iOS 9 Safari content blockers debut to demand, denouncement & a high-profile delisting

11617192122

Comments

  • Reply 361 of 421
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,149member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lerchc View Post



    Why does google gain more revenue from iOS users than its own? http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/05/27/apples-ios-drives-75-of-googles-mobile-advertising-revenue



    Is this the reason for the one two punch by Apple?



    Apple support ads with iAds. It's seems to be an important business for the company.



    I just don't think Apple is attacking the industry's revenue source, but I do think the company is protecting its users from googles malicious acts.

     

    iAds really haven't been a big money maker for Apple.   The problem is Apple doesn't want to track users!!!  Which is great.  But it also limits what can be done with iAd's!!!  

  • Reply 362 of 421

    In some ways I am the ideal web reader.

     

    I like ads, I click on ads, I like seeing new things, and I sometimes buy them.

     

    But I have a desktop and now a mobile ad blocker.

     

    Because I am tired of being tracked, and being served crappy, obscene, auto-play ads that slow down my machine.

     

    I'd like to not have to bother, but until something changes, the ad blockers will remain.

     

    Advertisers made their beds; now they can lie in them.

  • Reply 363 of 421
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,149member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post



    Not hard to see this site is overkill.




     

    To be fair, Ghostery is not just blocking Ad's.  Also Ghostery is showing only 9 Blocks for me at this time.  What I'm seeing is

    Amazon Associates - Which is Advertising and Affiliate Marketing

    DoubleClick - Which is Advertising

    Facebook Connect - Which is Widgets and Social

    Google Analytics - Which is Analyties

    Krux Digital - Which is Beacons

    Lotame - Again Beacons and Analyties

    Quantcast - Advertising

    ScoreCard Research -Whcih is Beacons and Analyties

    VigLink - Adversizing, In-text Ads.

     

    So out of those 9, 4 of them are flat out Advertising.   That's 3 to many!!! Why the need for more then 1 Beacon and 1 Analyties???  Toss out half this crap or more and speed up web page loading.   Every time you go to AI for example, It's not only grabing content from it's own AI site, it's having to fetch Data for 9 other places.  Maybe even more like above.  Wasting your time in slower web pages loading up and wasting your Data that you pay for!!!

     

    Now with Ghostery ON and blocking everything, I still see Ad's on the home page on the right side of the screen. Apple Deals and Discount, Lowest Prices anywhere and prices listed.  Gazelle shows up.  Why this stuff is NOT being blocked?!?!  So I see that.

  • Reply 364 of 421
    jbdragon wrote: »
    Really, exactly the same?  Since when can a UBER driver just pick anyone up on the side of the road?  Taxi drivers can do that!!!

    UBER driver DO do that. The difference is how you flag them. Instead of raising your arm, you use the app.
  • Reply 365 of 421
    After reading your article, I decided to disable my Ad blocker to be fair et recognise your valuable work. I refresh the page and first ad I get is a girl with big boobs and tiny bra that ask me to join a chat.

    Sorry guy but if I want to see porn, I know where to go ....

    Ad blocker is on again
  • Reply 366 of 421
    jbdragon wrote: »
    $225 is CRAZY! So you have no commercials? If that's all it takes, then maybe it's worth it, but there better be zero commerials if you're forking out $225 a year, otherwise it's really just a TAX!!!!

    It's not just one channel, there are loads of BBC channels, including 24hour news, parliament coverage, children's programming, local and regional stuff (including programming in Welsh and Scottish), radio programmes, a web site, iPlayer, and no, not one commercial ever on any of them. To say its refreshing is a complete understatement.

    Besides there being no advertising on any of them, which is itself awesome, I think one of the best aspects of the BBC is its normalising effect on other broadcasters (even print journalism), most notably the news. The news, while mostly supporting establishment (whoever happens to be in power currently), does not have its editorial influenced, swayed or directed by outside commercial interests. If other outlets or broadcasters wish to compete in this market, they can't allow themselves to be affected too much or they will be obviously so radically different from non-commercial influenced (BBC) news as to be odd, even ineffectual or comical. When popular channels people watch don't accept advertising, the whole system is different, and with aspects like news, that's a very, very good thing in a society. The BBC is really quite excellent, and is loved by almost all and considered a national treasure.

    Thank you for taking the words out of my keyboard!

