Crystal, iOS ad blocker, to accept money to let ads through
wsj.com
wsj.com
I’m one of the devs and here’s the code: https://github.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast
They probably decided it wasn't worth the engineering effort to add a second code generation backend for 32bit phones (which are now three+ generations old and already facing RAM limitations).
Similarly, Apple never "made it sound" like old iPhones "weren't powerful enough". You really shouldn't put things in quotation marks and attribute them to others when you just made them up.
I think it's ok to use scare quotes to convey sarcasm instead of a direct quote. There's admittedly some ambiguity there.
32bit vs 64bit is a super lame limitation to claim, and to most people "number of bits" would appear performance related. It's nice they finally enabled a way to block ads, but it's hardly a feature they deserve a pat on the back for. It's more like, I was seriously considering switching to Android if they didn't add it.
There are so many high-performance/low-power ways to solve the extremely complicated problem of "does a given string appear in a given list?"... this is just Apple looking for excuses to force people on 5 to upgrade, as usual.
This is why every other implementation of ad-blocking does not require the website owner to make changes (because they wouldn't, that's why there are resource hogging ads everywhere, because they put them there).
It's not their choice, that's the point. They can deny access to the site or app if they detect ad blockers enabled, I'm fine with that. I just think they'll lose their audience if they do. But what apple has done here is enabled the absolute minimum amount of ad blocking because they are at competitive risk if they can't at least check the box.
Instructions to build and install a blocker that works on iPhone 5 and iPad Retina, where they work fine.
Thanks!
The vanilla GPLv3 is incompatible with Apple's App Store and they have pulled GPL apps in the past as a result. See: http://www.zdnet.com/article/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-stor...
Here's an example of a work-around that would allow you to retain a copyleft license and continue to distribute your app on the app store: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-iOS/blob/master/CON...
Didn't take long for the conflicts of interest to show up!
"According to Mr. Murphy, he isn’t adding the option for financial gain, but rather to make sure publishers aren’t overburdened by all-out blocking of ads on their sites."
My response to which is: "Who do you think you're fooling? You are taking money to allow people to defeat the core purpose of your application."
Secret Media plans to only work with “premium” publishers who don’t bombard users with large amounts of low-quality advertising.
Is there any other kind?
Seriously. This is so bad for users
I will continue using Crystal, with the default option, since I don't mind seeing minimal, non-intrusive ads that don't completely disrupt my user experience. And I don't have a problem with responsible websites with responsible ads getting paid.
In fact, this option to have vetted ads is pretty much ideal for me!
Edit: I'm curious, why do people dislike my preference here? I'm not saying anybody else has to like Crystal, just that it's matches my desires.
Is this something that you've experienced personally, or is it just from the companies reputations that are on the whitelist?
1. What was the ad like? 2. Didn't disabling "acceptable" ads on ABP work?
2. I didn't test disabling but assume that it would work as advertised - I didn't want to support a company that would enable whitelisting/acceptable ads as default in order to build up enough users as a means of extorting everyone else in the ecosystem.
Of course, this depends on trusting someone. Trust can be misplaced, but I already know I can't trust websites, so Im looking for someone else.
Basically "conforming" is paying. That's extortion. Pay are demands or no soup for you.
The only way trust works is if there's a neutral 3rd party that represents all sides and has respect.
It allows people who want to support ad-based publishers with quality ads, while still blocking the heavy junk.
Not an unacceptable thing to me, especially if it makes the developer some extra money without forcing me to let the ads through.
Also, given that the blockers don't have the sophistication level that you'd expect from say, µBlock, where you can just click on something annoying and banish it, is that ad being displayed because the ad company is giving backhanders to the developer, or was it just missed in the filter? Who knows?
Ad blocking software having "acceptable ads" is identical to antivirus software having "acceptable viruses".
Ooh, I just reread the article. The company trying to convince blocking software to do this is the outfit behind the original Adblock Plus, the original people who started this practice.
But as soon as people start paying to be included on that list, it's not a list of high-quality ads, it's a list of people that have paid you money that you have decided meet some minimum bar (that you have incentives to keep low).
