Slashdot Mirror
No Pop-up Blocking in Netscape 7.0
jsled writes "C|Net /News.com article details how the forthcoming Netscape 7.0 will not include the nifty pop-up blocking sported in Mozilla, as AOL depends on pop-up ads for annoy^H^H^H^H^Hmarketing to their "valued" customers. The MozillaZine story and comments have a couple of extra, interesting points of detail: how to easily restore the functionality and how some sites get around the popup blocking."
Update: 08/15 12:45 GMT by J : In related news, Doug Isenberg asks over on GigaLaw:
Are Pop-Up Ads Illegal? The news publishers who say "yes" say that turning off graphics in your web browser should be illegal too.
Install Mozilla.
for those of you who have not heard this already. Don't like it? USE SOMETHING ELSE. Netscape can do whatever it wants with its software. Mind you, they might do something else if people quit using the software. So perhaps, instead of compaining that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, like it seems to do three times a day on slashdot, seek alternatives. Thank you.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Arguably, yes. Those ads help pay for the programs you enjoy. The only reason TV ads are worth anything at all is that enough people will actually sit there and watch them, instead of changing the channel, to make them worthwhile. This is also why ad-skipping in PVRs is, justifiably, being attacked. If you know anything about the TV industry, you know that ads are essential to any channel's survival, except for taxpayer-funded public access, where the money is extorted from you.
Here's a real-world example of the importance of ads, and the lengths to which an admin will go to ensure that revenue stream. If you try to evade a site's revenue stream while still trying to use that site, don't be surprised if the admin justifiably takes action against you.
Disabling JavaScript is the best solution.
Ask yourself, what has JavaScript done to improve the web browsing experience? Sure rollovers are cute, but is it worth pop up ads and page trapping and filling your screen with full-size windows to a dozen pr0n sites?
I wish browser makers would focus more on implementing useful things like CSS2. Browsers are for viewing content, not doing tricks.
Imagine that being wildly successful in your career meant that you failed 95% of the time. A baseball player getting called out 19 out of every 20 trips to the plate. Yet, in the world of direct (snail) mail, that's considered a successful campaign. So, if you mailed out 1,000,000 letters to 950,000 who threw it away, you'd think you were a direct marketing stud.
Online advertising is even worse, yet rather than realizing that people are probably not interested in your product (they would have clicked the banner ad), you figure you'll pop up extra windows. It's like reading a magazine and throwing out the first 8 magazine subscription cards but then seeing the 9th and saying "hmm, if they're willing to go through that much effort maybe I should subscribe."
And the best part is that people who figure out new surface area to plaster with ads consider themselves to be "creative." Bullsh-t. You are a hack. You'd be more creative if you were in a boy band or producing a reality TV show...
Bill Hicks said it best, "If you're in marketing, kill yourself."
Despite what you may be thinking, marketing people are not insects. Technically, they are arachnids.
Ideally, you shouldn't have to code for Mozilla, but rather the W3C specs. This would in turn help promote W3C conforming browsers, be it mozilla or something else.
Everything isn't always the ideal though...
This is one of the reasons that I am not extremely happy with the dual-licensed nature of programs such as Mozilla and OpenOffice. Sure, such power in open-source packages can truly be a godsend to all of us, but the fact is that such a licensing scheme protects contributors barely more than a BSD-style license would. If either of these projects (most notably OpenOffice) becomes so popular that its owner could make a good profit by being able to close the code and sell it for a high price, by turning it into, in efffect, just another Microsoft Office, then they are free to at any time fork the code from the open-source project and continue in-house development, only releasing closed versions and extracting a fee from users. In this case the open-source version of the program would have to choose between playing eternal catch-up with the commercial version or evolving into something entirely different and entirely incompatible.
I also firmly believe that this model discourages contributors, mostly for the lack of protection mentioned above. I would certainly be happy to contribute my work to a GPL project; if a company wants to close some of the code that I have written, however, or link it with closed code, then I would require a fee from that company. It is as simple as that.
This brings me to my point: No, we wouldn't have either of theses projects without either Sun or AOL, but such a licensing mechanism allows companies such as these to close and commercially use contributed code that many potential contributors would prefer be GPLed for their own gain, rather than the benefit of their users - such is this action by AOL which is the subject of our discussion.
A few months ago however, I tried out Opera. After using it a bit I discovered the "Disable Pop Ups" option and there was no way I'd go back to IE then. Even now when I have to switch for some compatibility issue (not often, only the really small web sites seem to have IE dependant features), I'm amazed at how annoying all the pop ups immediately become.
This is one of the best things that Open Source can do to convert users. Provide features that consumers (like me) truly want and the big boys won't give them.
