it will be up to the third party if they want to block this kind of advert. By their nature however "install banners" are typically part of the content (if it's for the site's own application) so a typical ad blocker wouldn't catch them.
If however it's a third party advert showing an app install dialogue/overlay it will likely be blocked, by the fact it will likely come from an ad providing domain.
However I was referring to the pop up, tap intercepting redirects to the App Store.
Most ads use the same third party DNS services which makes blocking even easier.
Apps can be written to download and cache ads periodically as part of their "update" process, and display these ads even when you don't have an internet connection.
If they are not able to update these ads for some time (say 60 days), they can then refuse to run: "the application has expired and needs an update; please connect to the Internet". New ads are fetched when the user connects and lets the app update.
If you don't put in "anti-ad-circumvention" methods, then the ads will fall victim to some simple blanket blocking scheme that users set up before they even installed your app, not targetting your app specifically.
Analogy: a website with great content and very unobtrusive ads has them filtered by AdBlock anyway.
Apple denies the user reasonable control of the device they purchased. (Denying access to the HOSTS file is unreasonble in my opinion.)
But Apple does not (yet) exercise control over the network(s) that the user has joined.
As long as the user can still control at least some aspects of her own network (yes, she still can), then the user can block ads.
In my case, I use DNS to block ads. It is remarkably effective. But there are certainly other ways to do it.
Your entire comment is just anti-apple biased assumptions. How are you any better than the article?
Our experience as developers should tell us that this isn't true. Success often implies popularity, and popularity is not a very good indicator for quality.
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.
I don't think people are really bothered that there are ads - everyone learns at some point that under current system, people need to earn money to live and websites cost money to keep them up. The problem is with a) the amount of ads, b) obnoxiousness of them, and c) that quite a lot are actually dishonest, annoying and downright malicious. It's because of those people started using ad blockers. The Internet really looks much, much better without all that crap. I'm pretty sure for most the resource use is a secondary consideration to the amount of frustration an ad-laden site can generate.
It seems pretty obvious that you could reduce your page size by 70% by simply removing Google and Facebook scripts.
That would be https://dhowe.github.io/AdNauseam/
Where exactly does it say this?
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."
"What is your age range:
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!
Expect a LOT more "Become a member" or "Subscribe to..." websites as adblockers become more popular.
Micropayments are hard because of the transaction costs, but this seems to slowly change (see e.g. flattr). I wish more sites offered a per-view zero-setup one-click micropayment solution.
What's more interesting is what Google will do if their ads revenue shrinks considerably — I suppose 99% of their income is targeted online context ads.
The main problem when charging for content is justifying to the user why the price is "fair" before they've actually seen the content. If you can get around that problem, e.g. by using teasers or word of mouth to instill a need, then you can get away with charging much more than a few cents. And if you can't, very few people will be wililng to pay even one cent, because of the huge perceptual gap between zero and one cent.
This model works best for huge chunks of content like books, movies or video games, where you can create compelling teasers that don't give away the whole experience. It's much harder for stuff like music or NYT articles, where the consumable chunks of content are small and teasers don't make much sense. I don't know any good answer for those.
What I'd like is a PayPal one-click payment sort of system for that, with limitation of e.g. 50¢ per transaction without authentication (with limits per hour and per domain, etc, preventing money-bleeding exploits).
A huge selling point for me would be an ability to come to a previously unvisited site supporting this system and pay with one click.
The thing is that I don't browse media sites from their home pages, I mostly follow links found in social media. This gives the links some level of trust, because I can assess the poster's credibility before clicking the link.
Google would charge 10-15 bucks or whatever the average web user is worth in gooogle adsense.
I guess the hard part is actually effectively detecting ad blocking. I assume you could write an adblocker that downloads and then just never actually displays ads. Without total control over your browser, I'm not sure how ad blocking detection would ever be accurate.
You'd say "well, NYT is so good you would want to pay for _any_ article published there!" - but then why wouldn't I subscribe if I value them so much?
It could even say "If you liked this article, pay $0.nn and the next article you open on our site will be ads-free for you."
Certainly something that Apple News seems like it could be well placed for.
I do understand smaller bloggers and stuff will have a similar problem but it's people like those that will actually GET subscriptions and who I'd actually be willing to pay for their content if they didn't bombard me with bull crap when I loaded their pages.
And how would Periscope users get paid, exactly?
And how do you expect things like Periscope to stay in business without earning revenue?
On an unrelated note, we're gonna need you to come in and work for free this weekend.
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. 
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. 
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.
 https://www.hackingwithswift.com/safari-content-blocking-ios... (quote is third paragraph from the bottom...)
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.
I recently encountered an ad with a tiny close button that jittered, making it impossible to touch without triggering the ad popup. How clever.
I wonder how long it takes for people to learn that they can earn money by not being assholes to their customers?
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.
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.
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.
at boingboing: constant, never-ending "stories" that are nothing but frames of words for amazon affiliate links. They've gotten very brazen about it, but other outfits could be more subtle and I think you'll see it.
 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.
 Regular postings along the lines of "remember that one movie ... man that was great ... two more lines of content ... affiliate link to the DVD".
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!
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?
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.
At no point did you contract with me to require me to view ads. Your terms of service (which you didn't even require me to agree to) did not require that I don't block ads.
Your business model is based on the assumption that I will gladly view ads. I won't. Hundreds of millions of others won't. Your business model is broken. The market is clearly not supporting the amount of content that is available. Don't try to play the ethics card; the advertising industry is as sleazy as they come.
If your content is valuable enough, put up a paywall and people will pay for it.
Completely contradicts your claim of "for free".
