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.
Being a web developer, this causes me to primarly develop with Mozilla, and then leave the other browser testing to the QA cycle. Ultimately this causes sites I develop to be "optomized for Mozilla", which in turn may cause more users to use Mozilla.
So although currently the percentage of the userbase using Mozilla is low, I would guess that the percentage of web developers is much higher - meaning we are at the begining of a growth cycle.
-CySurflex
my dads web site..
Thought you might be interested. Note the very professional attitude the antiadblocker fellow keeps during his part of the discussion. Also note that I never admitted to blocking ads but his tone certainly acts as if I had. I was going to continue the argument but I tired of it. Maybe a couple hundred slashdotters would like to pick up where I left off? ;-) In order to keep it as short as possible I'll just copy and paste the email with the embedded replies etc. I'm sure you can figure it out:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Gardner"
To: webmaster@AntiAdBlocker.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:16 PM
Subject: Ad blockers
> Hmmm. I wonder what makes you think that anyone who blocks ads would be
> even the slightest bit interested in buying something from a banner ad
> that they saw on a website.
> I guess it's a good thing your customers can't think this in depth.
From: "AntiAdBlocker" webmaster@antiadblocker.com
To: "Jonathan Gardner"
Subject: Re: Ad blockers
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:52:06 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
A scumbag like yourself probably doesn't understand this, but billions of
dollars of products are purchased on the internet. MANY people click and
buy products, just not scumbag leeches like yourself that think you're owed
something. Also, most websites are paid when you view the ads, not if you
click or buy something. If you had an ounce of gray matter you would
understand how all the websites you visit are funded. AntiAdBlocker allows
the internet to keep running even with scumbags like yourself surfing the
web and stealing from webmasters. Shame on you.
AntiAdBlocker
From: "AntiAdBlocker" webmaster@antiadblocker.com
To: "Jonathan Gardner"
Subject: Re: Ad blockers
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:40:56 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
> I can tell from your tone that you are a very professional outfit,
> nevertheless you did not answer my question so I will take issue with your
> assumptions. I have no doubt that many things are bought over the
> internet. I do it myself.
> But just as with the real world, when I want something I go and get it. I
> NEVER purchase anything from an unsolicited phonecall.
> I NEVER purchase something from an unsolicited email.
> I NEVER purchase anything just because I see it on an ugly billboard that
> mars the beauty of the natural land nor do I buy things I see on an
> obtrusive banner ad.
Hogwash. Internet ads are like TV commercials. You watch the TV channel
for free and as a condition, they have commercials. It's not unsolicited
like a telemarketer. It's an agreement that you watch TV or the internet at
a reduced cost if you view the ads. So first of all, internet advertising
is not in the same league as junk mail, spam or telemarketers.
Secondly, don't lie to yourself. Do you purchase ANYTHING that you've seen
on a TV ad? I'm sure you have so don't even lie. That's the same kind of
ad as the internet. The ads offset the cost of the program and delivery.
Third, you must be foolish if you think that no one clicks on an ad and buys
something. If they didn't, advertisers wouldn't buy anymore ads, would they
Mr. smart ass? Also, a lot of internet advertising is branding, just like
TV commercials. Most TV commercials don't directly sell something. They
just brand a product. Like beer or car commercials. There's tons of beer
and car commercials but not once have I even seen a beer or car commercial
that gives a number to call to order beer or a car. That's because their
branding the product. Many internet ads are the same, just branding.
Marketing 101, but obviously, you don't have a clue and even worse you think
you know what you're talking about.
> These banner ads cost internet users time and bandwidth just to download
> them to display them and as the ads get bigger the problem gets worse.
The same could be argued about TV commercials. It costs time and bandwidth
to view TV commercials, but guess what? Those are the terms of watching TV
or the internet for free or at a reduced cost. If a TV show has too many
ads, you turn the channel. If an internet site has too many ads, you turn
the channel. The notion that YOU are being inconvenienced for getting
something for FREE is stupid. The fact is that you pay probably a flat
amount per month for your internet connection, just like cable TV. And just
like TV, the costs to view the internet are so low because of advertising.
Think how much cable TV would cost if there were no ads. I can tell you
already, about $10-$15 per channel per month instead of $30 for 50 channels.
The same goes with the internet. Ads pay for most of the internet. So your
$15-$30 internet connection per month would cost hundreds of dollars if you
had to pay for every site you visited. I don't think you understand, or can
grasp the fact that if all internet ads were banned tomorrow, either the
internet would fold or you would be paying several times more for your
internet connection.
