iOS Ad Blocker "Crystal" Will Let Companies Pay To Show You Ads

That's just... dishonest by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-24 10:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

Dear consumer,

Pay me money for my ad-blocking app!

Dead advertiser,

Hey, I got all these saps... er customers to pay me for ad blocking! Now pay me money for the privilege to advertise to them!!

Sincerely,

Jackass developer.

Re: That's just... dishonest by Striikerr · 2015-09-24 10:10 · Score: 1

If I had purchased this blocker, I would be demanding my money back. I bought Purify and have been happy with it. Hopefully they remain true to blocking all ads and trackers. Yes it cost more but I see that as an investment in a better browsing experience on mobile.
Re: That's just... dishonest by mattventura · 2015-09-24 10:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

The sad part is that for whatever reason, stuff that you would never dream of paying for on a desktop costs money on iOS. Everything from adblockers to solitaire games either seem to cost money or be ad-riddled.
Re: That's just... dishonest by fracas · 2015-09-24 10:46 · Score: 5, Informative

I actually did pay for it, and just demanded a refund. This is total bait-and-switch to the consumer, and extortion of the advertiser. Dean Murphy is scum.
Re: That's just... dishonest by AuMatar · 2015-09-24 10:54 · Score: 2

THe reason is that it costs money to develop for iOS. Developing for windows, Linux, and even Mac is free. iOS costs 100 a year. Even Android is just 25 one time (and that's only to put your apps on the play store, not to make a sideloadable app). Because of this, devs wanted to make their money back. That stopped the early creation of free (cost) and open source software.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re: That's just... dishonest by vijayiyer · 2015-09-24 10:57 · Score: 1

$25 or $100 is negligible even if you value your time well below minimum wage.
Re: That's just... dishonest by TWX · 2015-09-24 10:58 · Score: 2

It may not actually be, but sometimes it feels like a perversion of the open-source movement, which had a whole lot of people writing small utilities or programs and distributing them because they enjoyed doing it. Obviously Linux and Free/Net/Open BSD had the most truly free software, but there was a lot of open-source software distributed for Windows and MacOSX platforms. At some point the application-store model took over as it became increasingly difficult to install software from any random source onto iOS and Android platforms and the small-transaction model became more and more prevalent. Now it's working its way into Windows devices and MacOSX devices.

I suppose this is why I don't install a lot of non-stock programs on my phone. There have been some programs that started out all right, but after they became somewhat popular the developer started adding ads and requesting increasing permissions. It would be one thing if these programs did something truly original and novel, but some programs like loan/mortgage calculators are based on algorithms that anyone can implement.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:That's just... dishonest by publiclurker · 2015-09-24 11:42 · Score: 1

You forgot: Dear consumer, Pay me more money for my new and improved ad-blocking app!
Re: That's just... dishonest by Darinbob · 2015-09-24 12:00 · Score: 1

This is why apps are so popular. Sorry, I mean this is why writing apps is so popular.
Re: That's just... dishonest by Darinbob · 2015-09-24 12:01 · Score: 1

It's a huge amount if you just want to try it out.
Re: That's just... dishonest by stevel · 2015-09-24 12:40 · Score: 4, Informative

See http://www.imore.com/how-to-ge...
Re: That's just... dishonest by mjwx · 2015-09-24 12:55 · Score: 1

$25 or $100 is negligible even if you value your time well below minimum wage.
If I wanted to develop an IOS app, I'd have to buy another computer and another phone. This is a $2000 minimum outlay as well as the $99 per year needed to remain a developer. Given that most apps dont even make $99 per year chances are I'd never make back the original outlay.

I can develop a Windows, Linux and Android app with all of my existing resources.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re: That's just... dishonest by petermgreen · 2015-09-24 12:56 · Score: 1

The cost of man/hours to do any software it way higher comparativelly.
Sure, if you are paying for those man hours or doing the software development when you would otherwise have been doing paid work.
If you are doing it as a hobby (instead of watching TV, posting on /. or whatever) then those man hours cost nothing. On the other hand being expected to pay for the privilage of posting free apps is deeply offputting.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re: That's just... dishonest by pushing-robot · 2015-09-24 14:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

1. You can buy a new Mac plus iPhone for half that. Replace the iPhone with an iPod Touch or iPad to save a few hundred more. Used devices also work fine.
2. With minor tweaking you can get OS X running in a VM, use XCode's iOS simulator to do most of your development testing, and invite friend(s) with iOS devices to do on-device beta testing.
3. Then again, if you have no interest in owning or using an Apple product, it's probably best you don't develop for the platform.
4. http://www.penny-arcade.com/co...

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Re: That's just... dishonest by countach · 2015-09-24 14:27 · Score: 1

This is a cool idea if the ad software gave the user a kickback on this. Hey, pay me to look at your ads, and I'll look at them! Nice.
Re: That's just... dishonest by hcs_$reboot · 2015-09-24 16:18 · Score: 1

Everyone wants a piece of the cake.

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Re: That's just... dishonest by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-24 16:40 · Score: 1

The apple dev program is indeed 99$/y. But for free you can get Xcode which is capable of side loading apps since several months back, and it lets you do that with a free developers account.
Re: That's just... dishonest by FunkSoulBrother · 2015-09-24 17:28 · Score: 1

such as?
Re: That's just... dishonest by FunkSoulBrother · 2015-09-24 17:42 · Score: 1

Thank you. I'd already purchased this and just got the refund for it. Total dishonest bait and switch maneuver.
The sad part is that I'd really throw down 10, 20, maybe 50 bucks for a well developed ad blocker that really was on my side in this fight and went out of its way to ad new features / combat the ad companies. It doesn't have to be 99 cents, iOS developers -- if you need more money, raise the price, a lot of us will still pay if you deliver a high quality solution.
Re: That's just... dishonest by N1AK · 2015-09-24 19:51 · Score: 1