Make it opt-in, and it's like the micropayments future we were promised.
> Is there any other kind?
I'd say The Deck manages to be high-quality, low-volume advertising. One of their rules is "our ad is the only ad on the page".
Artisanal ad networks targeted to web workers don't exactly _scale_ to the rest of the ad industry, but non-irritating advertising exists.
I do commend Deck ads for having no cookies, no JavaScript, no counting clicks, etc. It's not a model for the entire web since many marketers want insights and statistics on users, but it definitely works quite well and is used on several popular sites.
to help them deliver video ads in a way that
cannot be detected by ad-blocking tools.
Now I really have heard everything...
Yes there is. Sometimes I see ads for stuff that I didn't know about and am genuinely interested in. Yes, it's rare, but it does happen.
I'm glad I didn't buy Crystal. I would've been frustrated enough to request a refund from Apple if I did.
Thanks!
I'd add it myself just aren't sure how to keep it updated.
Yeah, right.. https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...
I think there's a lot of room for devs that will stand for their users. My friend is actually releasing a pretty killer, no holds barred blocker (it's in the approval process):
Halcyon Blocker: http://www.halcyonblocker.com
He's the only one I've seen come forward saying he's 100% committed to privacy and his app does not download anything. He curates the lists himself (I've helped profiling some of his block rules).
I have a beta and it's fast, clean, and works. Can't wait for it to come out. He's pretty excited too.
Answer: http://bfy.tw/1yEn
Extortion isn't a business model.
I, however, am genuinely interested to see if this generates and revenue or if everyone just disregards the app(consumers and publishers)
That comment in the iOS content blocker screen where it says that a blocker cannot send information back to the app is very literal; while it can't communicate with the app, it could communicate with the outside world.
I wrote a proof of concept showing how a content blocker can be used to disclose a unique tracking token across all domains - seeing collusion happening with one of the biggest blockers makes me think that this could actually happen. It's a little inelegant, but it shows that it's possible.
Proof of concept for those interested - https://github.com/MattOfNZ/Hypercookie
Any feedback on how practical this seems would be appreciated, I am not sure if my concerns are real or unfounded.
Edit: swapped 'seeing this' for 'seeing collusion'
Does anyone know if it's possible to do ad blocking through the NEFilterProvider classes? (https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Networ...) This looks like it would block requests at a lower level, possibly for all Apps. Has anyone else tried digging into it?
Another approach is to sell ad-less VPN. User will have to install custom root certificate, so VPN server can MITM secure connections in order to strip and block ads. It's certainly easier to setup.
Being all or nothing means good ad networks and publishers are hurt but removes any arbitration and slippery slope issues.
Or they can try to do an "acceptable ads" list but in this case it's always inevitable abused and turned into some extortion scam with the highest bidders (who usually have the worst ads) getting through.
It would be best if there was an neutral industry group that didnt make adblocker software or sell ads and worked with all 3 sides to come up with a real democratically approved list of vendors.
Taking money for the process just screams corruption.
The current whitelist is nothing but a business model run by an adblocking company and makes them millions. It is NOT in the interest of the consumer and doesn't verify ad standards for anyone. Just look at some of the companies they let through - it includes clickbait links, in-image banners and autoplay videos inside articles.
Any site that starts displaying auto-play ads with sound will not get any repeat visits from me. Surely they realise that this escalation is a bad idea?
Anything that requires the ad company to pay seems like the wrong way to go about it, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. This would require a fair bit of active, ongoing curation, and that has to be paid for somehow.
If someone were just completely up front about what they were doing and came out with "BlockCrappyAds," I'd run it in a heartbeat. I'm OK with small filesize, static ads. I just don't want anything active.
Get me something that will only download ads if they're under some certain acceptable size (with size attributes declared in HTML), only on the base layer of the page (no modal overlays), and only jpgs/pngs/text with no active content. I'd run that.
[1]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-simplest... [2]: https://twitter.com/purify_app/status/647188444720951296
But if this app doesn't allow pre-existing owners to turn off this feature, that's a pretty blatant bait-and-switch. Extremely anti-consumer at that as well.
