Collateral Damage(textslashplain.com)
textslashplain.com
Collateral Damage
http://textslashplain.com/2015/06/10/collateral-damage/
40 comments
There is absolutely nothing worse than a site that pops up a full-screen ad over the page content on a touch device. Especially when using a mobile browser that's resource constrained as it is. I feel like more sites are using these pop-over ads even though I've never seen it described anywhere in any good terms.
Possibly up there with auto-playing ads that make any kind of noise (I don't necessarily mind the ones so much that don't expand unless you mouse over them).
I'm not against ads, I don't use an ad-blocker. I don't even mind ads on YouTube. I mean, after all I'm getting all this content for free and they have to be paid somehow. Some of the YouTube ads are actually quite clever and I've ended up watching many of them on purpose. Still glad Apple is doing this, but it's a shame that designers/developers couldn't show some restraint to let it get to this point in the first place.
Possibly up there with auto-playing ads that make any kind of noise (I don't necessarily mind the ones so much that don't expand unless you mouse over them).
I'm not against ads, I don't use an ad-blocker. I don't even mind ads on YouTube. I mean, after all I'm getting all this content for free and they have to be paid somehow. Some of the YouTube ads are actually quite clever and I've ended up watching many of them on purpose. Still glad Apple is doing this, but it's a shame that designers/developers couldn't show some restraint to let it get to this point in the first place.
> If you thought that websites’ “Install our app” prompts were annoying before, imagine what’s going to happen when the only way to reliably show ads is via a native app.
I don't understand. If I get linked to a website that requires me to download their iOS app, I'll just close the tab. It's an annoyance, granted, but it's not some new unfathomable horror.
I don't understand. If I get linked to a website that requires me to download their iOS app, I'll just close the tab. It's an annoyance, granted, but it's not some new unfathomable horror.
What if you really wanted to access that content? Previously you could click on the "no thanks" link and keep going. Now you'll be forced to install their app.
I don't really want to access that content, by definition. I've always said that. I use Adblock, and it's trivial for websites to detect that and make it difficult to view the content. I fully support their right to do so, and if they do, I'll just close the tab as soon as I realize there's no content there. It's really not a problem.
Someone at work sends you a link to the WSJ asking for your comments on it (a thought piece on a competitor? who knows). The WSJ is now available only through an app. How do you deal with this?
A hypothetical, but your web experience could become collateral damage as well.
A hypothetical, but your web experience could become collateral damage as well.
Sending links to protected content is considered bad manners, even if only registration or login via Facebook required. I would ask that person to send me printed PDF copy of that article instead of link.
I say "I cannot read anything on that link you sent me."
Read it later when around a computer, perhaps?
His implication is that ad-supported sites will have to move their content into apps, and stop serving it as web pages. Considering that "ad-supported sites" is most of the web, if he's right it would be a little more than an annoyance.
I think he means that they will /become/ an "unfathomable horror".
Something like: if they can not show ads in safari, they will make the "install our app" prompts more intrusive.
Something like: if they can not show ads in safari, they will make the "install our app" prompts more intrusive.
The "automatically leaves the webbrowser and opens the Appstore app" trick is already quite annoying at the moment indeed.
Very good analysis. In the end, this combined with Spotlight having more and deeper search results displayed, means that Google is under threat to both the search and ad business.
Game, Set... match?
[deleted]
I don't understand the logic behind this. Google still allow Chrome users install extensions like ABP, right?
I agree: my understanding is that Apple is releasing just an API, and allowing ad-blocking EXTENSIONS, basically putting Safari and their mobile web browsing (almost) on par with desktop browsers (including Chrome, as you say).
I don't see how the "most users" that are tolerant towards ads, which usually do not install adblocking extensions on their desktop browsers, although they have the possibility, have will feel the need of doing so in their iPhone/iPad.
About the users that ARE bothered by ads and before they didn't have a choice, and now they have.
I don't see how the "most users" that are tolerant towards ads, which usually do not install adblocking extensions on their desktop browsers, although they have the possibility, have will feel the need of doing so in their iPhone/iPad.
