Slashdot Mirror
iOS 9 To Have Ad Blocking Capabilities
An anonymous reader writes: iOS 9 will reportedly carry ad blocking capabilities for it's Safari browser when it is released later this year. The feature wasn't rolled out with the usual fanfare one might expect, and flew under the radar. ZDNet reports: "It's not immediately clear why the new ad-blocking privacy feature was included in iOS 9, due out later this year. After all, the iPhone and iPad maker has its own advertising network -- even if its success was limited (which is putting it nicely). What's clear is that allowing ad-blockers in iOS 9 could deliver a serious blow to Google, the biggest rival to Apple in the mobile space, because advertising remains a massive portion of the search giant's income."
This makes sense in the Apple ecosystem. It speeds up web browsing and streamlines the experience, and if ads are blocked at browser or OS level, it gives Apple a chance to create their own approved ad market. I think it's a step too far to assume that they can insert unintended content arbitrarily into a web page or existing ad slot.
websites forced for two ad networks then, apples and googles.
and wait for the lawsuits to ensue.
though, it might finally lead to ads being delivered from the same host as the rest of the content on the page - that would be some well needed sanity(and removal of javascript from the adverts for the security implications that approach has).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The ad-blocking better include those bloody irritating ads that switch you out of the browser with no warning to the App Store for Clash of Clans, or some other flavour of freemium shiteware the kids are degrading themselves with these days.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
iOS drives 75% of Google's mobile revenue meaning this could really hurt them depending on how much is blocked. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05...
While this has been widely represented as Apple providing an add blocker in iOS 9, all that has actually happened is that they've created an API by which thirdparties can add ad-blocking extensions to Safari, and included a placeholder extension for that properties page.
so obviously they won't be able to match Apple's move and provide built-in ad blocking for Chrome or Android.
An interesting FU from Apple to Google.
After reading the linked ZDNet article, looks like Apple is only allowing extensions in Safari to block content with in the browser. Thus allowing things like Ghostery and NoScript to be possible or more affective in iOS 9. Bottom line, if you want ad-blocking in iOS 9 you will have to wait for the proper ad-blocking extension to be available, or write one yourself.
I love the planitif bleating of the millionaires and billionaires who will complain that this is going to kill them and their "free" business models. The simple reality is that if I were offered a great micro payment system I would be happy to pay for quality websites. Not much but enough that the truly great websites would make money.
The crap SEO whores and whatnot of the type that have 50%+ advertising and sell my data wouldn't get a cent.
I will turn this feature on in a second and never look back.
Ad blocking is a right. If I buy a device, I should be allowed to control the I/O -- including disallowing any ads. Advertising, sadly, has become the de facto "business model" for the WWW. I work in IT and have for three decades. Almost no one clicks on ads. They make money because of impressions. The page paints and they get credit for the ad having been seen. Some ads follow clicks to pay, some don't. I don't see any of them and never will again. I block everything.
Finally, Apple.
It's not immediately clear why the new ad-blocking privacy feature was included in iOS 9
Well there's a pretty obvious reason why, and I don't see any reason to discount it. It's a feature that users will like, and Apple is in the business of trying to make devices that people like. Even more specifically, Apple's general approach to making "devices that people like" tends to be to try to take the hassle out of using the product, as much as is possible. Ads are a big hassle.
It seems like a pretty obvious answer, so much so that I don't see a reason to go hunting for another one without some kind of additional information that there's some other reason.
If it gets really popular, how long until sites remove ads altogether and instead switch to paywalls?
I understand why people want to block pop-up and pop-under ads. I have those blocked too (and I don't think you even need to block those since not many people use them anymore.) But I don't understand why people want to block regular banner ads. Coming up with content then hosting it on a website isn't free. If advertisers want to pay for it because they think displaying an easy to ignore banner at the bottom of the page makes me more likely to buy their crap then all the better. It is better than having to pay a subscription for the content.
But since no one wants to pay for a subscription, and because so many people have ad blockers (or maybe advertisers have figured out how easy it is to ignore banner ads) websites are starting to go with sponsored content. I am sorry but sponsored content is at least 1000x more annoying than banner ads. Wonder why that site is singing the praises of some POS product? Well zoom into that tiny little dot at the bottom of the article to see the words "sponsored content."