1. You can buy a new Mac plus iPhone for half that. Replace the iPhone with an iPod Touch or iPad to save a few hundred more. Used devices also work fine.
You're missing the point: As a hobbyist or tinkerer why would you even if the cost could be halved? The point stands that if you already own an iPhone then the cost and effort of being able to develop anything for it isn't negligible. That discourages many people from even trying, and those that do not unreasonably often want to charge so they can try and make a bit of that cash back.
Re: That's just... dishonest by thegarbz · 2015-09-24 20:33 · Score: 1

The sad part is that for whatever reason, stuff that you would never dream of paying for on a desktop costs money on iOS. Everything from adblockers to solitaire games either seem to cost money or be ad-riddled.
That's what you get when there's a cost to publish. It's one thing to give a hobby project up for free to anyone when I'm investing time to do something I like. It's quite another to have to pay to give something for free.
This is one of the reasons I like F-droid, an open source app store for Android.
Re: That's just... dishonest by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-24 21:11 · Score: 4, Informative

Starting with IOS9 you can compile and deploy apps on your device without being enrolled in IOS Developer Program. You only need to pay if you want to publish it in the App Store.
Re: That's just... dishonest by Tom · 2015-09-24 21:30 · Score: 1

It actually is the other way around. Things that add value are free for some reason. They should cost money. Not a lot (scale economy) but a little. If something of value is for free, your critical mind should ask itself what the catch is.
Sometimes there isn't a catch. People do things out of love for the thing sometimes. I have a couple computer games online that you can play for free, or you can give me some money if you want, but unlike most "free" games these days it won't get you in-game advantages. There are a lot of people doing things this way, simply because they enjoy doing it.
But when a company offer something for free, there is always a catch. Maybe it's marketing, or advertisement, or collecting and selling your personal data, or it's a bait-and-switch, or they hope to "convert" you to a paying user for another product or whatever, but they're never doing it out of the kindness of their heart, because corporations don't have hearts, they have balance sheets.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re: That's just... dishonest by goose-incarnated · 2015-09-24 22:58 · Score: 1

1. You can buy a new Mac plus iPhone for half that. Replace the iPhone with an iPod Touch or iPad to save a few hundred more. Used devices also work fine.
2. With minor tweaking you can get OS X running in a VM, use XCode's iOS simulator to do most of your development testing, and invite friend(s) with iOS devices to do on-device beta testing.
3. Then again, if you have no interest in owning or using an Apple product, it's probably best you don't develop for the platform.
4. http://www.penny-arcade.com/co...
All nice in theory, but you're working on the assumption that the only motivator to write an app is for commercial gains. If that is indeed your only motivator then you may as well shell out a little and it might pay off.
However a not-insignificant portion of the world's most popular software was created to scratch an itch. On iOS you have to pay if you want to scratch an itch. So, all the other platforms get the scratched-itch software (i.e. found to be genuinely useful and can't-live-without for at least one person, opssibly more) while iOS gets Peace, or Crystal.

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Re: That's just... dishonest by smash · 2015-09-24 22:59 · Score: 1

Developing for Linux, Windows and Mac is NOT free. The hardware costs money. To sign code on Windows costs money. To sign code anywhere costs money to get a certificate from a reputable CA. The apple developer program gets you a code signing certificate to enable you to publish your app. You can do all the iOS or other Apple development you like without that.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re: That's just... dishonest by smash · 2015-09-24 23:00 · Score: 1

If I wanted to develop a Windows app, i'd have to buy another OS and another phone. If i wanted to develop an Android app, i'd need to buy another phone.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re: That's just... dishonest by smash · 2015-09-24 23:03 · Score: 1

On the contrary, the cost of most iOS applications is much cheaper than the cost of most commercial software on Windows or OS X. There are heaps of free apps on the iOS app store.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re: That's just... dishonest by FireFury03 · 2015-09-24 23:44 · Score: 1

$25 or $100 is negligible even if you value your time well below minimum wage.
And yet it's significant to anyone who would give away their work for free (which is what we're talking about).

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re: That's just... dishonest by Waccoon · 2015-09-25 00:12 · Score: 1

Works in every other industry, so why not? Resident pays for caller ID, advertiser pays to keep number private.
Re: That's just... dishonest by stevel · 2015-09-25 00:12 · Score: 1

I am currently using Blockr which works. I don't mind simple, unobtrusive ads, but filling my screen with bandwidth-sucking animations and more is just offensive.
Re: That's just... dishonest by Penguinisto · 2015-09-25 01:38 · Score: 1

On the other hand being expected to pay for the privilage of posting free apps is deeply offputting.

Depends... to put it into perspective from a hobbyist point-of-view? Let's play golf. No matter how you slice it** , you're going to lay out more than $100/year if you want to play this game. Funny thing, though - you don't hear too many people bitching about that...
** bah-dump-tssssh!

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re: That's just... dishonest by RavenLrD20k · 2015-09-25 02:57 · Score: 1

Or you could run on emulators that Visual Studio provides for WinPhones (using a Windows VM, of course, no new hardware needed) and Google Provides for Android through their SDK. Especially in Android, it's better to develop to the emulators first anyway so you can get an idea of how your app will look and behave on a multitude of screen sizes and device capabilities... thus making sure that you can appeal to the widest array of potential customers and knowing how to code around the version fragmentation. Most of the sensors are available for tweaking and manipulation in the Emulator on a live basis and available for apps to read as if they were operating on a real phone. Hell, the emulator can even simulate being in a phone call so you can test application blocking, suspending, and resuming when it needs to.
Re: That's just... dishonest by el_chicano · 2015-09-25 04:16 · Score: 1

If you are doing it as a hobby (instead of watching TV, posting on /. or whatever) then those man hours cost nothing.
Nope, economically there is always a cost. In this case the TV you missed or the /. posts you did not submit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Whether or not the cost incurred is significant or important to you there IS is a cost involved.

