I love people who still think the word "capitalism" automatically makes any practice or activity acceptable. I think four decades of economic instability and skyrocketing income and wealth inequality have put that notion to rest.
You made your bed of capitalism, and I hear and read more than enough comments daily about how it's "so much better than social liberalism, because those that believe in that system are closet-communists" BS... that I can't help but realize what many good things about capitalism there truly are. Things that I understand better than the capitalists... imagine that(!)... and I think can be integrated WISELY in my preferred form of responsible government of "for the people by the people".
Getting all worked up here or commenting on assorted websites... which are mostly nothing more than bitch-n-moan-fest circle jerks!.... is not helping you get any closer to a responsible form of capitalism... or is it? And I'm just not seeing it? Or maybe YOU wouldn't be just bitching about it rather than doing something constructive about it.
Caveat: the only slack I'll grant you is that truth be told, I also don't believe that simple democratic politics and "one man, one vote" is working all that well, because most governments around the world have already been able to grab too much power for themselves to make "True Democracy" work any longer. That's a whole 'nother topic and NO ONE has any good answers or solutions that I've come across anyway.
Obviously you don't understand how the FREE-market works, because you don't even need to use your right to free speech at all to counter bad business practices... and specifically not this one.
It's called the free choice to ask for and receive a refund, and walk away to another business (app) that suits your needs.
That's a fallacy. There are many cases where the consumer's "free choice" to decline a purchase is insufficient. For example in the cable industry, most people in the US have only one or two (equally bad) choices for their cable TV and broadband internet service. We pay far more than most other countries for far worse service. It is only though political action and government regulation that this can be remedied.
Fortunately the situation is not as dire in the realm of mobile ad blockers. But that doesn't change the fact that we as consumers are free to publicly admonish shitty app developers.
The problem is all these non-Apple adblockers have a conflict of interest. They need to make profits on the ad-blocker so they either need to charge alot for the App or accept money from advertisers.
Apple has no conflict of interest.
I don't see how blocking tracking and spying ads would invoke an anti-trust case. Those are clear dangers to users. Apple is simply protecting its customers. The App would not block all ads by default.
I'd happily pay a reasonable yearly subscription fee for an ad blocker that worked the way I want it to.
Sure you can turn off the 'acceptable' ads. But most won't even know the options exists.
If you are so sure most will turn off the 'feature' then why are publishers paying for the feature?
And by the way 'acceptable' ads include those that track you and spy on you.
How do you KNOW that the users won't know? It hasn't implemented yet, and it has been KNOWN that when a dev updates their app, the first time you open it, the user is TOLD what is NEW, and how to use the new function and features.
You don't KNOW anything yet, so why keep on polishing your own crystal balls? Admit it: you get off on "trying" to guess the future, but you're really not all that good at it or else you wouldn't be wasting your time here now would you? Race tracks, Vegas and WS are far better places to press your lucky charms, don't ya think?
Instead of just a "user managed whitelist" of websites, there should be user managed whitelists and blacklists of advertisers and/or advertising networks, and a way to directly select a specific ad/screen element and add it to either list.
Regarding his criteria for "acceptable ads":
<ol style="color:rgb(58,60,66);margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:0px;margin-top:1em;padding-left:40px;"> [*] Acceptable Ads are not annoying.
[*] Acceptable Ads do not disrupt or distort the page content we're trying to read.
[*] Acceptable Ads are transparent with us about being an ad.
[*] Acceptable Ads are effective without shouting at us.
[*] Acceptable Ads are appropriate to the site that we are on.
</ol>
He needs to add a few more:
6. Acceptable Ads do not track your online activities without your explicit consent.
7. Acceptable Ads respect a user's "right to be forgotten" and provide a simple, transparent, and obvious means for doing so. 8. Acceptable Ads do not consume more than a few kilobytes of bandwidth per page. 9. Acceptable Ads are not to exceed one or two per page. 10. Acceptable Ads are determined based on the end user's interests, not those of the ad network, content publisher, or app developer.
Maybe you can explain how you think they can go about #10... without utilizing #'s 6 & 7...?
Apple needs to do the responsible thing and include it as a default.
We should not even call it Ad-Block. It should be called Privacy-Block. Safari by default should block all tracking/spying scripts. And block all obnixous ads = App store redirects, pop ups, full screen ads, auto play videos, ect. Blocking less intrusive ads should be an option.
Privacy-Block should be standard. Just as Apple blocks virus they should block spying by default.
