I'd like to see another feature, a way to alert us when an incoming call is from a telemarketer, perhaps even with the option of one-tap blocking of all calls from that number.
Since most of those jerks don't have someone on the line listening to the ring sound, I give a call from an unknown number about two seconds to start talking before hanging up. I then check that number with a Google search. If it comes up as a telemarketer, I block it. But that's more hassle than it needs to be.
I'd also love to seem someone develop a fake answer app for telemarketers. When we detect a telemarketer, we'd start up that conversation faker. It grunt, say "uh hun," and the like to tie up that telemarketer's time. Perhaps there'd even be a "talk like someone crazy" mode that would say really strange things. Then when the conversation began to languish, it'd ask the telemarketer's name and then tell it to put the number on a never call list.
If someone can afford the cell minutes, it'd be a good way to drive up the costs of telemarketers and ultimately send them out of business.
I'd even love to listen in when the app is in its "talk crazy" mode and the app is telling that telemarketer something like: "You know, the moon is in Aquarius tonight. That means a giant earthquake is almost certain somewhere in the world. I certainly hope you don't leave in California. I'd never want to leave in California. All sorts of bad things happen to people there. Half the alien abductions in the entire country take place there. Did I tell you about the time I visited California to see my cousin Merle. He works at a gas station in LA. Well he told me that...."
All spoken in a strange, spooky, about to become unhinged voice.
Insults aren't really necessary are they? I assume we're all adults.
I don't necessarily agree that Google is your master, but at the same time, you have little to offer that isn't Google related, and you aren't really much of an iOS or OS X user by your own admission. You seem to serve strictly as a Cleaner, making sure that Google doesn't get disparaged.
Apple is offering two things with this update. 1) Safari users would have a choice to install ad blocking extensions. 2) Developers can build blocking into an app. It is about choice. Clearly, if the developer is including iAd they are not going to block ads. The big upside is for end users being able to block ads in Mobile Safari. I for one am very happy about this news because I hate wading through dozens of ads on a page like here on AI. One or two ads is no big deal but when the page takes forever to load on cellular just because of the ads, that makes the experience unacceptable.
I agree with you. I use ad-blockers myself. The problem that's being created is survivability of websites like the one we're posting to right now along with millions of others. The internet is a more valuable resource because of specialized sites dealing with high-end photography, or perhaps scuba, or crochet, or the latest news about your favorite sports team. They depend on ad revenue from Ford, P&G, Capital One and other big (and small) companies hoping for a chance to sell you a product or service. If enough people use ad-blockers most of them won't survive. There's zero evidence that internet visitors as a rule are willing to pay to play.
Google has a program now that can eliminate ads for you entirely on participating websites, but it requires you to make a monetary donation to the website. https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
It's a great idea as it lets you browse ad-free while you avoid "stealing" the services from the content provider. He/she gets paid for the work they put into it.
Unfortunately I don't think it will be successful because IMHO ads aren't so horrible that very many even here would pay to avoid them. So instead they'll use an ad-blocker which offers zero revenue to the website owner. The web will be far worse for even techies without sites like this one, ArsTechnica, Engadget, iMore and such.
I don't necessarily agree that Google is your master, but at the same time, you have little to offer that isn't Google related, and you aren't really much of an iOS or OS X user by your own admission. You seem to serve strictly as a Cleaner, making sure that Google doesn't get disparaged.
Then you obviously miss reading the helpful and accurate advice I offer Apple users about Apple devices and features on occasion. I think I can hold my own regarding current Apple knowledge with most members here. Folks like you of course know much more about what's going on around Apple-land than I possibly could.
I agree with you. I use ad-blockers myself. The problem that's being created is survivability of websites like the one we're posting to right now along with millions of others. The internet is a more valuable resource because of specialized sites dealing with high-end photography, or perhaps scuba, or crochet, or the latest news about your favorite sports team. They depend on ad revenue from Ford, P&G, Capital One and other big (and small) companies hoping for a chance to sell you a product or service. If enough people use ad-blockers most of them won't survive. There's zero evidence that internet visitors as a rule are willing to pay to play.