I say bring back the banner ads. It really is a pretty painless way to pay for content. I think John Oliver gave a really good summary of the problem with sponsored content AKA native advertising:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There are all sorts of sites out there that sell individual articles like Forrestor? How many have you bought this year?
I already do adblocking on all my android devices. Until they start paying for my cellphone bandwidth, ad's dont appear on my devices.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Are they that much anti Microsoft that they actively block Active Directory.
There have been antitrust allegations around Apple's new streaming music service. This seems to me to be just another way to prevent the competition from actually competing.
People used to scream holy hell when MS did this kind of shit, but Apple is just as bad and in many cases much worse. I guess they saw that Microsoft got off with a little wrist slap so why not use borderline illegal (or blatantly illegal, once in a while) anticompetitive tactics.
Here is a paragraph from the article that you quote, to put this into perspective: But Castle says he will be surprised if this goes anywhere. Apple, he notes, has a lot of competition in the streaming music space: Spotify, YouTube, GooglePlay, Amazon. "There are inquiries all the time" he says. "They ask a few questions. You send a response and that's it."
In other words: There's lots of smoke without a fire.
There is a real problem with mobile browsing right now. Many websites employ fullscreen adverts with an [x] button which is tricky to hit properly with the fingers. There is also the problem of redirects, whereby the browser is hijacked and redirected via an advertising system to a URL which opens an AppStore link (usually one of these freemium games). It's all really annoying and not at all a pleasant experience.
Now, if someone can make a blocker which gets rid of those pesky EU cookie warnings which appear on all websites, it would be even better.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
I'd like it to be consistent throughout.
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
APK, I know people give you a lot of shit regarding hosts, but please don't ever stop.
"What's clear is that allowing ad-blockers in iOS 9 could deliver a serious blow to Google, the biggest rival to Apple in the mobile space, because advertising remains a massive portion of the search giant's income."
These people keep saying this, and yet Apple is still considered an also-also-ALSO ran in two of the world's potentially largest markets: China and India. In these markets, Android and other OSes (and the mobile manufacturers behind them) rule the roost and Apple barely makes a dent (and isn't that much in total world-wide market share, either).
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
People used to scream bloody hell when Microsoft did it, because Microsoft had monopolies. To run a normal business, people had to have Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. Try anything different, and they'd likely have subtle (or not so-subtle) incompatibilities that they'd have to deal with.
Apple never had a monopoly in desktop or laptop computers. Back in the dinky market before the IBM PC, they were probably the best-selling brand, but they had a lot of competition. For a while, Apple had an arguable monopoly on smartphones and smartphone apps, and Apple did have a tablet monopoly for a while. Nowadays, to run a normal business, you are going to need smartphones and probably tablets, but Android is a perfectly viable alternative to iOS, and Microsoft has some products that some people like.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We all hope you die painfully soon. But here's a small subset of the reasons you suck:
1) Will it run on my iPad (and no, I'm not jailbreaking)?
2) Can I use it to block annoying "toolbars" that sites cover 20% of their content with (e.g. Wikia)?
3) Can it be used to defeat modal boxes that try to prevent you from reading articles on various sites?
4) How about the auto-playing video on Bloomberg (and others)?
Answer: NOPE
Besides, uBlock is using 33MB of RAM right now, which is considerably less than GMail. I can even use it to block the stupid "videos" feature on the Slashdot home page.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
I'm exactly none of the people you listed as giving you shit, but I still want you gone. Your solution sucks and your spam is as annoying as the ads I block with uBlock, especially the native ones that your solution can't block.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
The key problem is that I don't generally trust online payment systems. As a class I don't trust them to get it right, and I don't trust them to protect my data. Thus I would love a single system where I can trust it and then be able to dole money out from it in ways that I completely control.
In theory I just described paypal but the problem there is that they aren't really conducive to micropayments. They love their macro fees thought.
So the wall between me and anything like forrestor would be that even if I wanted the article I am loth to giving them my data more than giving them my money.
I also suspect that because of this barrier they have fewer customers and then have to charge more for each article.
I would be happy to pay stackoverflow a penny or so per use. But I won't pay them $2 per answer; even if that answer will save me a day's work.
I can't be that far off seeing how many people are willing to do in app purchases.
