They'll recommend Chrome (I am assuming the content blocker cannot persist across UIWebviews or WKWebViews). "If you want to view this content, download and install Chrome"
In this case, I expect Google and the advertiser's interests to align.
In this case, I expect Google and the advertiser's interests to align.
Why should amartya916 care? If you'd have ads blocked, your visit would only use up bandwidth anyway, without a chance to generate revenue through ads. So without the "use chrome" wall for Safari users, s/he wouldn't generate ad views. With that wall, there's at least the chance of people switching to chrome.
Yes, thats an option. But with web publishing, which is mostly inbound traffic through search engines, that doesn't matter. That isn't exactly a niche where sustainable customer relationships are top priority.
* option 1: Safari user with ad blocker visits site. bandwidth costs: yes. ad revenue: no -> net negative
* option 2: Safari user gets chrome-walled. bandwidth costs: no. ad revenue: no, but slight chance of switch to chrome -> net neutral with slight chance of net positive
* option 3: Safari user goes to competition (= different google result). bandwidth costs: no. ad revenue: no -> net neutral.
Really though, I doubt that much will happen. I imagine that only reasonably tech savvy iOS users will install ad blockers and the overall impact will be minimal, just like its been for every other browser that supports ad blocking.