About the users that ARE bothered by ads and before they didn't have a choice, and now they have.
Not on mobile.
I don't get the point. Ad-blockers are available for Android and most non-tech people don't even know that ad-blockers exist. So for the large majority, nothing will change unless Apple ships with ad-blocking on by default (which they won't).
I also think that blocking ads is everyones right just as it's your right to record stuff on TV and filter/fast-forward ads. If business models based on advertisement don't work out anymore because of blockers (which i highly doubt), companies will adapt and start monetising their content in another way.
Apples search integration is a different story, though.
I also think that blocking ads is everyones right just as it's your right to record stuff on TV and filter/fast-forward ads. If business models based on advertisement don't work out anymore because of blockers (which i highly doubt), companies will adapt and start monetising their content in another way.
Apples search integration is a different story, though.
I don't like ads but I don't block them. What I really hate and like to minimise is cross site tracking/profiling so I use NoScript and don't allow common analytics and ad serving scripts to run. I'm really looking forward to having options to do this sort of thing on iOS.
NoScript does stop many ads but that is a side affect from my point of view.
NoScript does stop many ads but that is a side affect from my point of view.
I think this is pretty insightful, especially since many web sites have already started to go down this road: one example is ultimate-guitar.com, usually the top Google result when searching "<song title> chords".
If you enter their site on iPad or iPhone, they display the chords but pop up an ad for their native app (which is limited as a free version) that is nearly impossible to click away and often automatically redirects to the App Store. It is infuriating to see the results I want underneath an ad but not be able to reach it.
I fear ad blocking will cause this effect to be all the more stronger rather than weaker: sites will entirely move away from displaying content to users on iOS and will force users to download their app.
The thing is that most users will become angry with the individual sites, but very few will put any blame on Apple themselves...so it really is a pretty brilliant evil plan on Apple's part.
If you enter their site on iPad or iPhone, they display the chords but pop up an ad for their native app (which is limited as a free version) that is nearly impossible to click away and often automatically redirects to the App Store. It is infuriating to see the results I want underneath an ad but not be able to reach it.
I fear ad blocking will cause this effect to be all the more stronger rather than weaker: sites will entirely move away from displaying content to users on iOS and will force users to download their app.
The thing is that most users will become angry with the individual sites, but very few will put any blame on Apple themselves...so it really is a pretty brilliant evil plan on Apple's part.
This is a great announcement for regular users.
And think about: On the iOS, Apple has the control of annoying/fake/phishing ads. On the web does not have. Even if ads will be shown on native apps, the experience will be more pleasant for users and will reduce abuses.
And think about: On the iOS, Apple has the control of annoying/fake/phishing ads. On the web does not have. Even if ads will be shown on native apps, the experience will be more pleasant for users and will reduce abuses.
Apple need to be careful, I'm surprised they haven't had an antitrust lawsuit already.
Will the adoption go beyond the "tech crowd"? Most of my tech friends use adblocks but those not linked with tech don't even care, they actually like it! The ads that is.
That was true a few years ago, but apparently ad blockers hit the mainstream recently, especially amongst younger people. According to surveys a quarter of all web users and 40% of 18-29 year olds are using ad blockers.
This is my experience as well.
I only know 1 person among my friends/family that uses ad-block, and he's a very tech-oriented person.
Most people don't care about ads, or see them as a positive/useful.
I only know 1 person among my friends/family that uses ad-block, and he's a very tech-oriented person.
Most people don't care about ads, or see them as a positive/useful.
Another point is the fact that mobile Safari wont allow the use of plugins. A wild guess is that ad blockers are the most common plugin that people use, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to add this in the browser itself as an opt-in feature.
I don't really see the difference from using an ad blocker in the form of a plugin, and blocking ads by turning on the feature in the browser itself. Ad blocking is also a feaure built into the latest Firefox release.
I don't really see the difference from using an ad blocker in the form of a plugin, and blocking ads by turning on the feature in the browser itself. Ad blocking is also a feaure built into the latest Firefox release.
But Safari in iOS9 doesn't have an ad blocker, it provides an interface for extensions to efficiently implement content blocking.