--
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Re:That's just... dishonest by r-diddly · 2015-09-25 04:59 · Score: 1

Putting it that way, it does seem like a blatant conflict of interest. It's kind of like being a weapons manufacturer and selling to both sides of a war.
Re: That's just... dishonest by smash · 2015-09-25 16:56 · Score: 1

iOS also has an emulator that does exactly that. There is zero difference between developing for iOS, Windows or Android, other than the fact that the developer program on iOS gets you a code signing certificate, and on the other platforms you need to take care of that seperately. You can still DEVELOP for iOS with zero payment into the developer program.
Yes, you need a Mac, or at least some way of running OS X to run XCODE, but to develop for Android or Windows you also need a computer with either a Windows license or a copy of Linux.
A 2010 Mac Mini, which is more than capable of iOS development is not cost prohibitive.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re: That's just... dishonest by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-09-26 08:19 · Score: 1

$25 or $100 is negligible even if you value your time well below minimum wage.
If I wanted to develop an IOS app, I'd have to buy another computer and another phone. This is a $2000 minimum outlay as well as the $99 per year needed to remain a developer. Given that most apps dont even make $99 per year chances are I'd never make back the original outlay.
What do you think it costs to develop for Android? Heck, you need to build an house extension just to store the test devices.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Re: That's just... dishonest by Tom · 2015-09-26 16:40 · Score: 1

I mentioned this in my post, that people do things for the love of the thing itself. Did you read before posting reply?

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re: That's just... dishonest by allo · 2015-09-27 03:59 · Score: 1

if you're doing free development, you're paying already with time and ressources (i.e. power, maybe buying some new pc from time to time), and then the appstore comes and tells you "oh and i want some money from you, too". This needs really passion to pay for providing something for free. I know, many people do this, but i do not really see the point in paying big companies for this. I did some android apps and you can download them and install as APK. One is even in F-Droid.
Re: That's just... dishonest by RavenLrD20k · 2015-09-28 03:51 · Score: 1

No, it's not cost prohibitive to go with 5 year old tech that costs more a brand new modest PC. It's just a better value for a developer just starting out to go with Android over any other platform. The barrier to entry for developing on Android is considerably cheaper than trying to build for WinPhone or iOS. Hell, if I was strapped for cash but really wanted to develop a mobile app (basic logic and sanity questions notwithstanding) I could easily go down to Goodwill and pick up a Tower ($35), Keyboard ($3-4), Mouse ($2) and Monitor ($15-30) for less than $75 all together.
I personally don't have anything against using a Mac. There are times that I work with the Mac at work, enjoy the way it does certain things and get to thinking about buying one for home. Then I see the price they cost for the specs they offer and it always makes me sick to my stomach. The few kludges that I have to work around in a CentOS 6.7 Linux desktop to do my Open Source/Android dev-work is well worth the extra money I would have had to spend to get the "just works" system with not quite near the system specs I have (most certainly won't have a built in CUDA).
Re: That's just... dishonest by AKWintermute · 2015-09-28 05:54 · Score: 1

I just requested a refund as well and it was accepted immediately even though I purchased the app over a week ago.
Re: That's just... dishonest by AKWintermute · 2015-09-28 05:59 · Score: 1

I think this way is easier because you can do it from anywhere and without iTunes: http://ioshacker.com/how-to/ge...

That sounds like fraud to me by msobkow · 2015-09-24 10:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

Changing the terms of the agreement for purchased products is not in the same league as changing the terms of a free product. When people pay for something, they expect it to do what they paid for.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:That sounds like fraud to me by OhPlz · 2015-09-24 10:06 · Score: 1

What are you, left handed or something?

Dear Crystal author..... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-24 10:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Dear Crystal author,

Fuck you.

Sincerely,

-JustAnotherOldGuy

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...

Re:Dear Crystal author..... by gnupun · 2015-09-24 10:21 · Score: 1

What if websites add this code?
if httpRequest.userAgent.contains("ios9"): showPage("404 no stuff for freeloaders") endif
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-24 10:33 · Score: 1

Lol, that would be funny as hell.
BRB, there's some lawyers at the door who say they're from Apple. Should I use a shotgun or a chainsaw?

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by Opportunist · 2015-09-24 10:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

close page
search for another page serving same content
5 seconds of googling later...
You don't want to give me what I want? Ok. No problem.
NEXT!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by The+Grim+Reefer · 2015-09-24 11:51 · Score: 5, Funny

BRB, there's some lawyers at the door who say they're from Apple. Should I use a shotgun or a chainsaw?
Yes.
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-24 12:16 · Score: 1

Cool. Say, do you know how to get blood out of a carpet?

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by pdclarry · 2015-09-24 13:15 · Score: 1

I guess we will have to write apps that modify the userAgent string. I assume there is a way to do that in ios...I don't develop for ios since I am a cheap bastard who doesn't want to pay for their developer license and tools.
You can't modify the userAgent string in the built-in Safari. But there are several browser apps in the App Store that give you control over it. The only issue is that Safari is always the default browser if you click on a link in an app, email or text.
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-24 13:31 · Score: 1

There's an app for that. It's going to cost you $9.99 and after you buy it, it might not work at all.
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by Noah+Haders · 2015-09-24 14:47 · Score: 1

why would apple lawyers come to your door in this scenario?
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by cfalcon · 2015-09-24 16:05 · Score: 1

Great! I sincerely hope that the websites add code that blocks anything with userAgent ios9.
First: It would infuriate people to the terrible behaviors advertisers do.
Second: It would make most Apple users grab any of the browers that CAN fix the userAgent string already, such as Atomic, Mercury, etc. This is nice because more users would have alternate browsers. Minor benefit.
Third and most importantly: Safari would finally support this sort of spoofing by default. That's clutch, because it's a very basic feature we still don't have.
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by cfalcon · 2015-09-24 16:11 · Score: 1

And after ten clicks, I find what I used to be able to find before the advertisers turned the web into a shit festival of slideshows with "I'm Feeling Lucky".
What we need is a search engine that lets you filter out "sites with ads", "sites that block people who use adblockers", etc. Then I can search for a recipe for stew and find a recipe for stew, instead of finding hundreds of pages of content delivery mechanism, some of which claim to have stew recipes (and some subset of that which actually does).
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-24 16:55 · Score: 1

why would apple lawyers come to your door in this scenario?
They obviously smelled that stack of $100 bills that I keep by the door.
Plus if you say something bad about IOS, the ghost of Steve Jobs rises from his grave and walks the Earth looking for retribution. Everybody knows that.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by antdude · 2015-09-24 17:30 · Score: 1

How old are you? :P

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by N1AK · 2015-09-24 21:15 · Score: 1

What's your point? You're using an adblocker so the site that blocked you lost no revenue, or even potential revenue, and saved themselves the bandwidth cost of your visit. Plenty of sites would be happy to lose 20% of traffic, if the 20% they are losing is a monetary black hole anyway.