    We have the same national broadcasting license in Germany (Rundfunkbeitrag) that costs a little less at €210.00/year per household. Without it all local broadcasting would probably cease to exist, along with many nature/wildlife/culture/science documentaries that we also help the BBC produce. Look for NDR, MDR, ARD, ZDF, etc. in the credits ;)
  • Reply 367 of 421
    philboogie wrote: »
    The ads in the mobile app are most certainly coming through for paid subscribers. This is due to what I wrote: the app may get rid of the ads, when you enter the comments these come from Huddler, and that still displays ads even though you pay for an ad-free experience. This is the fault of AppleInsider. (which is why I didn't extend my subscription)

    As for Huddler 'being slow' - you'e absolutely right, that is not Huddler's fault; it's (partially) due to the large screendumps and photos being published in the articles. Many are over 2MB, discussed at leng in this post: *&%^%^$^%^ can't find that article, but it turned out to a good discussion with some authors on this site, promising things would be fixed 'within a couple of days', but alas.

    1) targeted theme-based ads I can stomach; especially since they don't use tracking to do it.

    2) the screen-dumps and lack of using proper formats (PNG vs. JPG) picture compression, while a problem, is not he main reason for the extremely bad scrolling behavior on iOS devices when visiting these forums. Bad HTML, CSS and scripts are.

    [/quote]
    OT Good to see you still post here. I fully agree with this post on the 2nd page in this thread:
    post #54
    [/quote]

    Posts: More than I should... and thanks for the acknowledgement. I do my best even if it doesn't appear that way :smokey:
  • Reply 368 of 421
    jbdragon wrote: »
    We've had DVR's now for 15+ years. I got my first TIVO back in late 1999.  DVR's are all over.  Everyone skips TV commercials these days.  They've found other ways to make money.  mainly product placements.   See those GM cars being used in the program?  Product placement!!!   Coke Cups in front of the American Idle Judges, Product Placement!!!   Really, a lot of what you're watching in a program is product placement. Just not normally shoved in your face.  If someone grabs MILK and it just doesn't way MILK, but a brand name that's product placement.  You see Apple Mac's on a Show, Apple didn't pay, but they got them free to use in the show which saves money!  All them Microsoft Surface tablets being used in a number of shows, Product Placements.  MS is paying for that!!!  I was watching NCIS: LA and the computer geek goes to the crime scene,  whips out his Surface tablet, then whips out his MS Surface Keyboard, snaps them together and places it on a table to use.  Now I found it funny, that even then, They're making some huge Snap together deal out of it.  It's a Keyboard COVER, COVER being the Key word.  Really all he had to do was sit it on the desk and open it.  But Nooooo, a whole ordeal of snapping it together.    It was laughable anyone would do such a thing like that, but it's product placement.  I sure don't feel guilty skipping past 3 minutes or so of commercials!!!   A hour long program these days is really 40 minutes!!!  That means you get 20 minutes of commercials.  You can see this by watching on Netflix for example and see how long a program really is commercial free!!!  In fact in general, I hit my 30 second skip button 6 times and on my TIVO, it'll go 30, 60, 1:30, and then finally show 3:00 and you can watch it zoom on past and generally it's almost spot on.  Sometimes it's longer, but in general 3 minutes.

    I'm being advertised to almost constantly in one way or another during a program these days.  I don't feel guilty at all skipping all the old fashion ad's!!!  Something like this will have to happen on the internet.  A shift to more of a product placement style.  Not in your face ad's!!!  Or Micro Transactions.  Not Microsoft's so called Micro Transactions I've NEVER seen, but real ones.  if it's more then 10 cents, it's sure not a MICRO.   If you read something and it costs a Penny, great.  Penny's add up.  make it cheap and easy for people to read, great. Can't price yourself out of the market.  There's generally many other places you can be replaced by.

    There's a huge number of your fellow countrymen and women that just love to throw around the word CONSUMER... as in "Think of the consumer(s)".

    I would say the media companies are doing a good job then.

    Consumer = A truly despicable and demeaning title to give yourself if there ever was one(!)... but at least living up to the moniker... :no:
  • Reply 369 of 421
    What a load of rubbish.

    I never ever ever buy from pop-up ads, I don't trust pop-up/under/over ads and I don't trust ads that take me somewhere else. You get no money from me from your ads.