One potential weakness is that a declarative rule list controlled by the browser (iOS 9) would be slower to adapt to ever changing approaches use to bypass ad blockers.
Whereas the extension model of AdBlock I presume lets it be more clever.
But on the flip side, the Safari approach would be much more performant than having to execute some JS to enforce blocking.
Whereas the extension model of AdBlock I presume lets it be more clever.
But on the flip side, the Safari approach would be much more performant than having to execute some JS to enforce blocking.
All is fair in love and war.
Up until now, building a web app seemed a viable alternative to being caught up in a mobile platform you don't own. If you're ad-financed, that way is blocked now.
The Internet used to be a means around those market access controls that were exercised by the powers that be. It's not really a surprise that someone finally found a way to grab this control for themselves, at least for one revenue model.
Up until now, building a web app seemed a viable alternative to being caught up in a mobile platform you don't own. If you're ad-financed, that way is blocked now.
The Internet used to be a means around those market access controls that were exercised by the powers that be. It's not really a surprise that someone finally found a way to grab this control for themselves, at least for one revenue model.
This would be a huge win if the DOJ brings an anti-trust case and somehow forces Apple to treat ad-blocking to be treated equally in Safari and in native. i.e. The consumer can choose ads everywhere or ads nowhere, but it's not possible to opt into ads only in native apps. It would be double-plus-good if enabling ad-block also prevents advertising that a native app exists.
On the other hand, it might lead to users preferring web sites over apps, because only the later would have ads.
This could backfire on Apple. Instead of asking people to install app websites can just show that this website is not supported in Safari on Ios and they should install chrome or Opera to view it. Just like they stop you from viewing a page if you have an adblocker installed.You can't have an alternative browser (engine) on iOS.
We don't even know if it's an ad-blocking API yet, or simply used for things like tracker blockers. It's a big question mark- how will Apple police what ad blockers can do inside Safari? Yeah, the API exists, but we have no idea what Apple is going to allow app developers to actually do yet.
Anyway, the premise that it's all "positive collateral damage" is reaching. I agree some ad companies abuse it, but in general advertising has gotten better, not worse, in my opinion. Most people -- non-tech folks -- simply don't care.
The consequence of universal ad blocking could be that it becomes harder to access quality content for free. I don't know what that consequence will be, but it sure seems like a lot of content will just be paywalled or bungled into native apps, which users will be forced into downloading to view what they wanted in the first place.
I doubt we'll actually get to a point where the majority of the general population utilizes ad blockers, however, and I'm skeptical about what this change is actually for.
Anyway, the premise that it's all "positive collateral damage" is reaching. I agree some ad companies abuse it, but in general advertising has gotten better, not worse, in my opinion. Most people -- non-tech folks -- simply don't care.
The consequence of universal ad blocking could be that it becomes harder to access quality content for free. I don't know what that consequence will be, but it sure seems like a lot of content will just be paywalled or bungled into native apps, which users will be forced into downloading to view what they wanted in the first place.
I doubt we'll actually get to a point where the majority of the general population utilizes ad blockers, however, and I'm skeptical about what this change is actually for.
If a site gets its money solely from ads, then it can restrict its content delivery to those who runs IOS/Android/whateverOS & browser AND displays the ads.
An ad blocker may determine displaying only of a partial content...
The argument that this is a move against Google is just dumb.
"The open web? Collateral damage." Also dumb.
Here's the thing. Actually using the web is getting more and more difficult from the phone. I have simply lost count of the number of content sites I visit that completely destroy the ability to actually read the content by placing ads.
There are ads popping in once the page loads. I can see the content, then its covered by some thing. Or there's a badly placed share bar or buttons covering something. God forbid you visit a local/regional news site. If you don't get hit with a "Click on the bottom to add us to your home page" button you're luckier than a Russian playing roulette.
Like many other readers, I also spend a lot of time on reddit. I've noticed in the last few weeks that Imgur is now hosting the extremely annoying ads that bounce you out of Safari and to some promoted app in the App Store. Imgur is the primary source of image hosting for reddit and they're beginning to do some shitty, spammy tactics. In many subreddits, and yes I'll cop to some of them being porn related, its a literal crapshoot to tap on a link and not have it do the same thing.
