Hacker News Reader

Comment by bpicolo | Hacker News Reader

When their main revenue is ads? Will there be "acceptable ads"?

If I remember correctly, the idea is to block ads that don't conform to the standards set by the Coalition for Better Ads [0]. Google is (as you can expect) a member of this coalition (just like Facebook and many other companies [1]).

[0]: https://www.betterads.org/standards/ [1]: https://www.betterads.org/members/

I get Google ads on mobile that flash and mislead. Virus Scan! Battery Scan! Clean Your Phone! With yellow and red. So at least on Android, Google serves tons of shit deserving blocking.

Gotcha. That makes sense

Yes, of course. Even ad block plus has 'acceptable' ads. Especially in the case of Google, their ads are def 'acceptable' :)

Which is exactly why most friends and colleagues have switched to uBlock Origin or similar plugins.

Whitelisting is not the solution. Letting the entire industry die in the pit they've dug for themselves is the solution.

What happens to the freemium game industry?

I think opt-in, rewarded advertising is the path forward for the minority of publishers wise enough to learn to align with the end-user's goals. App monetization platform providers like Tapjoy -- who have customers on both supply side (publishers) and demand side (advertisers) might view end-user UX as the 3rd leg of a stool.

They stop taking good games and hitting them with the micro-transaction stick until they're awful?

Bring back the OLD PopCap. Let me BUY good games. I pay. I'll be happy to buy more.

Instead people are trying to make Candy Crush look downright saintly.

That seems like it will lead to some monopoly-style legal trouble

Reply on news.ycombinator.com