Simply calling Ad-Block is not accurate. I don't mind ads, but I do detest spying/tracking.
People have varying opinions on what constitutes the right balance between user experience/privacy and content/functionality/cost. This divide is most evident in the separation between fans of iOS and Android. But even amongst Apple customers there is a range of opinions. it would be difficult for Apple to take a stance without alienating many of its customers.
No one wants Spyware and Tractware. That is what Apple should block by default.
Try find me someone who's okay with having their privacy raped.
Just like how Apple blocks harmful virus, they should block spy/tracking
You and I may agree on these, but others may not. As I noted before, Android's entire business model is predicated on persuading users to give up their privacy in exchange for free services and lower priced devices. Some of those users do not realize the importance of privacy, while others consider it a luxury they're unwilling or unable to pay for.
Thats why Apple needs to take the kid gloves off and develop their own ad blocker exclusive for iOS. Or simply buy one of these ad blockers and repackage as an Apple App.
If Apple cares about customer experience they should. Apple has no conflicts of interest like Google, Crystal, or Eyeo. The goodwill they get from blocking tracking and obnoxious ads will be much more valuable then the hate they will face from the media.
The Apple Ad-blocker should block all tracking, spying, and abnoxious ads by default. There should be an additional option to block all ads. Websites will survive. Because no ad-blocker can block native ads.
IMO, an Adblock is an absolute essential in enjoying Safari.
Oddly enough. I believe that is a decent solution. Let Apple break this thing wide open for debate and as a big business, fight the other big businesses and the Big Wigs in government and the courts.
Although, I'm skeptical of them winning against the Big Wigs.
I love people who still think the word "capitalism" automatically makes any practice or activity acceptable. I think four decades of economic instability and skyrocketing income and wealth inequality have put that notion to rest.
Don't start with that "wealth inequality" BS or we'll be arguing all day over an invented political "problem."
99% of the websites are working now with Crystal/Peace.
The App/websites know that iOS customers are the most valuable. No way will they cut them off. Apple has all the leverage.
Correction: In your experience 99% of the websites are working now with Crystal/Peace, at the moment.
For some users it may be 75% or 50%. Or perhaps some of your favorite websites could go out of business because they couldn't come up with an alternate revenue stream quickly enough. Apple provided developers and users with tools that they may use while exercising their own judgment. This is a more equitable, adaptable, and democratic solution than an authoritarian edict from Apple.
Think back on when Apple blocked Flash on iOS. Many of us at the time knew it was the right thing to do. In hindsight most of us agree on the same. But at the time it was hugely controversial and Apple had to deal with the backlash for years.
You seriously think most people READ those app update documentations? HELL NO. Most people just keep the App the way it was on the defaults. Most people think if you buy an Ad-blocker it will continue to block ads. That's why you bought it. Most won't think you need to tinker with settings to make it work.
Default settings are RARELY changed by most users. That's why AppleMaps is more used than GoogleMap on iOS. That's why Google pays BILLIONS to be the default search on Safari. Most users will glaze over and simply skip each screen and opt into the defaults.
And Crystal and the advertisers know this. That's why they are paying Eyeo/Crystal big bucks to be part of the whitelist.
So wait a minute: you want Apple and all developers to protect users from their (in)ability to read and make conscious decisions... even short YES/NO questions with buttons? Which by the way, I don't know will be there anymore than you know that the disclaimer i.e. choice will be buried in deep and advanced settings (with no info screen).
Objection: because you don't know what, why or how Crystal will be implementing their whitelist, nor what went on in their discussions with different advertisers. Blatant conjecture on your part.
#10 was meant to encompass whatever wasn't already explicitly cited.
I realize that. Now how do you expect them to implement #10: Acceptable Ads are determined based on the end user's interests, not those of the ad network, content publisher, or app developer.
If they can't track or use cookies... how do you propose they serve up relevant ads without communicating "something" back to the servers?
No one wants Spyware and Tractware. That is what Apple should block by default.
Try find me someone who's okay with having their privacy raped.
Just like how Apple blocks harmful virus, they should block spy/tracking.
By default all spying/tracking should be blocked on iOS. Those are as dangerous as virus attacks. Also App redirects and auto-play videos should be blocked by default. iOS already blocks popups so why not block App store directs and autoplay videos?
80% of the world's population that uses mobile devises and clicks through most EULAs... not including die hard Android fans... shouldn't be that hard to find.
