Slashdot Mirror
Google, Facebook Upset By Ad-Injecting Apps
An anonymous reader writes "Emily Steel at the Wall Street Journal writes about an unexpected twist for Google and Facebook, two companies that make their money selling ads next to content created by others. New companies like Sambreel Holdings are writing slick browser interfaces for popular sites like Facebook or Google and supporting themselves by injecting their own ads into the mix. Naturally, the original ad sellers aren't so happy about other ad sellers inserting themselves farther down the chain. Are we in the middle of an ad war where every company tries to inject their ads over the others? Will only the last 'ad supported' software in the chain win?"
Adblock, como te amo.
Why is this necessary? Both already have native apps on mobile devices. Users can browse with IE, Firefox, Chrome, etc. What does the browser do that a normal browser doesn't?
We don't live in Shouldland.
Have you met Kettle? No?
Pot this is Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot.
I would like to see some sanity return to the internet. Don't get me wrong, I love the wild west internet - geocities, altavista, angelfire style.
However, it's time that random-ass websites popping up for everything from drawing stick men to planning your dessert, start dying. Can we see some *real* innovation that isn't just hoping for a quick payoff through ad-views and user-grabs? I mean, it's disappointing to see top CS grads come out to make stupid little Iphone games instead of making the next great search algorithm, the next great Half Life game, the next great Unreal engine, etc etc. Please... let some sanity return to the web. And yes, I come from one of the Si valley schools (I'll let you decide which onesssssss) and its really sad to see top CS talent (ie my peers, younger and older) churning out websites in the hopes of making a quick buck.
Please let the sanity return so we can continue to progress forward. Our top talent cannot be wasted trying to flip websites for a quick buck. Peace.
The irony is killing me. Google is so happy to frame other people's content with their own ads. It's going to be funny to see them spin up some kind of tortuous distinction between their advertisements and the ones that the Sambreel uses.
It's a triumph of capitalism. Insert yourself as a parasite, move revenue from those doing the actual work towards yourself. And the obligatory "well, it's okay since the marks^Wusers agreed to it in an unreadable EULA."
Best of all, the complaints go to the web sites you're stealing from, not to yourself. Brilliant!
The summary asks "Will only the last 'ad supported' software in the chain win?"
We could only wish! Unfortunately what usually happens is that each step simply adds more ads. Rarely do they remove existing ones to do that. As a result, you simply end up with more and more ads.
I'm at a point now where I am so fed up with ads in general, that I am ruthless in my ad blocking. I run adblock, and flashblock, and I run adfree on both my cell phone and my tablet. Additionally I run my own DNS server that is used by my computers, as well as my cell phone and tablet, and any time I see an ad on any device I do my best to track down where it came from and block the domain.
And it's not just the web either, I don't have commercial TV service because I can't stand the ads. Many of the networks have their shows available right on their websites, for free and without the long commercial breaks either!
Had advertisers kept things reasonable, I might have never resorted to such measures, but as it is, I'm fed up enough to just block everything.
I could see them getting pretty heated over this, I mean this has to do with the entire business model of their companies, of course they'll get heated and defensive over it. I just hope that an Ad I like wins. Nations have fought war over Drugs, Spices, Women Why not Ads?
~theCzar
The person who was either:
a) stupid enough to click on an ad (ANY ad, we don't want to encourage that)
b) stupid enough to run a machine without the latest patches to prevent something they didn't even click on from running arbitrary code on their machine.
So in short, you bill the end user.
Does your TV not have the manufacturer's name written on it? Do you not see commercials during movies or non-network TV shows?
...but the absolute *crap* they advertise. Honestly, I do *not* want to look up my former high school classmates, I do *not* need a credit card with a lower rate and I do *not* want to see [random actress] nude! Perhaps if they were to advertise something I actually wanted...but then, they wouldn't ned to advertise as much, would they?
From the article...