If an article that saves you a day's work up front isn't worth $200-2000 much less $2 then you are just too a customer that is too hard to sell to. They make more money from advertising to you then selling you content. The market you are asking for can't exist, it just isn't profitable enough.
The app market mainly exists because:
a) There are small numbers of people paying a lot (either in the commercial space or addicts for in app purchases)
b) There are large numbers of people willing to pay some. But more than you are saying.
So I'm supposed to waste CPU cycles and memory on auto-playing videos and screen real estate on pointless toolbars because you think your solution is "better"?
Besides, I'll bet your list includes some sites that I need for work. Oh, your list can't be turned off on a per-site basis without whitelisting that domain everywhere? Maybe that's because it sucks.
At least other ad blockers aren't made by spammers. If you're in the business of making annoying ads why do you make an ad blocker?
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
The toolbars on Wikia and auto-playing videos on Bloomberg are served from the same host as the main content. Hosts blocking won't work.
I tried blocking javascript, but I don't feel like spending 5 minutes on every site figuring out which scripts to let through. Besides, uBlock and ghostery stop the worst ones.
As for your "doing less with more" claim: my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock, your system blocks fewer ads and I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does.
As for your other comment that you seem to think I "ran" from (I can barely parse your rants): Why the fuck would a standalone e-mail program need an ad blocker? Do you actually have your e-mail set to allow remote content?
Here's a question, if there's a part of a page I don't like (sidebar, toolbar, "join our mailing list" nag), can your hosts solution let me right click on it and block it forever? No?
Again, why should I trust an adblocker made by a spamvertiser?
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
The article cost problem is much like the computer book problem that I had in the days that I bought computer books. Nearly all computer books suck. Thus for every 20 computer books I bought maybe 1 really did it for me.
Thus I would much prefer sifting through stackoverflow at a small but steady burn instead of the probable rip off at a higher price. So while any given article might save me a pile of money most would be a waste of money.
Netflix is also a betterish model to compare to. Their cost to provide me Netflix is low. Thus they charge me far less than the stupid and dying networks/cable companies. I would be happy spending lots of little money instead of the occasional gouge.
That's a subscription model not a lowish per article model. With a few exceptions like Wall Street Journal (and even theirs is starting to fail) most sites don't have content uniquely good enough to keep subscribers. As you get more specialized it works. Certainly that model works but the cost per user is high not low.
I'll enjoy watching you continue to shit yourself over this, but this will be my last reply to you (though I'm thinking of making this my sig):
We hereby petition the government of the United States of America to review our proposal for putting Alexander Peter Kowalski (i.e. APK) to death by any means available. This individual is a menace to society and has proven himself to be a drain on the productivity for the millions of IT workers worldwide that spend so much time uncontrollably laughing at APK and his antics. We estimate that this phenomena is costing businesses in the US at least 100 million dollars on an annual basis. Given that APK only has APKTools to justify existence we have no problem recommending him for immediate execution. If at all possible, we would like the execution to be slow and painful.
It's clear your solution can't block ads and annoyances nearly as well as uBlock. I also have no idea why anyone would run an executable made by a bigoted spammer. Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Yeah, I'm a bit late to comment, but haven't found any mention in the threads. There are existing adblockers for iOS that work fine, and they work not just for browsing, but for other apps as well, pretty useful!
Animoog.org
Well, as I said in this message, I'm not replying to APK anymore. In the comment above this he suggests he somehow chased me off Slashdot.
It was really fun imagining him typing furiously hoping that somehow his inane rants would anger me. Obviously I managed to piss him off pretty bad. A more thorough effort might actually get him angry enough that his ancient body finally gives out, thus finally freeing us of this bigoted, attention-seeking, spammer.
OTOH, he might feed off this kind of attention, spamming the internet about his shitty software is obviously all he has left in life.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
You're still wrong, and your arguments are non-sensical. Oh, and your software sucks, and your ideas suck.
I am not an advertiser, I'm an engineer. I don't work for advertisers, and my job has nothing to do with ads. I hate ads, including yours.
I'm not sure why you're so fixated on my sexual orientation, other than perhaps psychosis or repression. Either way, I'll enjoy dancing on your grave. I'll even put on a pride flag on it for you.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.