Hacker News Reader

Comment by btown | Hacker News Reader

It's almost certain that Apple's long game is to make this the norm. If there's one surefire way to get people addicted to ad blockers, it's to make them available on mobile devices. Once enough content creators start moving content behind News-walls, then Apple can roll out desktop versions of News. And as people then start asking each other "how do I get ad blocking in my browser as well," Apple's well positioned to be the only unblockable advertising platform, period. They could even use iTunes as a vector to deliver an Apple News desktop app to Windows machines.

It's brilliant and will completely change the balance of power in online advertising. Google will not be happy...

View on HN

"It's brilliant"

Locking away articles in native apps so people can't block ads isn't brilliant. Apple encouraging ad blocking on the web to "nudge" publishers into their exclusive native eco-system is nothing but typical tech giant arrogance.

Wired publishing stories that when clicked from Google go to place-holders with pointers to native should be penalised by Google search, and I hope they are. There is nothing on the Google results page to indicate the link is anything less than the content.

Native app "content browsers" are all about less control for users. Native has always been about that. Sometimes less control works for users. No distractions, just minimal concentrated function. Other times, like with news articles, users are missing out on basic things like bookmarking; sharing the link - there isn't even a link; accessibility is out the window; copy and paste is out the window; discussion and comments are all but closed/extinct; no choice of browser to access the article. It's not good news for users.

>Locking away articles in native apps so people can't block ads isn't brilliant.

I'm reminded of a quote:

"After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things — terrible, yes, but great."

-Ollivander

I agree the path mobile seems to be heading down is terrible.

I don't get it. Firefox and Chrome had ability to install ad blockers for ages. As soon as Apple adds this to iOS they are sudenly the bad gays. And before they did add this I am sure there were those not happy about that and ranting about the walled garden.

One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above pretty much each "modern" this site in this regard.

"I don't get it. Firefox and Chrome had ability to install ad blockers for ages..."

The point is, while introducing ad-blocking for iOS Safari, Apple are simultaneously promoting a separate platform that is immune to ad-blocking.

Apple would call it "business" and that would be valid. But when the "business" involves shifty one-two deals with publishers like Wired, whereby the website becomes nothing more than a jump-point to the app, suddenly we have a situation where not just particular technologies like Flash are in the cross-hairs, but the web itself.

We like the web, remember? When it works well it's the most accessible, light-weight, least technical-debt means to online content there is, both for users and developers/publishers.

Note that Apple are not allowing developers to write any old add-on for iOS Safari. Imagine if they opened up add-ons for Safari? That would be worth applauding. We could then fix many of iOS Safari's shortcomings, and give it some much needed extra functionality.

"One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above"

The web has more accessible characteristics built-in because of the way the data is openly available to different clients. Native apps controlled by one vendor like Apple are the complete opposite. Regardless of some advances in accessibility options within apps, accessibility isn't among the "out of the box" strengths of the technology you get for free like you do for web.

I don't think you're taking into account that websites are free to create their own apps, and advertise there. There's little incentive for a content creator to have their content off the net, and into someone else's apps.

Im not understanding Wired's motivation here, but I'm not too concerned because Wired isn't the most intelligent publication in the first place.

"websites are free to create their own apps"

The users may accept to install a few apps (Apple/Google/… News), but not one for each website.

I pine for the WIRED of yesteryear. The current publication is but a pallid, embarrassing shadow of a formerly brilliant publication. It's now on a par with VICE, GQ or some such, and quite frankly, it is heartbreaking. The guiding light of my youth essentially extinguished (particularly as I grew up in nineties Italy, from where it provided a fascinating and prescient window into the social aspects of tech).

</rant>

You assume everyone and their grandmother has Apple-equipment.

Most of the world doesn't.

Saying that you will only do business with those who has Apple-equipment is leaving out most of the market, and doing so would be suicide for most businesses.

> Most of the world doesn't.

Technically true, but most of the world doesn't matter. Only the part which has disposable income does. The more disposable income, the more it matters.

Last I heard, Apple had around 50% market share in the US and going up. And I'm betting that it's the 50% that matters most.

> It's brilliant

Only in the same sense cable monopolies are brilliant.

This deeply concerns me. There's some debate as to the future efficacy of this tactic, but it is possible to imagine a scenario in which Apple is successful at moving content into its private service. The obvious downside of this is that a single company now controls what used to be an open publishing platform. What are the chances that Apple allows you to publish controversial articles to its service, particularly those criticizing Apple? And how are users on non-Apple platforms to get access to this info? This move doesn't even really benefit Apple users since the news app will still display ads, just controlled by a different tech company. This is good for Apple, but neutral to bad for the rest of us.

Can't a simple solution be: websites detect if their ads are being blocked (by iOS9 or whatever) and blur their content until the user disables the adblock?

That's certainly an option, but probably not a very useful one. It's like stopping piracy. Piracy can actually have a positive affect on sales. Person A who pirates your software or music doesn't pay you, but they tell other people about it, and some of them, who wouldn't have known about it, do pay for it leading to more sales than you would have otherwise had.

It's the same with content. If I go to read your article and you block it because I'm blocking ads, I'm not going to tell anyone about it and I'm not going to share the link. You then don't get the ad revenue from that sharing, so it's a net loss for you.

(And of course, if I go to read it, and it says I need a special app, I'm also not going to read it or share the link.)

The only way you'd ever get users to disable their ad blockers on your website would be injecting them with a fast-acting poison and publishing directions to the antidote. If a regular publisher of article-based content tried this, they would just end up with no readers.

What makes you think Apple is interested to be the advertising platform?

You don't have to wonder: Newsstand and iAd already exist. It's not a hypothetical.

Newsstand does not exist any more. iAd… I guess it still exists, but I wonder how long will it last. Ads are very unpopular among iOS users. I doubt Apple was thinking about making much money from it, more like they gave an alternative way to make money to developers.

One word: money

This word applies to Google in regards to ads. For apple hardware=money. And promising better security and less tracking for the users they can sell more hardware.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com