Google has a program now that can eliminate ads for you entirely on participating websites, but it requires you to make a monetary donation to the website. I don't think it will be successful because IMHO ads aren't so horrible that very many even here would pay to avoid them. So instead they'll use an ad-blocker which offers zero revenue to the website owner. The web would be far worse for even techies without sites like this one, ArsTechnica, Engadget, iMore and such.
This is what is called a "But what about the Children" moment.
Hardly anybody clicks on ads, even targeted ones. So even if I am looking for a specialty product, it is likely that the content of the websites, not the ads, would be a better method of directing my consumption. Leaving Google to decide what ads I see is the issue, and your argument might be that more data would make that a more accurate enterprise.
I like Daringfireball's advertising. John has a lot more control over it than would be the case it Google was making the choices.
Then you obviously miss reading the helpful and accurate advice I offer Apple users about Apple devices and features on occasion. I think I can hold my own regarding current Apple knowledge with most members here. Folks like you of course know much more about what's going on around Apple-land than I possibly could.
This is what is called a "But what about the Children" moment.
Hardly anybody clicks on ads, even targeted ones. So even if I am looking for a specialty product, it is likely that the content of the websites, not the ads, would be a better method of directing my consumption. Leaving Google to decide what ads I see is the issue, and your argument might be that more data would make that a more accurate enterprise.
I like Daringfireball's advertising. John has a lot more control over it than would be the case it Google was making the choices.
No it's not about Google. Have you actually looked at who places ads here? Turn off Ghostery for a couple of minutes and see. There's dozens and dozens that have no connection to Google.
Heres' the list from a minute ago. It changes. I've seen as many as 70+ here at times. 83 trackers at the moment!! Note too that some on the list are partnered with Apple and iAd.
[x+1]
Advertising
Adobe Test & Target
Beacons
Adometry
Analytics
ADTECH
Advertising
Aggregate Knowledge
Beacons
Amazon Associates
Advertising, Affiliate Marketing
AppNexus
Advertising
BlueKai
Beacons
Datalogix
Advertising
DoubleClick
Advertising
DoubleVerify
Analytics
eXelate
Beacons
Facebook Connect
Widgets, Social
Ghostery Privacy Notice
Privacy
Google Adsense
Advertising
Google Analytics
Analytics, Analytics
Integral Ad Science
Analytics
Krux Digital
Beacons
LiveRamp
Beacons, E-mail Analytics, Segment Data
Lotame
Beacons, Analytics, Lead Management
MaxPoint Interactive
Advertising
Media Innovation Group
Analytics
Media Optimizer (Adobe)
Beacons
Moat
Advertising
NetRatings SiteCensus
Analytics
Neustar AdAdvisor
Beacons, Lead Management
Omniture (Adobe Analytics)
Beacons
Quantcast
Advertising
RadiumOne
Beacons, Behavior Tracking
Right Media
Advertising
Rocket Fuel
Beacons
Rubicon
Advertising
ScoreCard Research Beacon
Beacons, Analytics
ShareThis
Widgets
Tapad
Advertising, Analytics
TradeDesk
Advertising
TRUSTe Notice
Privacy
Turn Inc.
Advertising, Affiliate Marketing, Lead Management
Twitter Advertising
Advertising, Social
VigLink
Advertising, In-Text Ads
VisualDNA
Analytics, Segment Data
VoiceFive
Beacons, Analytics, Popups
If enough people use ad-blockers most of them won't survive. There's zero evidence that internet visitors as a rule are willing to pay to play.
I actually enjoy quality ads in the many high end magazines we subscribe to. The problem with the web ad brokers is that they have crap ads that are just annoying. I would welcome a few quality ads on a page not two dozen crap ads.
It is the website owner and the ad brokers who are causing the problem. If a website had a large readership, quality companies might want to place ads directly with the website and bypass the broker. The only way that an ad blocker can work is to identify the ad brokers signature and block it. If the ad was just part of the website it would not be blocked.
As a disclaimer, I actually use Google AdSense on my personal website and it does generate a fair amount of cash every month from stupid people who click on it, but still it is just one ad on the page.