"A Google spokesman said "applications that are installed without clear disclosure, that are hard to remove and that modify users' experiences in unexpected ways are bad for users and the Web as a whole."
Google has made a living out of "applications that are installed without clear disclosure".
Google and Facebook simply have to add some terms of service to their API. By changing the TOS to include a restriction on ads they will have the legal right to force these companies out of business for violating the terms of using their APIs. I believe that we will see this change happen very quickly!
.sig
You want everyone to host the ads themselves? And how would advertisers verify how many views they're getting?
If Adblock becomes common, interstitials are going to win. They are the only form of ad that could be coded such that they cannot be blocked (e.g. make the interstitial send a message to the site at the beginning and end of the ad, and/or require the user to enter some content from the ad before the site sends the actual content of the website to the user).
If they win, adding more ads will only make the user not want to use your interface since it means a further delay until the website's content can be viewed.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
If you try to download Adobe Acrobat Reader, Google toolbar is injected into the download with no way to stop it. It installs before acrobat - I guess so you can't cancel it. If you download the Adobe Flash Player, Google Chrome is injected into the download and you cannot stop it. Uninstalling brings up an app asking why you uninstalled Google's product. Is it fair to play both sides of having your product injected without consent and then cry foul in another area of competition? (Admittedly this may be Adobe's decision alone, but Google probably knows it.)
Is this not what the cable operators already do? If they sell a local ad, they simply dub over the national ad of their choice and call it a day. How is this any different?
This whole business about making money just by slipping an ad in front of an eyeball is stupid, and I wish it would stop altogether.
Brought to you by Carl's Jr
I don't think Google or Facebook have a legal leg to stand on, for starters - if I change my software to change the presentation of the data you've sent me, that's my perogative. If you can't stop me from using AdBlock, you certainly can't stop me from using AddAds.
Also, the logical question here would be - what are these add-ons doing that people want so much that they're willing to accept even more ads for? And perhaps the big players should simply take half an hour and add the code to let you put snowflakes or whatever on your page and cut them out of the loop.
Finally - ad-supported companies bitching about ad-supported companies stealing their cheese amuses me to absolutely no end. Watching Facebook warn users about privacy dangers is worth the price of admission, right there.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/04/13/240866/index.htm
I designed the client software architecture for the above. It was an "interesting" experience. My favorite "death march" project ever! ;) I got to meet David Bois...
The client was a wrapper around IE or Firefox, and attached a "PowerBar" to the top of the browser window. Due to the legal issues with EDS, they never got to dealing with any potential legal issues involving consumer privacy or publisher rights.
While I had some misgivings initially about working on this project, I found Dale very receptive about protecting consumer privacy. There were safeguards to insure that advertisers could only gain access to aggregate data, and this was a stated goal. And he went along 100% with my ideas about insuring that uploaded data was as transparent as possible - passed in the clear so that users could examine it and see just what was being sent, with only a small opaque digital signature. (Which still worried me. *I* knew there was nothing hidden in the signature, but how could the user prove it?)
Replacing ads is commonplace up here in Canada. CRTC (Canada's FCC-equivalent) says that if American Channel A is showing the Simpsons at the same time Canadian Channel B, the cable company is required to substitute the Canadian ads over the US ones (even on the US channel).
Among other things, it means we never see the Super Bowl ads.
And I can't count the number of times I've seen station ID logos stacked on top of each other in the corner. (Protip to broadcasters: three translucent logos on top of each other = unreadable mess and no-one wins.)
Eventually, ISPs will do this. Networks do this with the advertisements in Times Square during New Years. The ads you see on one network are different from the ones in another network. It also happens when you watch sports - the same model of the stadium that adds the line of scrimmage into a football game is used to change the ads.
Eventually, ISPs will get in on this, if they haven't already.
Whatever Economic system you have you will have people who will break the laws or bend them to their most extreme to get the most of of doing the least.