Until a viable alternative way of raising revenue comes around (some form of micro-payments that works maybe) sites will be reliant on advertising for revenue. If you block advertising then losing your custom is a net gain for them.
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-25 00:39 · Score: 1

How old are you? :P
When I was born Alaska hadn't yet been admitted as the 49th US state.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by Quirkz · 2015-09-25 02:55 · Score: 1

The best is when you search for a stew recipe, go to a page claiming to have one, and what you get is something saying "Be the first to put your stew recipe here!" Yeah, as if.

--
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by dgatwood · 2015-09-25 03:52 · Score: 1
You can in iOS 9:
1. Create a network extension VPN plug-in that parses packets, re-creates those packets or connections in a manner that binds them to the current public network interface, and then re-sends the traffic (making it effectively a null VPN).
2. Grab the source code for an http/https proxy and integrate it into your null network extension VPN plug-in so that the proxy also runs continuously in the background, listening on an ephemeral port on the loopback interface.
3. Add code to the proxy that watches for a Safari user agent string and replaces it with an arbitrary string from the plug-in's configuration.
4. Write an app that A. loads and starts the VPN plug-in, B. obtains the proxy's port number, C. configures the device's proxy settings for use while the VPN tunnel is "conncted", thus sending the traffic to your proxy via the loopback interface, and D. tells the proxy what user agent string to use (by sending a command to the plug-in).
Obviously, #1 is a pain in the backside. The rest is pretty straightforward.
--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by dgatwood · 2015-09-25 03:55 · Score: 1

Err... "connected".
You might also have to get the user to install a signed configuration profile that adds the https proxy to the trusted anchors list on the device; I'm not sure if you can do that from a network extension profile or not.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by pdclarry · 2015-09-25 04:24 · Score: 1

OR, you can download a 3rd party browser from the app store that offers this feature.
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by antdude · 2015-09-25 05:43 · Score: 1

Ah. 1959.

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by RavenLrD20k · 2015-09-25 05:49 · Score: 1

That's why you're supposed to jump out of the way when the giant monkey looks like he's gonna rush you. The only thing that'll happen then is he'll just get distracted and throw the chair out the window.
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-25 06:15 · Score: 1

Ah. 1959.
Close. :)

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by antdude · 2015-09-25 07:38 · Score: 1

How close? :P

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-25 07:58 · Score: 1

How close? :P
Close enough so as not to make much difference. :)
Yeah, I'm old. My birth certificate came on a clay tablet. :(

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by antdude · 2015-09-25 09:03 · Score: 1

Show us so we can see the proof. ;)

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-25 10:14 · Score: 1

Show us so we can see the proof. ;)
I would, but the Long Form version weighs 300lbs and is currently on loan to the Smithsonian. ;)

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by antdude · 2015-09-25 10:29 · Score: 1

Not even clear photo(graph)s?

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-25 10:34 · Score: 1

Not even clear photo(graph)s?
No, I can't show an image- it's got my original Social Security Number from the 1500's. Back then they were only 3 digits long.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by antdude · 2015-09-25 10:40 · Score: 1

Bah.

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-25 12:08 · Score: 1

Bah.
My feelings exactly. :)
I like your AQFL stuff, BTW. Bookmarked it, too. :)

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by antdude · 2015-09-25 12:37 · Score: 1

Thanks. You're funny too. :)

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Dear Crystal author..... by Opportunist · 2015-09-26 10:01 · Score: 1

Not to mention the load of information, insightful and not, we can find here.
At least I don't get paid to post here...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Must be nice... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-24 10:09 · Score: 1, Funny

isn't that like sucking from both ends of a pipe at the same time?

It's like sucking from both ends of something at the same time.

Something like a giant, pus-ridden cock connected directly to an anus.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...

Old adage by qbast · 2015-09-24 10:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you are not paying then you are the product. Unfortunately if your are paying, nothing prevents company from selling you anyway

Re:Old adage by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-24 10:31 · Score: 1

I'd like to remind everyone that this adage only holds true under the furtherst flung extremes of psychopathic capitalism where money is the only measure of value. That a lot of modern society operates under these conditions should not be forgotten either, however.
Re:Old adage by idbeholda · 2015-09-24 10:35 · Score: 1

So the real question is how much can be paid to block paid ads. It's like fighting money with money, everyone wins.

Re:Must be nice... by SuricouRaven · 2015-09-24 10:15 · Score: 1

I'd rather think of them as the arms dealer who sells to both sides.

"Supports"? by wonkey_monkey · 2015-09-24 10:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple's iOS 9 now supports ad blockers.

I think you mean "deigns to allow you to install".

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Refund? by Moof123 · 2015-09-24 10:17 · Score: 1

How do I get a refund?

Re:Refund? by jazzis · 2015-09-24 10:30 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.imore.com/how-to-ge...

Should Go the Other Way by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-24 10:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

If people are paying for an ad-blocker, that means they are willing to PAY for sites without ads. The smart thing to do would be to sell ad-free access to sites through the "ad-blocker" - the site gets paid, the user is happy.

Just figure out a way to do it that doesn't involve tracking the user in the process because modern ad-blocking is at least as much about tracker-blocking as it is about ad-blocking.