So serious question:[B][SIZE=4] How would you suggest website operators like AI get paid for the services they provide and the costs they incur to offer them? [/SIZE][/B]
[@]tmay[/@] [@]TheWhiteFalcon[/@] and other regulars who have taken an interest in the topic, I would particularly like to hear your suggestions. They may be good ideas. There's a lot of smart folks here.
We know advertising has traditionally been the most agreeable method, and used for hundreds of years by newspapers, then magazines, then TV and radio, and now the web. Companies are gonna advertise anyway and data aggregators who help make it possible won't be impacted much if at all by an ad-blocker.
Depriving website operators of advertising income won't change that nor prevent your personal information from being mined, collected and monetized by health, financial, social and insurance data companies. Worse those guys really do sell you, your name, your family,your address, your religious affiliation, your sexual persuasion and anything else some company or agency is willing to pay to know about you.
Sounds like Googs better worry. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I wouldn't shed a tear if Google disappeared tomorrow, but how would you feel about the loss of Apple Insider and all the other websites you read for free? Are you volunteering to pay a subscription fee for every blog and tech site you read?
I do think the industry should work together to establish and enforce advertising standards more mindful of the user experience.
Not really. Apple will continue with iAd since it wouldn't be affected by this. In-app ads and ads in Apple services like the just announced Apple News will continue. They're not against targeted ads, they're just publicly against them.
I'll take an Apple iAd over Google and other ads any day...
Repetitive or rapid flashing, blinking in excess, or visually stressful animations are not allowed.
Imagery that is not representative of the product or service, is pixelated or unclear, or appears to have functionality but does not function (for example, radio buttons or menus) is not allowed.
Anything that facilitates or promotes defamatory, libelous, slanderous, or unlawful content is not allowed.
Ads that collect data from users must, at a minimum, clearly identify the advertiser and properly disclose that it (or its agent) is collecting data. Users must also be provided with a link to the privacy policy of the organization(s) collecting or receiving the data. Furthermore, advertisers must receive approval from iAd for any data collection within the ad prior to it being submitted for certification.
Linking out of the ad is strictly prohibited unless iAd grants an exception in advance.
Offers made in ads must be clear to users and cannot misrepresent the true nature of the offer.
I don't mind ads just as long as they aren't pop-ads or ads that redirect me to the Apps store.
I hate popups, even when I disable them a few occasionally get by, redirects as well are very annoying. If any advertiser does either of the two I black list them for life
It's about time. I already use blockers but having them built-in will help with compatibility.
While Apple's at it, I'd really like to see them push back on web sites that work without Flash on iOS yet continue to force the use of it on OSX. I know I can use the Develop menu and select which User Agent I want to use but this shouldn't be necessary. The web sites are satisfied with not using Flash on mobile devices, which probably outnumber desktop devices by a large margin, so why won't they just change everything to HTML5 and get rid of Flash?
Because it is not that simple to produce Ads on HTML 5 the same way on Flash. The tools are not user friendly, of course HTML 5 rely on Javascript+css, and the code is far more complicated to those flash guys that know only how to animate things on a interface, but not on code. Also that code is not "embed" into a plugin container, so the variables, functions etc could conflict with others already presented on the page, so it does not work on all situations. Is not that easy right now to migrate. That are tools that "convert" flash to HTML 5, they are very poor, generate a lot of junky code, that could not be loaded twice on the same page (usual to have the same ad multiple times on the page) and they can't convert everything.
So it is a mix of poor tools (at this moment) , plus people with lack of skills, they are too comfort with flash and don't know how to code (or don't want to learn) Its terrible because we suffer from that lack of expertise from those who should know how to use the technology
I'll take an Apple iAd over Google and other ads any day...
Fair enough of course (Google doesn't create any ads AFAIK) but if targeted ads or re-targeting are the complaint, which many claim as the problem they have with ads, that doesn't solve it.
FWIW Apple and Google have in general the same basic ad restrictions, something you may not have been aware of judging by your post. As Apple is also an ad producer they have some additional points. https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/143465?hl=en
So serious question: How would you suggest website operators like AI get paid for the services they provide and the costs they incur to offer them?