Apple's only responsibility is to its customers. This invasive ad stuff has gotten so bad that its negatively affecting the ability of Apple's customers to use their products in a good, user-friendly way. Its not Apple's responsibility to guarantee some marginally successful monetization tactic (advertising) that way too many companies try to use, poorly. Apple needs to make their platform good for the people that paid them money for their products, and those are the steps they're taking in this case.
Another point, Google has a dominant share of the mobile market with Android. Why isn't Android the dominant source of mobile web traffic? Because its a bad experience compared to mobile Safari. Google needs to improve their native experience, and in turn you'll find them eventually building in similar ad-control mechanisms with their browsers. You have to go to where your customers are leading. Period.
Last thing is about the "open web collateral damage" thing. Advertising in itself is fine. There's a huge need for people making and selling products and services to let people hear about them.
Again, its not the responsibility of browser makers to let 3rd parties do abusive things to their users, however. Advertising has gotten out of hand. This utter drive for cpm has been driven to the extreme and its at the point that companies have forgotten that their users and visitors are people, not aggregated dots in a plot chart in Google Analytics. Spam/scam advertising is not a viable industry long term, in the same way that patent trolls and record labels suing their customers hasn't been.
"The open web? Collateral damage." Also dumb.
Here's the thing. Actually using the web is getting more and more difficult from the phone. I have simply lost count of the number of content sites I visit that completely destroy the ability to actually read the content by placing ads.
There are ads popping in once the page loads. I can see the content, then its covered by some thing. Or there's a badly placed share bar or buttons covering something. God forbid you visit a local/regional news site. If you don't get hit with a "Click on the bottom to add us to your home page" button you're luckier than a Russian playing roulette.
Like many other readers, I also spend a lot of time on reddit. I've noticed in the last few weeks that Imgur is now hosting the extremely annoying ads that bounce you out of Safari and to some promoted app in the App Store. Imgur is the primary source of image hosting for reddit and they're beginning to do some shitty, spammy tactics. In many subreddits, and yes I'll cop to some of them being porn related, its a literal crapshoot to tap on a link and not have it do the same thing.
Apple's only responsibility is to its customers. This invasive ad stuff has gotten so bad that its negatively affecting the ability of Apple's customers to use their products in a good, user-friendly way. Its not Apple's responsibility to guarantee some marginally successful monetization tactic (advertising) that way too many companies try to use, poorly. Apple needs to make their platform good for the people that paid them money for their products, and those are the steps they're taking in this case.
Another point, Google has a dominant share of the mobile market with Android. Why isn't Android the dominant source of mobile web traffic? Because its a bad experience compared to mobile Safari. Google needs to improve their native experience, and in turn you'll find them eventually building in similar ad-control mechanisms with their browsers. You have to go to where your customers are leading. Period.
Last thing is about the "open web collateral damage" thing. Advertising in itself is fine. There's a huge need for people making and selling products and services to let people hear about them.
Again, its not the responsibility of browser makers to let 3rd parties do abusive things to their users, however. Advertising has gotten out of hand. This utter drive for cpm has been driven to the extreme and its at the point that companies have forgotten that their users and visitors are people, not aggregated dots in a plot chart in Google Analytics. Spam/scam advertising is not a viable industry long term, in the same way that patent trolls and record labels suing their customers hasn't been.
Google always has the option to change its ranking algorithm. The more your pay, the higher your ranking. Someone clicks on your link, you pay.
It used to be Google that was different from the other search engines by putting its advertisings next to its search results instead of the search results being the advertising.
It used to be Google that was different from the other search engines by putting its advertisings next to its search results instead of the search results being the advertising.
False. You can't pay to get your page to show higher in organic results.
The way I see it, ads are trying to do two things: 1. Monetise content 2. Drive sales/brand growth
Advertisers have tried to make up for ineffectiveness by increasing quantity rather than quality. If the focus was quality, everyone would win.
There's probably more to it, but more and more obnoxious advertising is a poor user experience; I don't think the audience will tolerate it for much longer.