    If your articles were worth buying we would gladly pay you for the privilege but they're not as is evidenced by this poorly thought out article.

    As far as I am concerned these ads are in the same vein as the Nigerian and phishing scams and should be prohibited by law until there is some clarity about tracking, hijacking my browser and misuse of my bandwidth.

    And yes, I must be able to block the ads. If that means you block me from reading your articles, so be it, but I must be able to block rubbish scamverts I don't want to see.
  • Reply 370 of 421
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,228moderator
    robbiuno wrote: »
    I never ever ever buy from pop-up ads, I don't trust pop-up/under/over ads and I don't trust ads that take me somewhere else. You get no money from me from your ads.

    You could say the same about TV ads. If you see an ad for pizza, Coca-Cola, travel etc on TV you don't pick up the phone or go online and order. Advertising is more about psychological conditioning (leaving an impression). If right now you were in the mood for buying a drone, what is the name that immediately pops into your head? What about a camera to record your sport activity? You're not clicking an ad to buy one, you have an association between a brand and a product. Obtrusive ads like popups do that so that they guarantee you see them. They're like flashers in the park, it doesn't matter if you don't want it, you've seen what's on offer and that image is in your head.
    jbdragon wrote:
    Everyone skips TV commercials these days. They've found other ways to make money. mainly product placements.

    These are used in the AI podcasts where they have to pretend to like a sponsor's product. They are a bit awkward to fit into text and audio. It's a lot easier with movies. Some people film their podcasts and use Youtube as the outlet with sponsor t-shirts and background products. News companies have been doing advertorials quite effectively:

    http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/pretty-much-everyone-doing-native-ads-now-150290

    When you look at an article like the following, you'd never know if Lennar paid for the article:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/lennar-tops-expectations-as-housing-market-continues-to-improve-1442831939

    or if a tourism agency or hotels paid for this one where they link to travel deals:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/touring-funen-denmarks-legitimate-fairy-tale-island-1442514019

    The success of this kind of thing depends on the audience demographics. Tech blogs are more likely to push technology because the advertisers will get a return on the ads. This is harder for sites catering to special interests like Apple products because Apple buyers mostly buy from Apple so what can an advertiser really sell you? Cases and accessories for Apple products mostly. The ideal advertiser here would be Apple.

    More general tech sites like Engadget and the Verge cover all technology and the advertisers they attract must influence the direction of the editorial because they won't want to annoy advertisers selling certain products by giving them bad reviews. If an advertiser is paying you a huge amount to advertise Moto 360 watches and straps for example, you're not going to completely trash the product or you'll just lose the ad revenue.
    jbdragon wrote:
    Or Micro Transactions. Not Microsoft's so called Micro Transactions I've NEVER seen, but real ones. if it's more then 10 cents, it's sure not a MICRO. If you read something and it costs a Penny, great. Penny's add up. make it cheap and easy for people to read, great.

    Implementing this needs to convince people to have a balance and they'll want to protect privacy. You don't want a middle-man tracing your browsing history through the transactions. You'd be better off buying tokens like a bitcoin-style system and then have a balance of tokens, which then get sent to the content provider and converted back to cash immediately. As you say though, it has to be cheap and the problem is finding a good price that maintains a high volume of readers while sustaining the operation.

    If you priced articles at 1 cent then someone reading 20 articles per day would be paying $6/month. If that's for every site they visit, it can be off-putting and so you get a lower audience. A readership of 1000 people paying $6/month could probably sustain a small site. Readership volume seems to follow either popular personalities or a consistently high volume of interesting content. Some sites surprise me with their popularity like Gruber (mostly a content aggregator) and Leo Laporte. The following site says Laporte makes $6m per year in ad revenue from podcasts, which are downloaded 5 million times per month:

    http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/podcastings-audience-and-its-profits-are-growing

    They are entertaining enough for an odd article or podcast but to consistently maintain an audience of tens of thousands over years surprises me. Laporte says he got his audience from mainstream media (TV and radio) first and just held onto it. Howard Stern maintains millions of listeners for his radio station.