@tmay@TheWhiteFalcon and other regulars who have taken an interest in the topic, I would particularly like to hear your suggestions. They may be good ideas. There's a lot of smart folks here.
We know advertising has traditionally been the most agreeable method, and used for hundreds of years by newspapers, then magazines, then TV and radio, and now the web. Companies are gonna advertise anyway and data aggregators who help make it possible won't be impacted much if at all by an ad-blocker.
Depriving website operators of advertising income won't change that nor prevent your personal information from being mined, collected and monetized by health, financial, social and insurance data companies. Worse those guys really do sell you, your name, your family,your address, your religious affiliation, your sexual persuasion and anything else some company or agency is willing to pay to know about you.
I agree with your point that advertising drives the vast majority of the content and services we consume on the internet. However, I disagree with your tacit approval of obnoxious ads and the indiscriminate collection, mining, and monetization of private user data with little to no transparency. Eliminating advertising is not the answer, but maintaining the advertising industry's status quo certainly isn't either.
I agree with your point that advertising drives the vast majority of the content and services we consume on the internet. However, I disagree with your tacit approval of obnoxious ads and the indiscriminate collection, mining, and monetization of private user data with little to no transparency. Eliminating advertising is not the answer, but maintaining the advertising industry's status quo certainly isn't either.
:???: I've given no "tacit approval" of all they do, as my own blocking of both ads and data-miners should demonstrate. Transparency would be a great start as you alluded to.
I'm asking if anyone has suggestions for a replacement method for web operators to be paid.
EDIT: I'd encourage AI administrators to comment too if they feel it would help explain the view from the other side. Few people really run a charity and making a decent living from your efforts is not an unworthy goal.
Comments
Since most of those jerks don't have someone on the line listening to the ring sound, I give a call from an unknown number about two seconds to start talking before hanging up. I then check that number with a Google search. If it comes up as a telemarketer, I block it. But that's more hassle than it needs to be.
I'd also love to seem someone develop a fake answer app for telemarketers. When we detect a telemarketer, we'd start up that conversation faker. It grunt, say "uh hun," and the like to tie up that telemarketer's time. Perhaps there'd even be a "talk like someone crazy" mode that would say really strange things. Then when the conversation began to languish, it'd ask the telemarketer's name and then tell it to put the number on a never call list.
If someone can afford the cell minutes, it'd be a good way to drive up the costs of telemarketers and ultimately send them out of business.
I'd even love to listen in when the app is in its "talk crazy" mode and the app is telling that telemarketer something like: "You know, the moon is in Aquarius tonight. That means a giant earthquake is almost certain somewhere in the world. I certainly hope you don't leave in California. I'd never want to leave in California. All sorts of bad things happen to people there. Half the alien abductions in the entire country take place there. Did I tell you about the time I visited California to see my cousin Merle. He works at a gas station in LA. Well he told me that...."
All spoken in a strange, spooky, about to become unhinged voice.
Insults aren't really necessary are they? I assume we're all adults.
I don't necessarily agree that Google is your master, but at the same time, you have little to offer that isn't Google related, and you aren't really much of an iOS or OS X user by your own admission. You seem to serve strictly as a Cleaner, making sure that Google doesn't get disparaged.
Wow, this has me really excited.
Me too. The USA Today site is unreadable!
Fantastic! Deprive Google and other ad spammers of oxygen. Can't wait!
Google has a program now that can eliminate ads for you entirely on participating websites, but it requires you to make a monetary donation to the website.
https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
It's a great idea as it lets you browse ad-free while you avoid "stealing" the services from the content provider. He/she gets paid for the work they put into it.
Unfortunately I don't think it will be successful because IMHO ads aren't so horrible that very many even here would pay to avoid them. So instead they'll use an ad-blocker which offers zero revenue to the website owner. The web will be far worse for even techies without sites like this one, ArsTechnica, Engadget, iMore and such.
I agree with you. I use ad-blockers myself. The problem that's being created is survivability of websites like the one we're posting to right now along with millions of others. The internet is a more valuable resource because of specialized sites dealing with high-end photography, or perhaps scuba, or crochet, or the latest news about your favorite sports team. They depend on ad revenue from Ford, P&G, Capital One and other big (and small) companies hoping for a chance to sell you a product or service. If enough people use ad-blockers most of them won't survive. There's zero evidence that internet visitors as a rule are willing to pay to play.