You're assuming that making new windows is a valid thing that pages should be able to do for advertizing. Personally, I don't beleive www.somenewssite.com has permission to open windows on my computer any more than they have permission to launch my applications or download my files. If they want to display a small pop-up to show, for example, a little help note, when I click on it, I see that there is a good use for the technology. But why should they be allowed to hijack my browser? If you're using a browser without popup blocking, I could just send you to a page that opens 1,001 popup windows, forcing you to kill your browser program (or restart your entire machine if it didn't have preemptive multitasking). I don't block any regular ads; I fully agree that sites need to be allowed to pay their writers, and I don't have a problem with them inserting even gigantic ads. Have any of you read a magazine or newspaper lately? Most other mediums devote more than a 1x8" square to advertizing, and as long as web pages keep the same kind of ratio of advertizing to content as other mediums I have no quarrel. But I would not tolerate a newspaper that used a CO2 cannister to propel advertizing and confetti all over my living room.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Netscape is basically a branded version of Moz with some slight tweaks (like some UI, or the lack of popup blocking), so don't expect to get anything extra. But if Netscape does abandon their browser, and only makes it availible for embedding, that would also mean that there would be no Netscape engineers working on any part of the browser outside Gecko, and I fear how Mozilla's UI mess would escalate without even the little guidance it has now, so be careful what you wish for ;).
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
If instead they want to make unwarranted assumptions about the kind of browser I'm using and/or my Web browsing habits, that's their lookout. I feel no ethical dilemma at all; I am not stealing anything, because at no point did I make any agreement to accept popups. Had I done so and then reneged on my agreement, that would be a different story.
I get a scad of unsolicited advertising in my Sunday newspaper, too. I usually throw it away without looking at it. No doubt the newspaper would be more expensive if it wasn't there, but that doesn't mean I feel ethically obliged to wade through it so that their business model is justified. A presumption on their part does not constitute an obligation on mine.
On the other hand, I wouldn't even attept to disable the banner advertising on my Opera browser, because there I did agree to it - it was my choice to accept the ad-sponsored version, and I consider it a fair exchange.
Well, if you click on the "Test AntiAdBlocker" link, you'll see why, the software is only supposed to detect if the user is running popup-blocking software, it doesn't do anything to get around popup-blocking software, and if they detect that you're running said software, they won't let you into the site.
I think it's pretty despicable myself, but if someone wants to use AntiAdBlocker, it's their right, just as it's my right to decide that I really don't care to visit that site anyway, and I don't think I'm the only one.
This guy sounds like a real piece of work and he truly seems to believe that the Internet would not be as "wonderful" as it is today without ads.
I remember my first 'Net account in the early '90s with the university I was attending. There were no ad banners, no pop-ups. It was wonderful. You just found the information you needed and you were happy. Now that "scumbag" marketing sleeze like this guy have come along in an attempt to commercialize EVERYTHING, the Internet's going down the shitter faster than.. well.. Cable television! What an appropriate comparison he makes.
The AntiAdBlocker guy is correct in that it's ad views and not click-throughs that are generally the important thing for the webmaster. Granted, he didn't make his case in a particularly polite manner (neither did you). But he's got the right to produce and distribute his software, just as the Junkbuster etcetera people do. If it wasn't wanted, webmasters wouldn't use it and we'd have no problem. Live and let live.
J
No, but you should be aware that pop-under ads, if associated with your site, will make more people block ads on your site than without (or just make them not visit your site anymore), because they are a hell more annoying.
Remember that you're doing a deal. Of course you can use ads to get money. But ads alone won't get you money - you need visitors or your fancy ads are worthless anyway. So a good webmaster should do anything to not annoy his visitors.
Now think about popunder ads again...
You're wrong. Most importantly, there is this difference between "ad killer" and "popup add killer". For many people, ads are okay, but they really, really hate it if a mere web site causes their browsers to open unrequested windows.
Popup killers don't cut revenue. It's the webmasters own decision to switch to popup/popunder ads (for more cash from the marketing people). If they do this, they have to expect that they are annoying their customers/visitors and that they will block it.
It's perfectly their own fault.
If a website can't live without the financial bonus of popup ads, then it's dead anyway.
42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
So what? It's your CHOICE to view a site. The ad wasn't sent to you.
/"
I take it you have replied with some simple mechanics of the internet.
You send "GET
He sends "Heres the page, p.s. display my advert"
You say "OK, I'll show the page, but I cant be bothered showing the advert"
If its immoral to not load ads, then is google imorral, or lynx, or people on 9,600bps (mobile phones) that read the page and move on before the images actually load?