    Maybe the route to go is to get more commenters from twitter with a lot of followers to post articles. Like this guy has 17.5k followers:

    https://twitter.com/heyreos

    He founded a different blog site Techwil but if you had a social media personality with a lot of followers who was just tweeting about Apple topics or related products, they could be convinced to earn money on an ad-supported blog. Here's one with ~35k followers who has a Thailand Apple blog:

    https://twitter.com/macthainews

    It's going to be a combination of hitting the right content being put out with the audience. Focusing on just Apple news is limiting because there are times when Apple goes for 6 months and puts out no new products. Gruber's site can maintain a lot of content by aggregating multiple sources and commenting on them but that posting style doesn't leave much room for a forum discussion.
  • Reply 371 of 421
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post



    2) the screen-dumps and lack of using proper formats (PNG vs. JPG) picture compression, while a problem, is not he main reason for the extremely bad scrolling behavior on iOS devices when visiting these forums. Bad HTML, CSS and scripts are.

     

    So, in short, no on at this site pays attention to details. Ironic.

     


    I do my best even if it doesn't appear that way image

     

    That could work as a caption!

     

  • Reply 372 of 421
    sog35 wrote: »
    sog35 wrote: »
     





    Again Marco needs to go beyond telling people to ask Apple to refund.  I'm sure there are thousands of people who bought his App and have no idea the app won't be updated.  That's why Marco should have done an auto-refund and told Apple to refund EVERYONE who bought the App.  Marco would then lose the 30% 'commission' that Apple earned.  He would do this if he was truly sorry for what he did.

    Seems like Marco isn't really sorry for the consumer buying his App, but sorry he is hurting the bottom line of his buddies who run websites.

    So Apple is now doing a GLOBAL REFUND of Marco's App.
    http://www.marco.org/2015/09/21/peace-refund
    This is EXACTLY what Marco should have done and taken the 30% hit.  Instead Apple does it.  

    If Marco was truly sorry he would have done this himself instead of waiting for Apple to do it.  Pathetic.  I'll never download an App from him again.

    How the hell was he going to do it if he doesn't know who bought his app? Only Apple knows, and they've never had a situation like this before. He asked around if it was even possible. Sheesh. Stop crying already.
  • Reply 373 of 421

    Arment should lose his developer's privileges from Apple over this idiocy. He's dumped on Apple very publicly before and he doesn't deserve to reap any future benefits from the App Store. Let him eat Android!

     

    And another thing... to demonstrate their disgust with him, people should delete and demand refunds for his other paid apps.

  • Reply 374 of 421
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,982member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    Arment should lose his developer's privileges from Apple over this idiocy. He's dumped on Apple very publicly before and he doesn't deserve to reap any future benefits from the App Store. Let him eat Android!

     

    And another thing... to demonstrate their disgust with him, people should delete and demand refunds for his other paid apps.




    Grow up.  In one (aka many) thread you preach absurd free market dogma, in another you preach emotion driven revenge.

     

     Nonsense.  Marco changed his mind, no one got hurt, deal with it.

     

    I bought Instapaper (still use), subscribed to The Magazine (now defunct), use and bought the app and add ons for Overcast (probably the best podcast app in my estimation), and actually regret that I didn't get to buy Peace before it got pulled.  Ardent is a developer to watch, he always delivers good stuff, and his conscience (erratic though it may be) gives him even more kudos in my view.

  • Reply 375 of 421
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

     



    Grow up.  In one (aka many) thread you preach absurd free market dogma, in another you preach emotion driven revenge.

     

     Nonsense.  Marco changed his mind, no one got hurt, deal with it.

     

    I bought Instapaper (still use), subscribed to The Magazine (now defunct), use and bought the app and add ons for Overcast (probably the best podcast app in my estimation), and actually regret that I didn't get to buy Peace before it got pulled.  Ardent is a developer to watch, he always delivers good stuff, and his conscience (erratic though it may be) gives him even more kudos in my view.




    I'll not be buying anything of his in the future. That's the free market talking.

  • Reply 376 of 421
    akacakac Posts: 511member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    So Apple is now doing a GLOBAL REFUND of Marco's App.

    http://www.marco.org/2015/09/21/peace-refund

    This is EXACTLY what Marco should have done and taken the 30% hit.  Instead Apple does it.  

     

    If Marco was truly sorry he would have done this himself instead of waiting for Apple to do it.  Pathetic.  I'll never download an App from him again.