Google has a program now that can eliminate ads for you entirely on participating websites, but it requires you to make a monetary donation to the website. I don't think it will be successful because IMHO ads aren't so horrible that very many even here would pay to avoid them. So instead they'll use an ad-blocker which offers zero revenue to the website owner. The web would be far worse for even techies without sites like this one, ArsTechnica, Engadget, iMore and such.
This is what is called a "But what about the Children" moment.
Hardly anybody clicks on ads, even targeted ones. So even if I am looking for a specialty product, it is likely that the content of the websites, not the ads, would be a better method of directing my consumption. Leaving Google to decide what ads I see is the issue, and your argument might be that more data would make that a more accurate enterprise.
I like Daringfireball's advertising. John has a lot more control over it than would be the case it Google was making the choices.
Then you obviously miss reading the helpful and accurate advice I offer Apple users about Apple devices and features on occasion. I think I can hold my own regarding current Apple knowledge with most members here. Folks like you of course know much more about what's going on around Apple-land than I possibly could.
Of course.
Heres' the list from a minute ago. It changes.
I've seen as many as 70+ here at times. 83 trackers at the moment!! Note too that some on the list are partnered with Apple and iAd.[x+1]
Advertising
Adobe Test & Target
Beacons
Adometry
Analytics
ADTECH
Advertising
Aggregate Knowledge
Beacons
Amazon Associates
Advertising, Affiliate Marketing
AppNexus
Advertising
BlueKai
Beacons
Datalogix
Advertising
DoubleClick
Advertising
DoubleVerify
Analytics
eXelate
Beacons
Facebook Connect
Widgets, Social
Ghostery Privacy Notice
Privacy
Google Adsense
Advertising
Google Analytics
Analytics, Analytics
Integral Ad Science
Analytics
Krux Digital
Beacons
LiveRamp
Beacons, E-mail Analytics, Segment Data
Lotame
Beacons, Analytics, Lead Management
MaxPoint Interactive
Advertising
Media Innovation Group
Analytics
Media Optimizer (Adobe)
Beacons
Moat
Advertising
NetRatings SiteCensus
Analytics
Neustar AdAdvisor
Beacons, Lead Management
Omniture (Adobe Analytics)
Beacons
Quantcast
Advertising
RadiumOne
Beacons, Behavior Tracking
Right Media
Advertising
Rocket Fuel
Beacons
Rubicon
Advertising
ScoreCard Research Beacon
Beacons, Analytics
ShareThis
Widgets
Tapad
Advertising, Analytics
TradeDesk
Advertising
TRUSTe Notice
Privacy
Turn Inc.
Advertising, Affiliate Marketing, Lead Management
Twitter Advertising
Advertising, Social
VigLink
Advertising, In-Text Ads
VisualDNA
Analytics, Segment Data
VoiceFive
Beacons, Analytics, Popups
Blocking is paused
Please reload the page
If enough people use ad-blockers most of them won't survive. There's zero evidence that internet visitors as a rule are willing to pay to play.
I actually enjoy quality ads in the many high end magazines we subscribe to. The problem with the web ad brokers is that they have crap ads that are just annoying. I would welcome a few quality ads on a page not two dozen crap ads.
It is the website owner and the ad brokers who are causing the problem. If a website had a large readership, quality companies might want to place ads directly with the website and bypass the broker. The only way that an ad blocker can work is to identify the ad brokers signature and block it. If the ad was just part of the website it would not be blocked.
As a disclaimer, I actually use Google AdSense on my personal website and it does generate a fair amount of cash every month from stupid people who click on it, but still it is just one ad on the page.
[@]tmay[/@] [@]TheWhiteFalcon[/@] and other regulars who have taken an interest in the topic, I would particularly like to hear your suggestions. They may be good ideas. There's a lot of smart folks here.
We know advertising has traditionally been the most agreeable method, and used for hundreds of years by newspapers, then magazines, then TV and radio, and now the web. Companies are gonna advertise anyway and data aggregators who help make it possible won't be impacted much if at all by an ad-blocker.