Re:Should Go the Other Way by cfalcon · 2015-09-24 16:13 · Score: 1

No, if you use an ad-blocker, paid or not, that means that you are trying to view sites without getting shit on by ads. Maybe you want to support sites without ads, or maybe you just want sites with ads to wither and die. You don't know.
Re:Should Go the Other Way by N1AK · 2015-09-24 21:19 · Score: 1

Someone who is willing to pay $1.99 for an adblocker is showing they are willing to pay a nominal amount to avoid ads. That isn't the same thing as being able to pay enough to make up for lost revenue from advertising. The web is built on advertising revenue; I'm certainly not saying that's a good thing but it is true, and it's a hard paradigm to change it seems.
Re:Should Go the Other Way by cfalcon · 2015-09-24 22:19 · Score: 1

I understand they don't want ads! And more so if they download an ad blocker.
Also I seem to understand how to log in, so I got that going for me...
Re:Should Go the Other Way by edtice1559 · 2015-09-25 02:45 · Score: 1

There's no reason that ad blocking couldn't be a subscription model. After all, staying ahead of the advertisers takes continuous updates so it makes sense to sell ad blocking as a service. Let's say I charge $5/year to block ads. Track which ads got blocked and split the revenue 50/50 with the advertisers based on which sites were visited.

Optional by Mr_Silver · 2015-09-24 10:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

As long as the developer of Crystal puts a tickbox in the preferences to allow you to block "acceptable advertising" then I don't see the issue. I understand that Crystal doesn't have a preferences screen right now, but it shouldn't be that hard to add one.

People who are happy to see adverts as long as they meet some sort of "acceptable" criteria can have it turned off - and people who just never want to see an advert again can turn it on.

Please don't let it be a repeat of Adblock Plus where all the nerdrage drowned out the few voices of reason that merely pointed out that all the anger could be resolved with the unchecking of a single tickbox in the preferences.

--
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.

Re:Optional by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-24 12:10 · Score: 1

...and then clickbait shit like Taboola and "38 Photos of Criminals that Will Give You Nightmares!" is deemed 'acceptable advertising'
Yeah, fuck that.
Re:Optional by Tom · 2015-09-24 20:43 · Score: 1

People who are happy to see adverts
total population: zero

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Bait and switch by fishscene · 2015-09-24 10:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

I requested a refund. Seems like Apple promptly granted it to me. Not sure when the funds will be returned to my account though. I *strongly* urge everyone to do the same out of principle. Sling-Media pulled this stunt with the Slingbox. We need to nip this sort of thing in the bud.

Re:Bait and switch by cfalcon · 2015-09-24 22:20 · Score: 1

More than principle, it stands to reason he gets a benefit from having all those users. I mean, if you made an ad blocker that had 25 users tops, I doubt you'd be getting the sweet sweet cash to use an "acceptable ads" default whitelist.

Re:Apps, not LUDDITE ads! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-24 10:31 · Score: 1

You are an App, you app that? You app APPPPPPPPPPP. APPPPPPP app you. APPPPPPPPPPPP APPPPPPPPPPPPP!

Apps!

Re:Must be nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-24 11:04 · Score: 1

Making people pay for your app to block ads while making advertisers pay to get their ads seen - isn't that like sucking from both ends of a pipe at the same time?

So he's acting like a cable company.

Wait for it... by irrational_design · 2015-09-24 11:06 · Score: 1

I have an iPhone, but I've been holding off on getting an ad blocker until it becomes apparent which one will really be the best. Apparently I also need to wait to see which one won't close up shop and which one will really be an ad blocker and not just a pseudo-ad blocker.

Re:Wait for it... by craigminah · 2015-09-24 11:31 · Score: 1

I don't trust ad blockers as they funnel web and/or other traffic through the developer's hollowed-out volcano.
Re:Wait for it... by TheGratefulNet · 2015-09-24 11:55 · Score: 1

do you at least get lots of orange crush?

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Wait for it... by cfalcon · 2015-09-24 16:20 · Score: 1

> I don't trust ad blockers as they funnel web and/or other traffic through the developer's hollowed-out volcano.
LIES!
Well, for Apple this is lies. For many other places too. The content blockers in ios don't actually get access like you are thinking of.
https://developer.apple.com/li...
"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"
So no, unlike an adblocker running as an executable on your PC, this is not that. The adblock extensions won't ever get to do anything with your data as long as this model is used by Apple.
The reason it's false in some other places is, just because a program or extension is running on your PC doesn't mean its doing the worst thing possible. Many are open source and can be inspected to see if they are doing something bad, for instance.
In general, you should trust ad blockers- certainly the ones that are free software. And if you are running Apple- which presumably you are if you commented in the manner that you did- then you trust Apple's proprietary software, so you should trust that no information about your browsing gets leaked to the ad block extension.
Re: Wait for it... by craigminah · 2015-09-25 22:53 · Score: 1

That's good to know. The ad blocker I tested wanted to install as a VPN service so I binned it.

I just don't know what to say.... by MrKrillls · 2015-09-24 11:09 · Score: 2

Remember: "If you are not the customer, you're the product."? I don't remember ever seeing "You are the customer AND you are the product."

--
Don't step on the baby.

Re:I just don't know what to say.... by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-24 11:18 · Score: 2

I don't remember ever seeing "You are the customer AND you are the product."
Hey man, get with the new paradigm. (The new paradigm is $49.95 a month, plus taxes and other applicable fees, shipping, handling, etc. Thank you for your continued patronage.)

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...

Re:Must be nice... by OhPlz · 2015-09-24 11:27 · Score: 1

We could kick it up a notch and offer an app blocker for unethical apps.

Isn't that what we asked for? by Wrath0fb0b · 2015-09-24 11:43 · Score: 2

I thought we said we wanted adblock because there were too many ads using (pick any/all):
[ ] Tracking cookies
[ ] Pop-ups
[ ] Pop-unders
[ ] Click-throughs
[ ] Flash or other auto-play media
[ ] Obtrusive (mid-article) placement
[ ] Annoying (blinking!) styling
[ ] Malware (usually flash based)

Of course companies do that because they have an incentive to do so. Now a company is saying -- hey, we'll give you an incentive to use unobtrusive ads -- they'll actually reach more people (including the much sought-after millennials who use adblockers the most). And we're upset that the incentive will align towards them?