You seriously think the Apple will lose in the courts or the court of public opinion for blocking spying/tracking scripts by default?
I'm talking about Apple blocking spying/tracking by default. Not ads.
Apple should allow SPY-BLOCK and TRACK-BLOCK by default
Since WHEN has overwhelming majority public opinion won anything lately?
[@]freediverx[/@] mentioned the US version of "free market" cable service in the US... which looks like a local monopoly to me... and seems to be a majority public opinion. See any changes coming in the future? Rub your Crystal Ball(s) good before answering that.
The problem is all these non-Apple adblockers have a conflict of interest. They need to make profits on the ad-blocker so they either need to charge alot for the App or accept money from advertisers.
Apple has no conflict of interest.
I don't see how blocking tracking and spying ads would invoke an anti-trust case. Those are clear dangers to users. Apple is simply protecting its customers. The App would not block all ads by default.
With regards to Crystal, the developer, until this report had made $75k off sales of the App. He supposedly spent 2 months developing it himself. With regards to Ad-Blockers or Content-Blockers, I don't think there is a problem with them making enough money back in return. Even Peace made in excess of $100k in a few days before he took it down.
I would fully expect a developer to make an Ad-Blocker, charge between $1-$3 for it as a one off charge and not have to rely on advertisers money to supplement the earnings.
Comments
You made your bed of capitalism, and I hear and read more than enough comments daily about how it's "so much better than social liberalism, because those that believe in that system are closet-communists" BS... that I can't help but realize what many good things about capitalism there truly are. Things that I understand better than the capitalists... imagine that(!)... and I think can be integrated WISELY in my preferred form of responsible government of "for the people by the people".
Getting all worked up here or commenting on assorted websites... which are mostly nothing more than bitch-n-moan-fest circle jerks!.... is not helping you get any closer to a responsible form of capitalism... or is it? And I'm just not seeing it? Or maybe YOU wouldn't be just bitching about it rather than doing something constructive about it.
Caveat: the only slack I'll grant you is that truth be told, I also don't believe that simple democratic politics and "one man, one vote" is working all that well, because most governments around the world have already been able to grab too much power for themselves to make "True Democracy" work any longer. That's a whole 'nother topic and NO ONE has any good answers or solutions that I've come across anyway.
I love people. <<<- notice the period?!
Obviously you don't understand how the FREE-market works, because you don't even need to use your right to free speech at all to counter bad business practices... and specifically not this one.
It's called the free choice to ask for and receive a refund, and walk away to another business (app) that suits your needs.
That's a fallacy. There are many cases where the consumer's "free choice" to decline a purchase is insufficient. For example in the cable industry, most people in the US have only one or two (equally bad) choices for their cable TV and broadband internet service. We pay far more than most other countries for far worse service. It is only though political action and government regulation that this can be remedied.
Fortunately the situation is not as dire in the realm of mobile ad blockers. But that doesn't change the fact that we as consumers are free to publicly admonish shitty app developers.
The problem is all these non-Apple adblockers have a conflict of interest. They need to make profits on the ad-blocker so they either need to charge alot for the App or accept money from advertisers.
Apple has no conflict of interest.
I don't see how blocking tracking and spying ads would invoke an anti-trust case. Those are clear dangers to users. Apple is simply protecting its customers. The App would not block all ads by default.
I'd happily pay a reasonable yearly subscription fee for an ad blocker that worked the way I want it to.
How do you KNOW that the users won't know? It hasn't implemented yet, and it has been KNOWN that when a dev updates their app, the first time you open it, the user is TOLD what is NEW, and how to use the new function and features.
You don't KNOW anything yet, so why keep on polishing your own crystal balls? Admit it: you get off on "trying" to guess the future, but you're really not all that good at it or else you wouldn't be wasting your time here now would you? Race tracks, Vegas and WS are far better places to press your lucky charms, don't ya think?
Maybe you can explain how you think they can go about #10... without utilizing #'s 6 & 7...?
I do too. I do it by buying an iPhone.
Apple needs to do the responsible thing and include it as a default.
We should not even call it Ad-Block. It should be called Privacy-Block. Safari by default should block all tracking/spying scripts. And block all obnixous ads = App store redirects, pop ups, full screen ads, auto play videos, ect. Blocking less intrusive ads should be an option.
Privacy-Block should be standard. Just as Apple blocks virus they should block spying by default.
Simply calling Ad-Block is not accurate. I don't mind ads, but I do detest spying/tracking.