Depriving website operators of advertising income won't change that nor prevent your personal information from being mined, collected and monetized by health, financial, social and insurance data companies. Worse those guys really do sell you, your name, your family,your address, your religious affiliation, your sexual persuasion and anything else some company or agency is willing to pay to know about you.
"it might also upset advertisers, who are increasingly dependent on mobile for revenue."
Originally Posted by John.B
Sounds like a broken business model to me...
Note to Appleinsider:
John.B has volunteered to pay for a web subscription.
Sounds like Googs better worry.
I wouldn't shed a tear if Google disappeared tomorrow, but how would you feel about the loss of Apple Insider and all the other websites you read for free? Are you volunteering to pay a subscription fee for every blog and tech site you read?
I do think the industry should work together to establish and enforce advertising standards more mindful of the user experience.
Not really. Apple will continue with iAd since it wouldn't be affected by this. In-app ads and ads in Apple services like the just announced Apple News will continue. They're not against targeted ads, they're just publicly against them.
I'll take an Apple iAd over Google and other ads any day...
Apple's iAd restrictions:
https://developer.apple.com/iad/content-guidelines/iAd_Content_Guidelines.pdf
Prohibited Content: Adult-related content, controlled substances, deceptive messaging, gambling...
I hate popups, even when I disable them a few occasionally get by, redirects as well are very annoying. If any advertiser does either of the two I black list them for life
It's about time. I already use blockers but having them built-in will help with compatibility.
While Apple's at it, I'd really like to see them push back on web sites that work without Flash on iOS yet continue to force the use of it on OSX. I know I can use the Develop menu and select which User Agent I want to use but this shouldn't be necessary. The web sites are satisfied with not using Flash on mobile devices, which probably outnumber desktop devices by a large margin, so why won't they just change everything to HTML5 and get rid of Flash?
Because it is not that simple to produce Ads on HTML 5 the same way on Flash. The tools are not user friendly, of course HTML 5 rely on Javascript+css, and the code is far more complicated to those flash guys that know only how to animate things on a interface, but not on code. Also that code is not "embed" into a plugin container, so the variables, functions etc could conflict with others already presented on the page, so it does not work on all situations. Is not that easy right now to migrate. That are tools that "convert" flash to HTML 5, they are very poor, generate a lot of junky code, that could not be loaded twice on the same page (usual to have the same ad multiple times on the page) and they can't convert everything.
So it is a mix of poor tools (at this moment) , plus people with lack of skills, they are too comfort with flash and don't know how to code (or don't want to learn) Its terrible because we suffer from that lack of expertise from those who should know how to use the technology
FWIW Apple and Google have in general the same basic ad restrictions, something you may not have been aware of judging by your post. As Apple is also an ad producer they have some additional points.
https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/143465?hl=en
So serious question: How would you suggest website operators like AI get paid for the services they provide and the costs they incur to offer them?
@tmay @TheWhiteFalcon and other regulars who have taken an interest in the topic, I would particularly like to hear your suggestions. They may be good ideas. There's a lot of smart folks here.
We know advertising has traditionally been the most agreeable method, and used for hundreds of years by newspapers, then magazines, then TV and radio, and now the web. Companies are gonna advertise anyway and data aggregators who help make it possible won't be impacted much if at all by an ad-blocker.
Depriving website operators of advertising income won't change that nor prevent your personal information from being mined, collected and monetized by health, financial, social and insurance data companies. Worse those guys really do sell you, your name, your family,your address, your religious affiliation, your sexual persuasion and anything else some company or agency is willing to pay to know about you.
I agree with your point that advertising drives the vast majority of the content and services we consume on the internet. However, I disagree with your tacit approval of obnoxious ads and the indiscriminate collection, mining, and monetization of private user data with little to no transparency. Eliminating advertising is not the answer, but maintaining the advertising industry's status quo certainly isn't either.
I'm asking if anyone has suggestions for a replacement method for web operators to be paid.
EDIT: I'd encourage AI administrators to comment too if they feel it would help explain the view from the other side. Few people really run a charity and making a decent living from your efforts is not an unworthy goal.