I mean, if you point was to fuck the advertisers -- sure. But say that upfront, don't gripe about the method and then get all upset when someone tries to devise a scheme for reasonable ads.

Re:Isn't that what we asked for? by Bing+Tsher+E · 2015-09-24 15:42 · Score: 1

My point was to fuck the advertisers. With a broken coke bottle if easily possible.
Re:Isn't that what we asked for? by cfalcon · 2015-09-24 16:24 · Score: 1

Some people complain about that. That's a side issue. The problem with advertisements is the advertisements. Fuck the advertisements, fuck the advertisers. Fuck them so hard for hurting anyone who views advertisements, fuck them for making it difficult to not ever have to view their bullshit, and MOST OF ALL fuck them for working so hard to destroy any non-advertisement based method of content delivery, so that shills can parrot "brawk, but how will the content creators get paid, brawwwk?"
Not my problem. I don't want to see ads. An ad that doesn't do all the tech tricks to be outright malware doesn't hurt machines... it only hurts people. Fuck that. Fuck them.
Re:Isn't that what we asked for? by AmiMoJo · 2015-09-24 20:57 · Score: 1

Even with text-only "acceptable" ads it's difficult to know if they are respecting Do Not Track. Even if they don't send cookies, they can track by IP address. It's not as good, but it's still tracking.
I'm not against accepting some advertising, but only if my IP address is masked (shared VPN) and the company vetting the advertisers checks for compliance regularly.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Isn't that what we asked for? by N1AK · 2015-09-24 21:24 · Score: 1

Now a company is saying -- hey, we'll give you an incentive to use unobtrusive ads -- they'll actually reach more people (including the much sought-after millennials who use adblockers the most).

There are plenty of people who would be upset about that, but that isn't what is happening here. It's one thing for an adblocker to set a threshold for acceptable advertising, it's entirely another for them both dupe paying customers and allow advertisers to buy there way around the filter.
Re:Isn't that what we asked for? by edtice1559 · 2015-09-25 02:49 · Score: 1

If you don't want to see ads, don't go to sites with advertisements. Seems a pretty logical extension of the ad blocker. You can have three choices. (1) If a web site has ads, block all visits to the site (you're probably the only person in the world who will use this feature) (2) If a web site has ads that are also malware, block the ads, (3) If the ads are just ads the same way that they are in traditional media (newspaper, magazine) read the content. I have pointed out in another post that a more reasonable choice for option (1) would be to send a portion of your annual ad-blocking payment to the target web-site instead of blocking it and they serve up the content without ads.
Re:Isn't that what we asked for? by cfalcon · 2015-09-25 08:08 · Score: 1

No, the correct option is to continue to visit the web normally, but never view any ads. This has personal benefits- you don't see any ads- and aggregate benefits (if enough people do this, there will be less ads).
Re:Isn't that what we asked for? by edtice1559 · 2015-09-28 01:30 · Score: 1

If you don't want to pay for the goods, don't go to the hardware store. No, the correct option is to go to the hardware store and steal what you want. This has personal benefits - it doesn't cost you any money - and aggregate benefits (if enough people do this, there will be less hardware stores). The two are equivalent. Seeing the ads is how you pay for the content. There will be less ads due to their being less content which isn't an aggregate benefit. If the content is good, it's a net loss.
Re:Isn't that what we asked for? by cfalcon · 2015-09-28 15:26 · Score: 1

Oh shut the fuck up with that false equivalence. Ludicrous for equating what fucking pixels are on my screen with theft of a piece of hardware. Fuck that.
It's not theft, because nothing is stolen.
It's not a license violation, because no license need be given.
It's not a copyright violation because no copy that would qualify under copyright law was made.
The server gleefully serves up the data. At no point would anyone but an utter moron assume that the user at the other end would voluntarily view those ads. Only an idiot would think that!
It's not illegal. It's not wrong. It's nothing like that. Shame the fuck on you for even putting fingers to keyboard on that topic.
Re:Isn't that what we asked for? by edtice1559 · 2015-09-29 00:39 · Score: 1

The economic result for the owner of the hardware store (website) is the same. They cease to exist. If content isn't worth viewing, don't view it. If the content has value, be willing to pay for it.

Adblock plus does the same thing by BringMyShuttle · 2015-09-24 11:44 · Score: 1

AdBlock Plus: Extortion or Smart Business? | John C. Dvorak | http://www.pcmag.com/article2/...
Adblock Plus demands cash from websites to whitelist ads | http://www.digitaltrends.com/w...

Is that extortion? the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

A German court says it isn't. http://blog.pagefair.com/2015/...

Still stinks, but. People use adblockers to block ads. Not to only see ads where the advertiser greases the palm of some third party promising to block ads.

Re:Adblock plus does the same thing by sims+2 · 2015-09-24 12:23 · Score: 1

Afaik ABP is still free to users so they are only being paid by one party Crystal is now being paid by 2 parties.
I don't like that.

--
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!

Crystal == whores by kheldan · 2015-09-24 11:47 · Score: 2

If that's the way they want to do things, then they're basically creating malware and nobody should use their app.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:Must be nice... by pdclarry · 2015-09-24 11:58 · Score: 1

I'd rather think of them as the arms dealer who sells to both sides.

Good analogy. Time to see or re-read George Bernard Shaw's "Major Barbara."

Except it's selling to all three sides. The consumer. The advertizer. The cellular carrier you pay for the bandwidth to download the ads. It's as bad as paying for incoming calls on a cell phone.

Just like cable. by sims+2 · 2015-09-24 12:11 · Score: 2

Just like cable.

--
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!

His argument... by dark.nebulae · 2015-09-24 12:25 · Score: 1

His argument is:

It'll be entirely optional when the feature is available.

