Hacker News Reader

Comment by scoreponok | Hacker News Reader

>giving users the best web-browsing experience possible

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.

View on HN

> Maybe companies that generate revenue using these tactics?

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.

> Ask yourself this -- if apple iAds was wildly successful would they be taking the same action?

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.

Exactly. Apple isn't just promoting ad blocking for purely benevolent reasons i.e "for the best web-browsing experience possible" - they obviously have other motivations.

Why would a publically-traded company do anything for purely benevolent reasons? Their investors would sue them.

"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.

It's just as easy to think of a non-sinister explanation for adding it.

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.

> 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.

Well, OK, but this is a counterfactual that isn't very illuminating.

> Maybe companies that generate revenue using these tactics?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com