I have been trying to find a suitable way of replacing banners on my (commercial) web sites. In the "good old days" banners got me about 0.02 per view, which was about 50% of the price the banner company charged their clients. With our page impressions, these totals would have just about paid for the online costs, and small salaries for two persons, no luxuries included.
This is all gone now, banner companies don't pay by view any more, and we are still alive mostly by the many partnerships we have been able to establish, not by banners. The pressure to accept more agressive banner terms is rising, however - we don't want our company.com to go titsup.com and lose 100,000s of satisfied people. Just like Slashdot ...
I don't like (and will never use, unless my life depends on it) pop-up banners or floating banners or things like that. It's a one-way tunnel that is constantly getting worse, and never going to end. I think explaining to people WHY the Web isn't (and can't be) totally "free", at least not for non-hobbyist sites, will help more in the long run. Providing anti-ad functions, anti-anti-ad extensions and anti-anti-ad-blocker plugins is just plain SICK. IMHO.
Be honest: Would you be interested in a re-introduction of the HTTP/1.1 "Cost:" header - or similar measures - and pay 0.02 per mouse click? Because that is what you "pay" indirectly to the company providing you a service.
If the service is bad, then don't use it, full stop. If you use anti-banner software you are effectively cheating the webmaster into providing you his service, without paying for it. It's like going to a restaurant and not paying because you didn't want to see the ads on the inside cover of the menu.
And please kill the "additional cost" argument, it's rubbish. Your internet costs are larger because you have to download banner ads, right? Of course: Your internet connection is the vehicle to transport you to the service you want to access, it has NO connection with the actual service (most of the time anyway). Do you expect to get everything for free at McDonalds just because you paid the bus to get you there? And perhaps expect McDonalds to actually thank you for your non-paying visit?
NOBODY expects to get everything for free in the supermarket just because they already paid the taxi. On the Web, this expectation is there, however, and people don't understand that above a certain level, things just cost.
Why?
P.S.: Do you expect to get ads in magazines and newspapers banned as well? Because the newspaper is bigger with the ads and you have to pay for the paper, right?
WRONG. The "Springer" editor house in Germany which sells the "Spiegel" magazine (very popular) published a comparison recently. The magazine costs about 3.- and contains about 40% ads. Without the ads, it would have to cost about 30.- to cover the printing and distribution costs! So, what would you rather have? P.P.S: Reply by email if you want a serious discussion about this. I'm interested.
Home Page
There were no ad banners, no pop-ups. It was wonderful. You just found the information you needed and you were happy
As long as, of course, the knowledge you needed was in the 1% domain that the Internet covered at the time - mainly computers and electronics.
Look, I was there in the "good ole days" and it wasn't so good. Nobody was online because it wasn't popular yet and there wasn't any clear way to gain advantage from it. Sure, you and I knew how kick ass it was -- finding a company with a website and useful information was always a good reason to do business with them again. But try and find info outside of the realm of computers, electronics, or sex? Trudge to the library.
The antiadblocker guy is a twerp and a moron, but to some extent he's right. Note that most company sites don't have ads -- they run the site as a marketing or support expense largely. Virtually all large private sites have ads. Why? Because it costs money to run the site. It has nothing to do with commercialization -- it has to do with being able to share information on a global basis without running your pocketbook dry.
If you don't believe that, then maybe you should talk to Taco about paying for the bandwidth used by Slashdot on a monthly basis. I'm sure he'd be happy for you to foot the bill.
For the record - I have no issue blocking pop-up/under ads, or freaking annoying ads that flash and try to distract you. I personally don't block banner ads because they largely don't annoy me. If they bug you, block 'em. But don't be so stupid as to think that banner ads are the root of all evil and that advertising is either ineffective or unnecessary.
The AntiAdBlocker guy is correct in that it's ad views and not click-throughs that are generally the important thing for the webmaster.
He is correct, but it points out a fundamental flaw in the ad based revenue model. I've been pointing the flaw out since way before the dot-com-crash thing, it's so obvious.
If everyone is just paying for click throughs and no one is selling anything, it's just a false economy. It's an incestous system, where the same money flows around and around in circles, and the only new income to the ecosystem comes from the few legitimate sites that are actually selling something other than ads.
This is so common sense and so obvious. An industry can not survive only serving itself, but the internet ad industry seems to think so. I don't know why they persist in thinking so even after the inevitable and rapid contraction when the Ponzi collapsed.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
... there is absolutely nothing intrinsically good about following W3C standards.