His plan is to only allow ads that adhere to the acceptableads.org manifesto. As a "man in the middle" I don't see how he can determine which ads satisfy the manifesto. He cannot determine if the ads disrupt or distort a page, can't determine if the ads are being transparent about being ads, can't determine that they're shouting at us or are annoying and also cannot determine if the ads are appropriate for the site being viewed.

So basically he's either lying to customers (by taking money from the advertisers and allowing the ads through w/o all of this analysis) or he's fooling himself into thinking he can systematically determine the ads satisfy the manifesto on the fly while rendering web content.

The take away is that he's selling out to develop this "optional" feature to allow ads. That means he's one update away from at first removing the "optional" aspect of the feature and eventually turning his registered user base into a target for ad delivery.

No longer top ad blocking app. by GrahamCox · 2015-09-24 12:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

...and Crystal plummets out of sight in 3...2...1...

Me, I'm a bit miffed that I finally upgraded my iPhone 4S to iOS 9 so that I could install an ad-blocker, but then find that the 4S doesn't support ad blockers because it doesn't have a 64-bit chip. I have no idea why an ad blocker would require that. Some claim it needs high performance, but that doesn't make sense - surely blocking an ad reduces the performance required to display a page? Don't get it, seems like Apple just arbitrarily decided that ad blocking needs a modern device as an upgrade driver.

Re:No longer top ad blocking app. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-24 12:50 · Score: 1

#CrystalShame
Re:No longer top ad blocking app. by geekmux · 2015-09-24 23:46 · Score: 1

...and Crystal plummets out of sight in 3...2...1... Me, I'm a bit miffed that I finally upgraded my iPhone 4S to iOS 9 so that I could install an ad-blocker, but then find that the 4S doesn't support ad blockers because it doesn't have a 64-bit chip. I have no idea why an ad blocker would require that. Some claim it needs high performance, but that doesn't make sense - surely blocking an ad reduces the performance required to display a page? Don't get it, seems like Apple just arbitrarily decided that ad blocking needs a modern device as an upgrade driver.
Further proof that support for consumer electronics these days ages in dog years.

Privelege to be FREE of infestation #1/2... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-24 12:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Here's a SMALL partial only sample of OpenBid & other ad networks malware makers have taken advantage of to infect you with:

http://www.itworld.com/securit...

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.co...

http://www.zdnet.com/ad-exec-o...

http://search.slashdot.org/sto...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023...

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.co...

http://www.securityweek.com/ea...

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/m...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

APK

P.S.=> See subject & those links (AND we're free of ads that not only INFECT US, but also STEAL BANDWIDTH & SPEED WE PAY FOR MONTHLY too) - to be continued in my next subsequent post with MORE of the same information for you vs. your b.s. advertiser

... apk

Re:The sense of privilege here makes me sick by swb · 2015-09-24 12:51 · Score: 1

A lot of the content people want isn't the web site's original work, it's the contributions of the thousands of users of the web site. Like Slashdot -- I'm really not here for TFA, I'm here for the discussion that occurs about the TFA.

Why should I pay the web site owner for content they didn't generate? Nobody would visit the site if it wasn't for the unpaid contributors.

I get that sites cost money to run, but making the people who make your web site valuable through their contributions of content pay with ads and tracking is kind of obnoxious.

Maybe people who contribute more often could get less or no ads.

Didn't they just add a bunch of networking stuff by rsilvergun · 2015-09-24 13:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

that ad blockers needed to work? Firefox has all that stuff (my firefox plug-in needs it to build youtube links). I've been trying to finish a Chrome port in my spare time but Chrome is missing a lot of that stuff and I haven't found a good way to hack it in (my C/C++-fu is only so-so).

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Just get a refund and find one that works by ukoda · 2015-09-24 13:49 · Score: 1

It seems simple to me, just get a refund and use the money to purchase one that actually works. The refund is a legal right in most countries if the product does not work as claimed. Here in NZ consumer protection laws would see the refund being a simple process in this case, an ad blocker must block ads or your money back.

Disclaimer: I use Firefox/Adblock Edge so have never paid for an ad blocker.

iPad mini - left behind by CmdrPorno · 2015-09-24 14:04 · Score: 1

Since my iPad mini was Left Behind (Apple says 32 bit devices do not support native ad-blocking), I bought Weblock, which works with my older device. Seems to be working well so far, and also works with Google Chrome, which is my preferred browser.

--
Sent from my iPhone

Pay-for-access idea by Todd+Knarr · 2015-09-24 14:14 · Score: 1

How about an ad blocker that charges advertisers per view to let their ads be seen, and pays users a portion of that (say split it 10% to the blocker's developer, half the remainder to the site and half to the user) if they allow the ads to be shown to them. If the advertiser wants more views, they can either a) make more interesting ads that people actually want to see or b) offer more money for people's attention.

Re:Pay-for-access idea by cfalcon · 2015-09-24 16:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

How about an ad blocker that blocks ads.

hosts file IP blocking? by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2015-09-24 15:01 · Score: 1

The only kind of ad blocking I trust is localhost redirects via /etc/hosts. This is what I do for my desktop and Android phone. I believe there's a similar mechanism for Windows. Since iOS is running a BSD base, wouldn't it be the same for iPhones? Create a host file with something like:

127.0.0.1 facebook.com

Fund the websites by gringer · 2015-09-24 15:54 · Score: 2

People are prepared to pay money to block ads, and advertisers are prepared to pay money to keep ads being displayed. How about using some of that money to pay for maintenance of the websites that have blocked ads?

--
Ask me about repetitive DNA

Re:Fund the websites by edtice1559 · 2015-09-25 02:50 · Score: 1

I posted the same thing but didn't express it as well. Sadly that means I can't mod you up.
Re:Fund the websites by edtice1559 · 2015-09-25 02:51 · Score: 1

Well if the ad blocker were a subscription service then your model would work perfectly. The organization doing the ad blocking would be responsible for equitable distribution of that revenue.