I'm glad supporting people deserving it. I'll stick to my whitelist on iOS for a non greedy adblocker. Sadly, this is getting about who makes more money rather than offering a better web...
I don't want to block all of the ads since it is how the content producers get paid. But the current situation is really either/or. I don't seem to find any ad blocker that just removes unacceptable ads.
Demanding ad networks to pay is plain extortion.
Why take money?
Then I know what Content Creators can budget in from month to month.
Plus people block ads in a variety of ways.
Sounds like a stupid plan though as the users will obviously go for something better and the deals will end up being worthless
Whether or not this is in bad faith, so long as there is an option to switch it off, I don't really care.
Company pays to put ads in web pages.
You pay ad blocker to remove ads from web pages.
Company pays ad blocker to put ads back in the web pages.
You pay another ad blocker company to remove ads from web pages.
...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: ok you guys, thanks for the feedback. We rely on you to point out the important exceptions. Title reversion reverted.
The new title, which does not show up in RSS, would not have attracted me to read the article.
Spare me any preposterous claims of corporate altruism; this wasn't enabled and encouraged by Apple to reduce page load times on the web. If Apple had their way, the web wouldn't even exist anymore.
It's been transparently obvious for years that Apple would like to replace the web with their own walled garden app ecosystem. Apple would also like to replace web ad networks such as AdSense with their iAd network. This is what we are seeing unfold currently. Their News app with its unblockable iAds is another tentacle of this plan.
Apple certainly doesn't run any web technology—they don't have skin in the web-app game like Google and Microsoft and Amazon do. (They have a web store, but on iOS it heavily suggests its native-app equivalent.)
But that doesn't mean they want their users to not use the web. Web-browsing is a feature; Apple invested a lot of energy into WebKit for a reason.
Apple just don't give a damn about the supply side of the web; they don't care if they kill every web business in the process of giving users the best web-browsing experience possible.
I have high confidence that if Apple could integrate something like e.g. Tor into Mobile Safari without a latency hit, they'd jump at the chance. Better privacy for their users! Breaks analytics and ad targeting? Who cares?
Do you really believe this is Apples paramount motivation? The only reason this is acceptable is exactly because they have nothing to lose, only everything to gain by hurting competitors that rely on advertising revenue. Ask yourself this -- if apple iAds was wildly successful would they be taking the same action? To ensure the "best web-browsing experience possible"?
> Better privacy for their users! Breaks analytics and ad targeting? Who cares?
Maybe companies that generate revenue using these tactics? Again if this was Apples bread and butter they wouldn't be implementing any security measures might interfere with their bottom line, user experience would surely be taking a back seat to profit.
iAds was only ever an offensive against Google. "Success" to Apple is Google losing ad revenue, so you might say that the content blocking extensions will do the job iAds was meant to.
"Providing the best web-browsing experience possible" isn't a benevolent act, anyway. Another way to say it is "making the most appealing-to-use software so your customers will buy your device instead of someone else's." Providing a better web-browsing experience makes Apple money.
Well, yeah, that's what I meant. The thing saying "Who cares?" is Apple, because they have nothing to lose by doing so.
I don't disagree that Apple is a profit-driven company; I'm saying that the way they approach the web in particular is solely as a manufacturer of hardware that ships with software including a web browser, which puts them in a unique position to offer software that does what customers want even where doing so "hurts the web."
> Ask yourself this -- if apple iAds was wildly successful would they be taking the same action?
News.ipa effectively replaces web ads with iAds. And, of course, they won't let you block them. Like I said, it's just the web.
Well, OK, but this is a counterfactual that isn't very illuminating.
Those companies have had roughly two decades to get their shit together and enforce non-invasive ads. If they can't manage basic quality standards, fuck 'em.
In iOS 8, Apple added sandboxed extensions support. So, they go around to each team and ask "What extensions would people using your part of the OS want?" Core OS said "custom keyboards". Photos said "editing right from the photos app/other apps". Safari looked at what extensions are popular on the desktop - #1 is Ad blockers. Easy choice.
What about Apple's web versions of its iCloud services: Mail, Notes, Find my iPhone; plus Pages, Numbers and Keynote which are full featured web applications.