;) take argument with that statement... There *is* intrinsic good in following the recommendations of a 3rd-party and widely agreed upon standards body, as opposed to following a proprietary one. If M$ had its way, the entire web would only be readable with MS software, defeating the entire purpose of the web in the first place (as a standards-defined, accessible to everyone "superhighway" of information, yadda yadda yadda)
I would (and will
Now in this case, the standards body happens to be W3C... If you want to make a seperate argument that they in particular are not doing a good job at creating a Standard - go ahead... that is a topic for another day. However, the fact remains that we are in FAR greater hands with the W3C than if M$ was in charge... Keep in mind - If M$ has "innovations" to offer, they are perfectly capable of working with the W3C to implement them in the standard... They, time and time again, choose not to go this route, and instead opt for a proprietary one... (another example is diverting from the openGL standard with Direct3D).
I think a better question to ask is: What is the intrinsic Good in having one company control the Internet?
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Mary Bingham, of Springfield, was arrested today for criminal copyright violations. Several shoppers at the PiggyMax grocery store witnessed Bingham, a 42 year old mother of two children attending Spingfield High School, flip past an advertisement in Curve magazine.
"She [Bingham] was standing at the magazine stand just reading the magazine [Curve]. When all the sudden, she flipped right past a page featuring an advertisement," said Marv Winklman, a sales representative for a local cable operator. "It was horrible. I witnessed the suffering of Curve magazine... I remember turning to others standing next to her in shock. I had no words. My god, the advertisement was just flipped by. I hope she rots in prison!" Mary Bingham and her attorney refused to comment on this story.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Personally I think advertisers should give up on the graphics and go back to basics: Kuro5hin textads are unobtrusive but actually quite effective (I read them a lot more than fashy graphics or popups - and the 'haiku' opportunities are endless). The web isn't like a broadcast medium, it's driven by the user, not the broadcaster; ad agencies need to re-think their approach.
Energy: time to change the picture.
But you think it's right that most browsers allow sites to open as many windows as they want? It's a security hole, and plugging the hole should not be considered an attack on web site owners.
The shareholder is always right.
If you use anti-banner software you are effectively cheating the webmaster into providing you his service, without paying for it. It's like going to a restaurant and not paying because you didn't want to see the ads on the inside cover of the menu.
This comparison is absolutely ridiculous. A restaurant owns their property and can do what they want with it. They can put ads on their walls, their tables, their floors and their menus, and if I don't like it I can simply not enter their property. But you want to tell me that after I download your web page and it exists as 1's and 0's on my computer, you still have a say in how I can view it.
Advertising doesn't work on some implied social contract bullshit, it works because it works. Because for most people it's more trouble to block unwanted ads than to simply ignore them. No one is obligated to even look at the ads on your page but advertisers pay based on a well-calculated model of how many people will look. As technology makes it easier to block ads, more people will choose to do so. Advertisers and websites will have to get more subtle, more entertaining, and more creative about how they get viewers' attention.
You asked the people to come to your site, now find the best way to make money off of them. Don't treat them like theives just because they didn't agree to your implied terms.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
If turning of web graphics in browsers is copyright infringement, then by the same token, people who only listen to the television rather than actually watch the thing would also be infringing on copyright, as are people who get up to go to the bathroom during commercials.
Guh! Terrance Ross, get a friggen clue! And while you're at it, get yourself an enema... it might help that retentive problem you seem to have
I apologize for the rant, but I really needed to vent on that issue.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Exactly. Anybody who thinks blocking ads is stealing is a moron. The world does not owe you a living annoying people. Do something useful for a change and get paid for that instead.
And don't bitch about poor web designers being cheated out of ad revenue either. If your business model fails, too bad. I design 90% of the web pages that I design for free because I actually care about the stuff I put on them. Because of that I can't make a living designing web pages. Too bad for me, I suppose, but not too bad for the web. I have another job, and frankly I don't think the web would be worse off at all if there were little or no advertising revenue available on it. Sure, lots of web pages would die; maybe if we're lucky the only stuff left will be the stuff people write because they care about it enough to do it for free, or because readers care about it enough to pay a subscription to read it.
But I'm also not anti-ad; if the web stuck to banner ads I wouldn't complain or even bother to block them. But popup and popunder windows are just plain evil. Disabling them by blocking software is no different from putting a "NO SOLICITING" sign on your front door and expecting salesmen to respect it. Disabling blocking software is the equivalent of breaking in through the window to try to sell your product anyway.
I find the whole concept of anti-adblocking ridiculous for the main reason that is mentioned elsewhere in this discussion - someone who goes through the trouble of blocking ads is probably not going to want to buy your product if you are successful in defeating their blocking software! This is the thing that convinces me that people like the anti-adblocker guy are ideological drones rather than the cold-headed business folk they pretend to be. They feel they must defend the right to advertise even to people who have made it clear that they don't want their ads and that they'll be pissed off if they hear any more of them. What's the point? Obviously, not just to sell the product. Is there a such thing as an armchair capitalist?