don't they have better targets to go after? like ad block plus? surely Safari's 3%-4% marketshare isn't going to affect them as much as adblock plus or other privacy plugins.
Google, on the other hand, is in no better state. Massive problems with content censoring is starting to drive people away from the company services en masse.
En masse? I hadn't seen reports on that yet. How many millions have been driven away? For whatever reason the revenue figures aren't reflecting that mass exodus.
Careful with the "screw you, ad industry" comments. Remember that Spotify just announced cessation of support for Safari. What if major sites (Amazon for example) start rejecting the Safari browser and force you to use something else to access their sites? These advertising companies aren't going to take this laying down. They will fight back and this is just the first salvo. You think people will just not visit retail sites that reject Safari? Hell no, people will change browsers to get to their favorite sites, just like they did in the old Microsoft hegemony days.
If sites did that Apple could fight back by just changing the user agent Safari reports to the site and report itself as Chrome.
Maybe some huge sites like Amazon could get away with it but do you really think websites are going to want to make that argument to the general public? "We're blocking your browser because they're preventing us from tracking you."
Apple would do no such thing, ever. And yes, I do believe websites would do whatever is needed to protect their advertising incomes. Follow the money. What would you be willing to pay for access to AppleInsider if they couldn't make anything off of ad clicks because of blocking or no more tracking?
Apple would never do such a thing? I thought the same thing about content blockers in iOS a few years ago to. Then they did it.
Are you talking about curated something-something or are you talking about content being blocked in Safari?
don't they have better targets to go after? like ad block plus? surely Safari's 3%-4% marketshare isn't going to affect them as much as adblock plus or other privacy plugins.
Google, on the other hand, is in no better state. Massive problems with content censoring is starting to drive people away from the company services en masse.
En masse? I hadn't seen reports on that yet. How many millions have been driven away? For whatever reason the revenue figures aren't reflecting that mass exodus.
Because
it only has started recently. By using your logic, you could have argued
that the iPhone is not going to be successful, especial because there is no
mass exodus from blackberry and Nokia phones. Yet, here we are, (just) ten
years later, in the "future" where Blackberry is a cold corps, nokia has not been
dead nominally, because they collaborate with Apple, but factually they
do not make any phones because they have been ousted.. Quite obvious, that the financial states of those companies did not
reflect the impending disaster at that time. That is because it should not, due to their current
state being shaped by the past, not future. But that financial state is just a snapshot, or a slice, of a path, or a vector, if you like, but not the path itself.. Which is why it is important to talk about trends (=vectors) and not about a current state, when trying to ascertain the future.
I wonder which apple based website will be the first to stop working on safari when this block comes in, and instead prompt you to install chrome or Firefox etc.
If the wind keeps blowing in this direction that's what will happen.
If you want the moon on a stick without paying a bean just put up with the adverts.
It would be too complicated for Apple's to introduce a safari subscription model to block adverts, allowing them to pay royalties instead, but ultimately that is what's needed.
I feel real bad for the ad industry. They may not me able to send me all the crap I never wanted in the first place.
While as a consumer I agree and find it uber creepy (and utterly stupid) that I get adds all over the web for things I've already searched for, remember, this is what keeps the internet "free". I don't think these Safari limitations will destroy the model we shouldn't knock it too much unless you want paywalls everywhere. The advertisers and the ad networks may suck but this is how the creators get paid.
I was was a fan of Techpinions but as a niche site they decided to put up a paywall rather than rely on ads. $10 a month is to much for casual interest for one website for me but I assume it is working for them.
It is just ignorant of the underlying business model of the web to wish for an ad-blocked world.
My, are the only valid ads those that come from tracking? I think not. They just pay better. The spurious argument reminds me when cable TV was going to be as free because you paid for it. Ha! Fool me twice..,
Like I said, what Apple is proposing should not be a huge limitation except to these 3rd party cookies driving tracking but many of the knee-jerk comments were about all ads. Also when was cable TV ever free or described as such. Broadcast TV is facing similar issues as people increasingly skips ads via DVR. Live viewing is plummeting and the funding model is beginning to struggle. They are raising rates for now but that can't go on forever. They effectively compete with paywall providers with entirely asymmetric objectives (e.g. Netflix/Amazon).
While as a consumer I agree and find it uber creepy (and utterly stupid) that I get adds all over the web for things I've already searched for, remember, this is what keeps the internet "free".
Not for nothing, but my MSO (ISP) does give me free internet access, I have to pay for it. The same also goes for my cellular connection. That shit isn't free either.