    To be fair, no developer is capable of doing a global refund. We developers do not have access to customer lists, we do not have access to refund abilities even if a customer comes to us. We can send them paypal or checks or whatnot, but we do not have the ability to do what you ask Marco to do.

     

    To be fair, my own view on this thread is that Marco showed poor lack of judgement in the days before releasing Peace - and then soon after. His mistakes are being rectified by Apple due to I think the high profile nature of it, but its in spite of Marco.

  • Reply 377 of 421
    akac wrote: »
    sog35 wrote: »
     

    So Apple is now doing a GLOBAL REFUND of Marco's App.
    http://www.marco.org/2015/09/21/peace-refund
    This is EXACTLY what Marco should have done and taken the 30% hit.  Instead Apple does it.  

    If Marco was truly sorry he would have done this himself instead of waiting for Apple to do it.  Pathetic.  I'll never download an App from him again.


    To be fair, no developer is capable of doing a global refund. We developers do not have access to customer lists, we do not have access to refund abilities even if a customer comes to us. We can send them paypal or checks or whatnot, but we do not have the ability to do what you ask Marco to do.

    To be fair, my own view on this thread is that Marco showed poor lack of judgement in the days before releasing Peace - and then soon after. His mistakes are being rectified by Apple due to I think the high profile nature of it, but its in spite of Marco.

    Should've saved it. There's no reasoning with him.
  • Reply 378 of 421
    To call this issue a question of morality is a vast overstatement. This is a question of evolution. As a reader of Appleinsider and other digital publications, I have never made any agreement to be exposed to advertising. In fact, I ignore it as much as I can. If there is any morality to question, it may be about the money advertisers pay for ads of questionable effectiveness. Whatever the case, I've seen the future and it's mostly ad free.
    Digital publishers make a choice about how to generate revenue and readers make a choice whether they want to visit the site or not. I would gladly pay a small fee to read Appleinsider. Pop ups are a digital twist on the oldest form of print advertising...its an archaic medium with some modern bells and whistles in the form of cheap animation, data gathering and click-throughs. Advertising currently supports some content that doesn't have a worthwhile audience. Eventual only the best content will remain%u2026that for which people are willing to pay. Evolve or die.
  • Reply 379 of 421

    I’m not a publisher, an advertiser, a journalist, or a website owner or manager.  I’m just an average internet user.  When I first learned about ad blocking in iOS 9 I was excited but after the excitement wore off I had a reality check moment. I thought about the consequences of blocking ads and what it could do to free online content and websites that do not deserve to be blocked if ad blocking goes mainstream and adapted by everyone.  We all hate intrusive, tracking ads but it’s a small price to pay in exchange for keeping the internet free and open with content we enjoy reading and watching when we visit our favorite websites everyday.  I do not have nor do I plan to install any ad blocking apps on my iPhone, iMac, or MacBook Pro.  Ad blocking will hurt everyone in the long run and it will have a bad domino effect.  You know the old saying, "For Every Action There's a Reaction." By blocking ads we will contribute to the slow demise of websites and the internet by jumping on the mob mentality bandwagon. We all deserve a safe and annoyance-free browsing experience but this is not the way to do it, with brute force using a blunt instrument. I agree with Marco Arment and his decision. Lets keep our favorite websites such as this one open for business.

  • Reply 380 of 421
    applecorps wrote: »
    To call this issue a question of morality is a vast overstatement. This is a question of evolution. As a reader of Appleinsider and other digital publications, I have never made any agreement to be exposed to advertising. In fact, I ignore it as much as I can. If there is any morality to question, it may be about the money advertisers pay for ads of questionable effectiveness. Whatever the case, I've seen the future and it's mostly ad free.
    Digital publishers make a choice about how to generate revenue and readers make a choice whether they want to visit the site or not. I would gladly pay a small fee to read Appleinsider. Pop ups are a digital twist on the oldest form of print advertising...its an archaic medium with some modern bells and whistles in the form of cheap animation, data gathering and click-throughs. Advertising currently supports some content that doesn't have a worthwhile audience. Eventual only the best content will remain%u2026that for which people are willing to pay. Evolve or die.

    You're kidding yourself if you think the future is ad free. We pay for newspapers, magazines and they still have ads. Cable TV eventually went with ads. The truth is that subscriptions don't make enough money for the publishers/content creators, and eventually they go to ads to make up the difference.
Sign In or Register to comment.