Now what you stated isn't the triumph of capitalism. Con-artist and doing the bare minimum to get "free money" can only get so far. If you want a triumph of capitalism you need a good long term plan. Where you can keep your customers and they want to stay with you.
Now we will hear about these big companies who are making tones of money and consumers are hating them like banks... However if you look at their books they are usually start scamming a few years ago and now it is going back to bite them.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You want everyone to host the ads themselves? And how would advertisers verify how many views they're getting?
Yes. Who gives a shit?
This is nothing new. There are craploads of search engines that are just google with more ads., spyware extensions that "improve" user experience (like Comet Cursor) and hijacking malware.
The likes of Google and Facebook found the solution long ago : don't do crap. Their sites are good enough to make such extensions undesirable.
I'm approaching this from the other end. I'm working on a browser-add on which limits the number of ads that appear on a page. The user sets the limit, and we trim out ads accordingly. The ads with lower SiteTruth ratings are deleted first.
This puts the user in control of the ad experience. The problem with on-line advertising today is that there are too many ads per page. This isn't good for advertisers or users.
I am perpetually amazed at the amount of money companies spend on advertising. It's staggering---enough to support all of Google, Facebook, you name it.
Did companies always spend this much money? Does it work? Why don't more people block it? AdBlock has been around for almost a decade now and it didn't cut into this pie at all. It's just still geeks like us using it.
I don't know what's more amazing, this, or the resistance of most computer users to tweak or modify their browser setup in any way shape or form unless they absolutely have to.
I can see why Google and Facebook are upset. These people are injecting ads in places where the owners of that site did not approve. Google puts ads where people tell them to put ads OR the ads appear *on* Google's search results. The ads appear in places approved by the website owner. This is extremely different. They are inject ads into their sites and therefore could cause confusion as to what is done by Facebook/Google and what is done by the third-party company. I find this quite different from the ads served by Facebook and Google and frankly, I don't even see the irony. This isn't a pot calling the kettle black. This is the pot getting upset that the kettle is taking markers and painting the pot with ads.
I can swear this kinda business model was sued already. i just cant remember who it was Gator or some other adware/malware. They were injecting ads right over the websites ads just like in this article. As far as Ads go i block them, the main reason is that the ads interfere with my reading of the content with constant flashing and moving ads. And now we have to worry about criminals installing viruses/root kits/key loggers through ad servers.So don't blame me for blocking ads take control of your web site. If its popular enough I'm guessing the advertisers will serve the ads you want served
Jack of all trades,master of none
0
i won't buy it anyway.
A lot of ad blocking software works by altering DNS, but not all. Content can be blocked per site per type. For most, blocking a few sites works. Then a few, like Youtube, try to play hardball.
It's because it's widely used enough that they react faster.
Filename filters, file extension filters, file content filters, javascript rewriting. No matter what Youtube or Slashdot or others do, the DIY blockers can iterate faster, and it's a game of losing for advertisers. Most of the time, a single function call or function break kills an entire script, so it's not really that hard. I don't think they care, though, unless someone else is getting that revenue.
If there was a sure fire way to ensure ads showed up, they'd already be using it.
On another note, I'm not sure what you are talking about on Slashdot, because I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on here.
I8-D
No, I don't use the "Disable Advertising" feature here that comes with people with "Excellent" karma. I don't need to. It's all OpenDNS and Chrome plugins that block the ads.
I8-D
Yes. Who gives a shit?
I believe the person(s) who foot the bill for the site give a shit. Let me guess, you work for free for the betterment of man kind purely out of a selfless need to help others and money is the last thing you want since you place such a low value on what your time is worth.
If the site operators are not getting money from advertisers, it'll be subscription based or (laughably) sponsor/donation based (unless you're convinced people who won't even view or sit through ads are willing to pay, HAH). Most people don't want to do any of that, take a look at how popular file sharing is. I don't have a love for viewing ads, however, I understand how things work in the real world.