So so the concept that the internet is free and advertising is what allows it to be free is bullshit. When a website like AI, give your free access, it's because it's relying on the advertising to make up for the free access, to that their site only.
Amazon on the other hand, has a free account and a pay for account. If I have a non prime account advertise the shit out of me. But if I have a prime account, that should not happen. All searches should be anonymous.
Saying the internet is free is accepted shorthand for most content is freely available. You know that your access to the pipe entitles you to no content so why bother using semantics to derail the debate about advertising (which is about the content). The internet IS the content to the vast majority of users, not the pipes and access infrastructure.
don't they have better targets to go after? like ad block plus? surely Safari's 3%-4% marketshare isn't going to affect them as much as adblock plus or other privacy plugins.
Google, on the other hand, is in no better state. Massive problems with content censoring is starting to drive people away from the company services en masse.
En masse? I hadn't seen reports on that yet. How many millions have been driven away? For whatever reason the revenue figures aren't reflecting that mass exodus.
Because
it only has started recently.
So you have nothing to indicate anything "started". No problem but thanks for at least responding. If there's anything behind your belief we should see evidence of it over the next couple of months.
gatorguy said: Well I think you should check for yourself then and you may learn some things you weren't aware of. Don't lake my word for it. Hint: Google themselves have already announced they'll be rolling out Chrome's default blocking of the most annoying ad types within just a few more months, giving websites an opportunity to clean themselves up before Google begins blocking.
Google would rather you see their ads and search results, and not others.
anton zuykov said: ... Which is why it is important to talk about trends (=vectors) and not about a current state, when trying to ascertain the future.
Unfortunately, I don't think 99% of Internet users even know about alternate search engines.
capnbob said: ... Broadcast TV is facing similar issues as people increasingly skips ads via DVR. Live viewing is plummeting and the funding model is beginning to struggle. They are raising rates for now but that can't go on forever. They effectively compete with paywall providers with entirely asymmetric objectives (e.g. Netflix/Amazon).
They have to somehow create enough unique value (or a good enough collection of it) and then not get greedy on the subscription side, such that they can draw a big enough audience to make a reasonable profit.
Or, make the ad-model actually useful to the audience. The podcast industry is doing a reasonably good job of this. When the podcast host tells me about some product that's in alignment with my needs and explains how they use it and like it... I've purchased several of those products, and have been grateful for the advice (while they made money in affiliate fees or sponsorship).
IMO, disruptive, spray & pray, CPM type ad models are in pretty rough shape. The problem is the ad-industry and ad-buyers of larger companies are still pretty clueless about this. That's why they keep writing stupid articles (that people in the podcast industry laugh at) and pushing for metrics that they claim are needed for podcasting to survive (while it's been doing just fine without them). These are the people that think NPR podcasts like Serial put podcasting on the map or revived it. They are utterly clueless.
capnbob said: Saying the internet is free is accepted shorthand for most content is freely available. You know that your access to the pipe entitles you to no content so why bother using semantics to derail the debate about advertising (which is about the content). The internet IS the content to the vast majority of users, not the pipes and access infrastructure.
Yes, it's sad how misunderstood this is. It's a huge problem in trying to work out the net neutrality debate, as people don't understand the danger in not keeping the two from collusion.
Unfortunately, I don't think 99% of Internet users even know about alternate search engines.
Then there are those, like me, who know that alternatives exist, but use Google anyway.
I'm aware that Google collects a lot of information about my online activity, and that they use that information to sell advertising that will supposedly have a better chance of prying open my wallet than a randomly selected, generic ad would.
In exchange, I get free use of a search engine that does an excellent job of showing me what I'm looking for. So good that I assume it must be using the data it collects about me to tailor the results it shows me.
Given a choice between being tracked or not, I'd choose not. But given a choice between being tracked in exchange for a valuable service or going without that service (and still seeing ads, but not for things that actually interest me), I have so far chosen to accept the tracking. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't perceive it as a grave enough threat to my well-being to give up what I get in return.
Is there some liability I'm overlooking? Aside from the emotional discomfort of strangers knowing things about me that I wouldn't tell my friends, is there some risk to my health, freedom, or happiness that I'm not aware of?
gatorguy said: Well I think you should check for yourself then and you may learn some things you weren't aware of. Don't lake my word for it. Hint: Google themselves have already announced they'll be rolling out Chrome's default blocking of the most annoying ad types within just a few more months, giving websites an opportunity to clean themselves up before Google begins blocking.
Google would rather you see their ads and search results, and not others.
Well of course they would just as Apple would rather you buy and use their products and not others. That does not mean both companies only operate out of selfish motivation.