His Twitter handle is ''Crafty Deano''. Figures! by BringMyShuttle · 2015-09-24 17:01 · Score: 1

True. And not only did Dean Murphy's app net $75,000 from customers who thought they were paying for an ad-free experience, but the extra cash to allow ads is being paid to him by Adblock Plus themselves! http://www.theverge.com/2015/9...

iTunes says nothing about letting certain ads through: "Crystal is a content blocker for iPhone & iPad designed to make the mobile web a great experience. It blocks Adverts, User Tracking and improves speed, data use and battery life of your device as a result." Deceptive advertising!

His Twitter handle is ''Crafty Deano''. Figures! https://twitter.com/CraftyDean...^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Why is this moderated as 'troll'? by ecotax · 2015-09-24 19:26 · Score: 1

Parent simply looks like a nuanced opinion -possibly one that's not too popular here- to me.
Nothing in there that even remotely looks like trolling.

--
"Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks

Purify is slow, use valgrind by mi · 2015-09-24 20:05 · Score: 1

I bought Purify and have been happy with it. Hopefully they remain true to blocking all ads and trackers.

I too was once reasonably happy with Purify, but what does it have to do with ad-blocking escapes me... Maybe, things have changed since I switched to valgrind...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

what's wrong by Tom · 2015-09-24 20:41 · Score: 2

Here is what's wrong with all this bullshit in one sentence:

If your company wants to show me ads, you pay me for my time and attention.

Not some software developer, not some marketing company that promises to bypass all my filters, not some spammer who will flood my inbox, not anyone who basically made it a profession to show me crap that I don't want to see.

You are using my time, my resources, my attention, you want to get inside my brain, put a message into my memory. Why don't you nitwits not get the very simple conclusion that you should put money into my pocket to make that happen?

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:His Twitter handle is ''Crafty Deano''. Figures by N1AK · 2015-09-24 21:27 · Score: 1

It isn't, though I don't agree with what he is doing. It does block adverts (it just won't block all adverts). A bit like a hand-sanitiser being advertised as "kills germs".

Re:The sense of privilege here makes me sick by N1AK · 2015-09-24 21:30 · Score: 1

Maybe not trolling but he deserved the down moderation for the lazy ad-hominem/strawman:

Seriously people, keep on pirating your content, video games, and movies, as it's clear everyone here feels it's owed to them.

I think it would be great to be paid by Muntzsky · 2015-09-25 01:30 · Score: 1

I read the title of the post and thought that advertisers would pay YOU to show YOU ads. That might be acceptable to me, receiving a payment for every ad I have to see.

So here's an idea by wcrowe · 2015-09-25 01:51 · Score: 1

What if advertisers paid ME, directly, to see their ads? If some kind of system like that were in place, I would consider turning off my ad blocker.

--
Proverbs 21:19

Re:So here's an idea by edtice1559 · 2015-09-25 02:54 · Score: 1

That's happening right now. Your payment for viewing the ads is getting to see the /. content. You can also find places where, in exchange for watching a 30 second video clip, you get 45 minutes of access to their WiFi network. Lots of advertisers will buy you dinner if you listen to their sales pitch. Oh and I'm sure you can find companies out there that will pay you cash. For web browsing, your payment is the content.
Re:So here's an idea by wcrowe · 2015-09-25 03:01 · Score: 1

Good point. I guess the problem boils down to the fact that the advertising and content are not of equal enough value. In other words, perhaps clickbait is driving down the value of content to the point that adverts have become too "expensive".

--
Proverbs 21:19
Re:So here's an idea by edtice1559 · 2015-09-25 06:13 · Score: 1

/. is a good example in that, those of us who post regularly, are given the option to disable advertising. You get the content in exchange for either viewing the ads incidentally or contributing comments. I agree that most of the web is low-value content in order to get low-value ads in front of eyeballs. Would rather an ad-blocker that just blocks those sites entirely.
Re:So here's an idea by wcrowe · 2015-09-25 06:53 · Score: 1

I do like that about /. If you look at my user number you'll see I've been on for a long time -- something like 16 years -- so I've been enjoying the ability to disable ads for quite a while. One of the things I've noticed lately is a tendency for some sites to sense that you're using an ad blocker, so they disable their content and request a subscription or an email address. I have yet to respond to any of these requests. I just shrug my shoulders and move on. I think this is illustrative of the low value of the content. The world wide web is oversaturated with content. There seems to be an idea among content providers that they have some sort fundamental expectation of profit simply because they vomited something onto a webpage.

--
Proverbs 21:19
Re:So here's an idea by edtice1559 · 2015-09-28 01:32 · Score: 1

Yes but there is also a lot of *good* content that isn't monetizing well ( and should ). Think The New York Times, as an example. I subscribe because good journalism doesn't produce itself. Amazon giving away Washington Post subscriptions may be the model of the future. I hope so since news gathering is an important function. Although I think there is too much of it in the world; no reason for a hundred journalists to cover the same thing. But it's not clear how far the bottom is going to fall out, and it may be too much.

Go straight to the hosts file... by holiggan · 2015-09-25 02:06 · Score: 1

And this is why ad-blocking should be done at the hosts file level... Oh, you can't do that with an iOS device? Well, well, well...

--
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"

Re:His Twitter handle is ''Crafty Deano''. Figures by cfalcon · 2015-09-25 08:09 · Score: 1

A hand sanitizer tries to kill all germs- just some will inevitably not get killed. This would be like a hand sanitizer that kills most germs, but lets through the common cold, because that's a good virus, and we need to keep the antihistamine industry employed. Meanwhile, the manufacturer of this gets paid by some company that makes a cold medicine.

It's not often by Sir+Holo · 2015-09-25 08:10 · Score: 1

It's not often that a company with a business model of charging BOTH ends lives very long.

Think RealAudio, and so on.

One industry that has managed to do this, for several decades, is academic publishing. In that case, you pay three times. Refereeing and writing articles for publication are "unpaid" activities.

Fortunately, this is slowly changing

Slashdot Mirror

iOS Ad Blocker "Crystal" Will Let Companies Pay To Show You Ads

149 of 229 comments (clear)