I've maintained and operated a magazine funded entirely off of advertisers for a few years - meaning it was "free" to the end user. How does that work? I provide them business, if they don't get business, I don't get business. The hardest part was initially starting, me: "Hey I've got a great idea, want to be in a trade publication?" Potential Advertiser: "Who else is in it?" me: "About that!"
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
They will never win. Look at it this way. You've essentially said that advertising gets dirtier the less people respond, and if everyone used Adblock, advertising would get so dirty we couldn't win.
Yet, spam is probably the dirtiest advertising there is. There is likely no trick the spammers have not tried. Send from any host, embed stuff in reasonble-looking text, etc. Yet spam detection is very, very good, to the extent that spam is on the decline.
Advertisers will never win, because you can write better software that detects ads. Adblock's simple host and XPATH detection is all that's there because it's all that's necessary right now. It would however probably not be that hard to write image detection software that can process images and assign a AD-PROBABILITY value to them. Use the cloud against the advertisers ... just set up software that learns by user submission on a cluster and click on an ad to submit it. Consult the "cloud" for any new images.
But, until most people care about ads the way they care about spam, it's not going to be necessary. Unfortunately we're so culturally inundated with advertisement that it's just not a thing. Though while this may look like a win for advertisers, it does make ad removal trivial for those of us who care.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
If you are dumb enough not to be aware that you are installing this crap as well when you install a cute little toy app, then too bad for you. It reminds me of an old tech support joke, some dim user complaining to a tech, and after ten min of getting nowhere, he says, "Do you still have the box that your PC came in?" "Yes", "Then pack the PC up in the box, take it back to the store that you bought it from and tell them that you are too effing stupid to own a computer" Nyuk, nyuk. Almost as good as " I broke my cup holder"
"If the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Donny Rumsfeld
I do the exact same thing as well because I am fed up with ads. They are incredibly annoying and ruin any experience they are in. Product placement also puts me off.
Twinstiq, game news
I find it funny that the author of the piece blurred her name in the profile screenshot in the article. The profile name can be clearly made out to be "Emily Steel," while all the other giveaway info like "reporter at the WSJ" and even hometown, education, and birthday aren't blurred out at all.
I get paid to have people click, then buy.
I don't care how much gets blocked.
I don't care who gets whinny.
I don't care how much gets repurposed.
I don't care [insert your favorite predicate here]
I/they want you to click so I can pay, I want you to buy, so I get paid.
That's how it works.
They do actually make an attempt at showing you ads they think you want to see. They frequently know a surprising amount about you by the time the ad hits your eyes.
Among the ads that they have to show, they show those that they believe that you are most likely to want to see. The quality of the ads still correlates to the quality of their ad-sales, and, AFAIK, the quality is dismal.
Which is interesting. They do know a surprising amount about their users. Yet, they don't seem to be able to appeal to legitimate advertisers (such as they are). Is it because they are inept? Is it because there is better money in ad sales to obvious scam artists? Is their user base simply more attractive to scam artists?
Is laser-targeted advertising not all that it is cracked up to be after all?
? I mean, really, ?
"If the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Donny Rumsfeld
It's ads all the way down.
*We* (slashdotters) are the techies that are enabling the marketing dweebs to do this to the internet that *we* created!! When will the technology warriors rise from the ashes of dot-com to once again take our places as the rightful rulers of the technology stack?? Fight back!! Were it not for our own weaknesses, the idiots in marketing would still be off creating the next print ad to be included in the Sunday paper, and we would have all of that precious bandwidth for ourselves.
This sounds like a variant on the nuisance toolbars that come with many supposedly free applications that try to inject yet another search box when I've already set my browser search preferences elsewhere. It's annoying and useless crapware offering nothing better than the newest take on Bonzi Buddy.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You ALL know why: A custom hosts file w/ 1,651,067++ entries
So, 1,651,068 entries?