Unfortunately, I don't think 99% of Internet users even know about alternate search engines.
Then there are those, like me, who know that alternatives exist, but use Google anyway. ... Is there some liability I'm overlooking? Aside from the emotional discomfort of strangers knowing things about me that I wouldn't tell my friends, is there some risk to my health, freedom, or happiness that I'm not aware of?
As do I. And, I think it is a fair trade up to some point. (And, looking back, I wonder how much better things would be if we'd, as a society, been more willing to trade a bit of cash instead of part of our lives).
Yes, the problem is that if the capabilities and information are out there, they might very well be used against you at some point. (And, I'm not sure most people actually recognize the depth and scale of what they are trading.) Of course, most respond with... but, I have nothing to hide (which is a lie, as we all do in some manner). But, it goes even further than that, especially in context of government. What if you hold a view that becomes opposed to a turn the government and.or society take? Or, even one that harms your employability or public safety? (A couple of examples that come to mind are people like Brendan Eich or the witch-hunts - on both sides - following Charlottesville.)
It's easy to - in the present moment - look at yourself and think, 'hey, I'm a relatively law-abiding citizen, I have nothing to fear or hide' until the laws or social norms shift (which is especially likely when they aren't grounded anymore).
cgWerks said: Google would rather you see their ads and search results, and not others.
Well of course they would just as Apple would rather you buy and use their products and not others. That does not mean both companies only operate out of selfish motivation.
My point was that even if Chrome blocks ads, it won't blog the majority of Google's ad revenue. It's actually a slick way of eliminating a bunch of competition.
I wonder which apple based website will be the first to stop working on safari when this block comes in, and instead prompt you to install chrome or Firefox etc.
If the wind keeps blowing in this direction that's what will happen.
If you want the moon on a stick without paying a bean just put up with the adverts.
It would be too complicated for Apple's to introduce a safari subscription model to block adverts, allowing them to pay royalties instead, but ultimately that is what's needed.
Good, because then people will stop paying BS websites indirectly via ad revenue, only paying those who they deem necessary to pay to directly.
I wonder which apple based website will be the first to stop working on safari when this block comes in, and instead prompt you to install chrome or Firefox etc.
If the wind keeps blowing in this direction that's what will happen.
If you want the moon on a stick without paying a bean just put up with the adverts.
It would be too complicated for Apple's to introduce a safari subscription model to block adverts, allowing them to pay royalties instead, but ultimately that is what's needed.
Good, because then people will stop paying BS websites indirectly via ad revenue, only paying those who they deem necessary to pay to directly.
No way enough people will open wallets to support writers, researchers, IT staff and website owners so they can read and/or comment on AI, iMore or 9to5Mac articles. If even the well-heeled Apple folks aren't willing to part with "pay for play" how do you think the rest of the internet will fare? Prepare to read your Apple news at Bloomberg and Forbes if advertising fails to pay sites enough to support them.
anton zuykov said: Good, because then people will stop paying BS websites indirectly via ad revenue, only paying those who they deem necessary to pay to directly.
Yea, maybe it's just a matter of 'that ship has sailed' but I often wonder if a site like AI could hire some more journalists who do in-depth stuff (ex: Mike's deep-dive into eGPUs what I've seen little of nowhere else) and then either paywall, value-for-value ask, sponsorships, etc. and come out better than auto-injected display ads.
However, what won't work anymore, are news sites that just publish the same stuff as a dozen other sites, and then race to the bottom in terms of ad density. (And, that seems to be the general trend anymore.) But, once the CPM gets too low and the users get fed up, what's the next move, then? They close the doors.
gatorguy said: No way enough people will open wallets to support writers, researchers, IT staff and website owners so they can read and/or comment on AI, iMore or 9to5Mac articles. If even the well-heeled Apple folks aren't willing to part with "pay for play" how do you think the rest of the internet will fare? Prepare to read your Apple news at Bloomberg and Forbes if advertising fails to pay sites enough to support them.
Seems to be working for Netflix, or as I've mentioned in previous posts, podcasters. I'm not sure it's really been tried.
That said, the problem isn't so much ads on the whole. It's auto-injected, irrelevant, annoying ads (in this case, creepy poorly targeted ones). As I said several times during this thread... the most successful ad-driven podcasters are the ones where the ad-segments actually add value, and for the most part, the listeners actually appreciate hearing.
But, good ads actually take work... both on the part of the media producer, and the advertiser. You can't just buy generic spots for $X per CPM, like many of the big brands seem determined to do, and build no relationship.