How do I know it's worth my money before I try it? When I'm purchasing a car, I can take it off the lot for a test drive. In the 90's, video games had demos (and now that demos are rare, I almost never buy video games I haven't played at a friends' first). When I purchase food - I know what I'm paying for. I know what I'm getting. Many purchases I make "guarantee my money back if I'm not totally satisfied with the product or service".
When I purchase a journalistic article - I have no idea if the quality would be worth my money. I have no idea if it's going to be well written.
Nowadays most articles I read contain factual errors, stretches of the truth, extreme political slants, author biases, and general muckery of something I would not pay for. But I didn't know that it was something so bad I would use to wipe my ass instead of reading it until after I had already read it.
There are websites I use that are 100% free and donation-only supported. They not only meet but exceed their monthly donation goals consistently. These are sites where the users give a damn whether the server is still online next month or not. The website has been online for the past 5 years and there has never been financial troubles.
Perhaps instead of using an "ad-based" business model websites should use a "value-based" business model. Where, if the website is valuable enough to the users, the users will choose to sustain it out of their own desire to continue to use the site.
If your journalistic site doesn't offer any additional value to users. You sink - and nobody would care.
I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the entire Gawker media conglomerate crashed and burned and had to shut down. I wouldn't care at all - and you wouldn't see me donating money to keep it online - because they provide no value to me.
Fix ads and the adblocker problem goes away.
Nobody is forcing them to use advertizing to support their work/site. If they're not making money, they should change their business model.
If my modification of that content is depriving them of income, then that's a flaw in their business model, not my 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.
No, it's the artists who feel entitled to make money off their work, work that oftentimes is quite worthless or poor. Others are not required to offer content for free and I don't feel entitled to it. If it's there for free, maybe I'll consume it, maybe not. It's only the content creators who think their consumers feel entitled to free content because they're too stupid to come up with better business models to market their content. As a writer, musician, and artist, I offer a lot of my content for free with no ads and have no problem with that. I actually enjoy creating it and don't do it for the ad revenue. If other content creators want to charge for their content or wrap it up in ads, it's up to them to figure out a business model that works for their purpose. Their failing to do so does in no way reflect a failing in anyone's morality except possibly theirs.
tl;dr: If my ad-blocking is hurting these content creators so much, they should figure out a way to deliver ads that can't be blocked and stop calling the consumers names like "entitled" (because that's another reason the consumers don't want to pay for that mediocre two-paragraph piece surrounded by 10 megs of ads). Period.
such as site X has sent us 1000 users and 10 of those have signed up so we pay them for these 10 signups/purchases whatever
interestingly amazon are the leaders here...
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?
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!
Which begs the question:
How long will content providers last if they decide to not show content to iOS users?
I don't think anyone would be able to make that argument with a straight face.
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...
I don't see how that would work. When you visit the New York Times website on iOS it will simply say, "Sorry web not supported on iOS; please download our app". The NYT app will be free but will show NYT ads - Apple will not get any extra revenue.
Also, bear in mind that we're having this discussion on an ad-free website.
That's a totally wrong comparison however. Nothing fits.
I have no problem with this actually, because such things are on a separate page and its obvious the content you are getting is relevant to you (unlike lots of online advertising). Good luck to pg and the devs and mods behind HN if they want to generate cash to keep the site going.
It's also not just iOS. It's a feature of Safari so it would also impact desktop visits to websites as well.
Good luck with that. iOS users make up a significant percentage of web traffic and are demographically the most valuable (generally of a higher socio-economic status). By alienating them they won't be coming to your site which means no opportunity to upsell them to a paid version of the content.
Advertisers don't deserve much sympathy from me. They have trashed the customer experience.
Motorola is not going to change the way the vast majority of mobiles are purchased in the US, which is through carriers. No matter how many comments an article might have had on Reddit. Emerging markets (specifically: India) might have lots of people buying phones online, but the US has a long-established system which is extremely resistant to disruption. According to ComScore  in May 2015 Apple+Samsung had over 72% of the installed base of smartphones in the US. No reason for that to change in any hurry.
Observation: don't use the number of comments on articles on Reddit as a metric of anything except the number of comments on articles on Reddit.
What good is that if they're blocking ads, so you can't monetize them?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you Apple!
Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9940202
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.
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.
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.
This could eventually be an event significant enough to kill a number of companies.
Some of us can't be bothered.
Off the top of my head, I can think of four more, other the suggestions in that blogpost.
- Firefox + uBlock. (Superb. Best mobile browsing experience.)
- Xposed Framework and something like UnbelovedHosts. (Probably root required)
- Ad-Free Time with MobiDNS. (Like $3 a month, additional benefits included. VPN/DNS redirect hybrid.)
- An ad-blocking proxy or VPN.
You aren't stuck waiting for a solution from a competitor that's late to the party.
We've been blocking adverts on Android for longer than Apple have let users change their onscreen keyboards...
(Just switched, never looking back)
I see it as changing my phone from having 3 "pimps" (mobile operator + Samsung + Google) to having just 1 (Apple fending off the others). And for the price of a cup of coffee you get quite decent apps instead of freemium ad-supported, slow as hell, ugly garbage apps.
But yeah, if you don't mind setting it up so you can grant superuser permissions to something like Adfree Android, you get system-wide ad blocking which also gets rid of ads in most apps. Still, I haven't bothered in a while because good apps don't include really obnoxious ads and the good ones that offer free versions with unobtrusive ads deserve to make some money. If they're truly good apps, then I sorta feel bad when I don't even notice I'm using the free version because ads are blocked. There are a handful of apps where I fired them up on a new device before setting up Adfree and was reminded that I really ought to just shell out the $2-3 for the full version.
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.