Internet ads have become more bold because of people like yourself blocking
ads and thinking that sites shouldn't have ads. I don't think you
understand that sites don't run off a $10/month server. Most medium-sized
sites need a dedicated server which costs hundreds a month. And bandwidth
is about $300/Mbps (about 30 times the home cable rate). I have a single
site that costs me $2100/month for the server and the bandwidth. And the
only way to pay for that is with ads. If everyone blocked ads, the site,
and every other medium to large site on the internet would close and the
internet would suck. But you probably only care about yourself and don't
comprehend the big picture.
> There are many users out there that actually have to pay per the minute
> and each ad is costing them real money.
So what? It's your CHOICE to view a site. The ad wasn't sent to you. You
came to view it! And you're forgetting that those sites you're viewing also
have to pay for you to leech from them. Is that fair? Maybe you pay by the
minute, but you're not paying the web sites you visit. And if you're
blocking ads, you're stealing from the webmaster.
> Point remains though, that people who block ads weren't going to buy
> anything from them anyway.
That is about the most stupid thing I've ever heard and scumbags like
yourself always use it. I can spot a idiot scumbag like yourself a thousand
miles away when you use that statement. Listen to me now and understand me
later. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU BUY IT OR NOT, WEBMASTERS ARE PAID IF YOU
VIEW THE AD, NOT IF YOU CLICK ON IT OR BUY IT!!!! Let that soak into that
piece of crap you call a brain. Do you understand yet? Ads are paid by
impression and are designed for branding for the most part. The fact that
you click on them or not doesn't make a difference. It's that you VIEW
them. And if you block ads, you're stealing bandwidth from webmasters.
> They're just sick of having to pay in time and/or
> money to be forced to see someone's garish snakeoil logo.
99% of internet users don't pay by the minute. And even if you're too
stupid to get a flat-fee internet connection, you have the same option as
you have with the TV, change the channel if you don't like the program or
the ads. Stealing from the webmaster can't be justified just because you're
too stupid to have a flat-fee internet connection.
> Shame on YOU for perpetuating the ugliness of the web.
Shame on YOU for stealing from webmasters. I can't wait till AntiAdBlocker
is on every site on the web so scumbags like yourself no longer get a free
ride and can't steal from webmasters.
AntiAdBlocker
A great many websites do not function without it. In particular, forms no longer work. Many website also use those small (60x60 pixels or so) click-thru popups to provide instant help. Links in some website depend on javascript, which means that browsing around certain website becomes impossible with javascript disabled. And constant re-enabling/disabling makes it a pain in the ass to do. Summary - IE sucks the big one for pop-ups. You have to get a third party program, and from what I have seen, they aren't great either. So when I go to sites I suspect are going to bombard me with that stuff, I open up Moz. [But I generally stick to IE for the much, much faster instantiation time]
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
"Content" companies don't believe you should have control over the device you use to access web pages (or movies, or music..). For the user to grant or deny "permission" is a ludicrous concept to them.
I think "Trustworthy Computing", Palladium etc will go some of the way towards addressing this - you will slowly have less and less control over the viewing platform. If you choose to use an alternate viewing platform (eg a pre-Palladium PC), you simply won't be able to view a lot of things. If you attempt to get your old computer to display new content, or to wrest back control of a computer that implements Digital Restriction Management, you'll be in violation of the DMCA (or your local equivalent).
That article was fascinating.
Basically, it seems to me as though from a marketing perspective, they want to force us to not ignore ads. A "good ad" is one that cannot be ignored.
They are missing the point of marketing entirely. A "good ad" is one we don't ignore because we don't want to ignore it, but because we're forced to not ignore it. That's always been a basic maxim of marketing; you're selling the product, and alienating your viewers does not serve that purpose.
Seen this way, pop-up (and popover) ads become nothing more than the last refuge of the talentless hack who can't make a decent advertisement to save his life, so he instead forces people to view it.
The anatomy of an effective ad on the Net right now is changing. Google has the right idea with its AdWords. A good ad doesn't take a lot of bandwidth and isn't intrusive, but still manages to intrigue the user. They're integrated well into the page, so they still manage to Look Good. That's the type of ad I would check out. Text-based ads also have the advantage that even though they take almost no time to download over even the slowest modems, they cannot be blocked because they're part of the page, rather than a separate entity. You might theoretically be able to hack around your user CSS file, but thhat would be the only way, and even then you wouldn't save any bandwidth.
Here's an example of an a text-based ad system that works. Open-Source, too; nice bonus.