Glad to see the new Safari. I am sick of Ads targeting me. I am also tired of marketing people calling me on my phone trying to sell me something. There no way to block them as they change their number every time. Same person or computer generated voice, just a different number.
Comments
Quite obvious, that the financial states of those companies did not reflect the impending disaster at that time. That is because it should not, due to their current state being shaped by the past, not future.
But that financial state is just a snapshot, or a slice, of a path, or a vector, if you like, but not the path itself.. Which is why it is important to talk about trends (=vectors) and not about a current state, when trying to ascertain the future.
If the wind keeps blowing in this direction that's what will happen.
If you want the moon on a stick without paying a bean just put up with the adverts.
It would be too complicated for Apple's to introduce a safari subscription model to block adverts, allowing them to pay royalties instead, but ultimately that is what's needed.
Saying the internet is free is accepted shorthand for most content is freely available. You know that your access to the pipe entitles you to no content so why bother using semantics to derail the debate about advertising (which is about the content). The internet IS the content to the vast majority of users, not the pipes and access infrastructure.
They have to somehow create enough unique value (or a good enough collection of it) and then not get greedy on the subscription side, such that they can draw a big enough audience to make a reasonable profit.
Or, make the ad-model actually useful to the audience. The podcast industry is doing a reasonably good job of this. When the podcast host tells me about some product that's in alignment with my needs and explains how they use it and like it... I've purchased several of those products, and have been grateful for the advice (while they made money in affiliate fees or sponsorship).
IMO, disruptive, spray & pray, CPM type ad models are in pretty rough shape. The problem is the ad-industry and ad-buyers of larger companies are still pretty clueless about this. That's why they keep writing stupid articles (that people in the podcast industry laugh at) and pushing for metrics that they claim are needed for podcasting to survive (while it's been doing just fine without them). These are the people that think NPR podcasts like Serial put podcasting on the map or revived it. They are utterly clueless.
Yes, it's sad how misunderstood this is. It's a huge problem in trying to work out the net neutrality debate, as people don't understand the danger in not keeping the two from collusion.
I'm aware that Google collects a lot of information about my online activity, and that they use that information to sell advertising that will supposedly have a better chance of prying open my wallet than a randomly selected, generic ad would.
In exchange, I get free use of a search engine that does an excellent job of showing me what I'm looking for. So good that I assume it must be using the data it collects about me to tailor the results it shows me.
Given a choice between being tracked or not, I'd choose not. But given a choice between being tracked in exchange for a valuable service or going without that service (and still seeing ads, but not for things that actually interest me), I have so far chosen to accept the tracking. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't perceive it as a grave enough threat to my well-being to give up what I get in return.
Is there some liability I'm overlooking? Aside from the emotional discomfort of strangers knowing things about me that I wouldn't tell my friends, is there some risk to my health, freedom, or happiness that I'm not aware of?
Yes, the problem is that if the capabilities and information are out there, they might very well be used against you at some point. (And, I'm not sure most people actually recognize the depth and scale of what they are trading.) Of course, most respond with... but, I have nothing to hide (which is a lie, as we all do in some manner). But, it goes even further than that, especially in context of government. What if you hold a view that becomes opposed to a turn the government and.or society take? Or, even one that harms your employability or public safety? (A couple of examples that come to mind are people like Brendan Eich or the witch-hunts - on both sides - following Charlottesville.)
It's easy to - in the present moment - look at yourself and think, 'hey, I'm a relatively law-abiding citizen, I have nothing to fear or hide' until the laws or social norms shift (which is especially likely when they aren't grounded anymore).
My point was that even if Chrome blocks ads, it won't blog the majority of Google's ad revenue. It's actually a slick way of eliminating a bunch of competition.
However, what won't work anymore, are news sites that just publish the same stuff as a dozen other sites, and then race to the bottom in terms of ad density. (And, that seems to be the general trend anymore.) But, once the CPM gets too low and the users get fed up, what's the next move, then? They close the doors.
Seems to be working for Netflix, or as I've mentioned in previous posts, podcasters. I'm not sure it's really been tried.
That said, the problem isn't so much ads on the whole. It's auto-injected, irrelevant, annoying ads (in this case, creepy poorly targeted ones). As I said several times during this thread... the most successful ad-driven podcasters are the ones where the ad-segments actually add value, and for the most part, the listeners actually appreciate hearing.
But, good ads actually take work... both on the part of the media producer, and the advertiser. You can't just buy generic spots for $X per CPM, like many of the big brands seem determined to do, and build no relationship.
I am also tired of marketing people calling me on my phone trying to sell me something. There no way to block them as they change their number every time. Same person or computer generated voice, just a different number.