People have varying opinions on what constitutes the right balance between user experience/privacy and content/functionality/cost. This divide is most evident in the separation between fans of iOS and Android. But even amongst Apple customers there is a range of opinions. it would be difficult for Apple to take a stance without alienating many of its customers.
Maybe you can explain how you think they can go about #10... without utilizing #'s 6 & 7...?
#10 was meant to encompass whatever wasn't already explicitly cited.
No it won't.
No one wants Spyware and Tractware. That is what Apple should block by default.
Try find me someone who's okay with having their privacy raped.
Just like how Apple blocks harmful virus, they should block spy/tracking
You and I may agree on these, but others may not. As I noted before, Android's entire business model is predicated on persuading users to give up their privacy in exchange for free services and lower priced devices. Some of those users do not realize the importance of privacy, while others consider it a luxury they're unwilling or unable to pay for.
Oddly enough. I believe that is a decent solution. Let Apple break this thing wide open for debate and as a big business, fight the other big businesses and the Big Wigs in government and the courts.
Although, I'm skeptical of them winning against the Big Wigs.
Do you seriously think iOS users will be pissed if tracking/spying scripts were blocked? Really?
What if Apple blocked all tracking and all of a sudden half of the apps and websites stopped working?
In a way, this topic is similar to the debate over government regulation. Both extremes are untenable. The key is finding the right balance.
Don't start with that "wealth inequality" BS or we'll be arguing all day over an invented political "problem."
99% of the websites are working now with Crystal/Peace.
The App/websites know that iOS customers are the most valuable. No way will they cut them off. Apple has all the leverage.
Correction: In your experience 99% of the websites are working now with Crystal/Peace, at the moment.
For some users it may be 75% or 50%. Or perhaps some of your favorite websites could go out of business because they couldn't come up with an alternate revenue stream quickly enough. Apple provided developers and users with tools that they may use while exercising their own judgment. This is a more equitable, adaptable, and democratic solution than an authoritarian edict from Apple.
Think back on when Apple blocked Flash on iOS. Many of us at the time knew it was the right thing to do. In hindsight most of us agree on the same. But at the time it was hugely controversial and Apple had to deal with the backlash for years.
So wait a minute: you want Apple and all developers to protect users from their (in)ability to read and make conscious decisions... even short YES/NO questions with buttons? Which by the way, I don't know will be there anymore than you know that the disclaimer i.e. choice will be buried in deep and advanced settings (with no info screen).
Objection: because you don't know what, why or how Crystal will be implementing their whitelist, nor what went on in their discussions with different advertisers. Blatant conjecture on your part.
You'd be a dreadful lawyer :no:
I realize that. Now how do you expect them to implement #10: Acceptable Ads are determined based on the end user's interests, not those of the ad network, content publisher, or app developer.
If they can't track or use cookies... how do you propose they serve up relevant ads without communicating "something" back to the servers?
80% of the world's population that uses mobile devises and clicks through most EULAs... not including die hard Android fans... shouldn't be that hard to find.
So ask 'em.
Absolutely 100% agree and quotable :smokey:
We need to stop pushing these Apps as AD-BLOCKERS.
They are PRIVACY-BLOCKERS, SPY-BLOCKERS, and TRACK-BLOCKERS.
It's not quite that simple. Content blockers are many things to many people.
They can help users with the following issues, which different users prioritize differently:
This is getting REALLY REALLY DIRTY!!
It sounds a bit like a protection racket...
Since WHEN has overwhelming majority public opinion won anything lately?
[@]freediverx[/@] mentioned the US version of "free market" cable service in the US... which looks like a local monopoly to me... and seems to be a majority public opinion. See any changes coming in the future? Rub your Crystal Ball(s) good before answering that.
The problem is all these non-Apple adblockers have a conflict of interest. They need to make profits on the ad-blocker so they either need to charge alot for the App or accept money from advertisers.
Apple has no conflict of interest.
I don't see how blocking tracking and spying ads would invoke an anti-trust case. Those are clear dangers to users. Apple is simply protecting its customers. The App would not block all ads by default.
With regards to Crystal, the developer, until this report had made $75k off sales of the App. He supposedly spent 2 months developing it himself. With regards to Ad-Blockers or Content-Blockers, I don't think there is a problem with them making enough money back in return. Even Peace made in excess of $100k in a few days before he took it down.
I would fully expect a developer to make an Ad-Blocker, charge between $1-$3 for it as a one off charge and not have to rely on advertisers money to supplement the earnings.