It is the best way.
The Verge: The internet is dying a slow death because of ad blockers
- Thread starter Wreav
- Start date
- Status
It is the best way.
NullPointer
Member
Same. Or a Patreon/Amazon payments or whatever system. Something easy to hook up and manage.
Yeah, Apple doesn't have incentive to "kill the web." That's never been their intention.
Apple makes their big money selling hardware, so you work backward from there. How do we sell more devices? Give users a better experience. So, how do we give users a better experience? In part, by taking away the things that give them bad experiences.
In this case, Apple's opened the door to content blockers because many of the companies who produce web content are degrading the experience of using an Apple device. This counters that.
Also, it probably doesn't hurt that it's a nice shot across the bow at Google. (It's no coincidence that they also just released an Android-to-iOS migration app). Apple touts privacy, because, unlike Google, they don't really care who you are. They just want you to buy their products.
I'm torn on whether this will make things worse or better. I can see sites starting to adopt in-content ads more aggressively, which will be more difficult to block. Like the sponsored links at the bottom of news articles. I find those much more annoying than a simple banner ad that's in the sidebar.
And for links of that nature, it's easy for ad providers to transition over to code that's generated server side (rather than some Javascript that's requested from a central location), which makes it even tougher for ad blockers to catch.
And for links of that nature, it's easy for ad providers to transition over to code that's generated server side (rather than some Javascript that's requested from a central location), which makes it even tougher for ad blockers to catch.
outunderthestars
Banned
I know you must get asked alot, but why not offer an optional paid subscription? I love this site, and would be happy to pay for it directly rather than through ad revenue.
My first impression upon loading up iOS9 on my Air 2 was that the News app is really slick, but all the content is hosted by Apple and the websites providing the content aren't monetized at all. Great for consumers in the short term, but what happens when the content providers' revenue declines and they can no longer viably produce the content?
Then, with easy adblocking integration for Safari, again, awesome for user experience, but terrible for the outlook of free ad-driven websites. What's the alternative business model? Paywalls or begging for donations? Hell, people are reluctant to even pay the $3 for an adblocker with whitelisting functionality.
Apple wins in both cases. User experience on iOS improves. But content providers are increasingly fucked, and that'll affect consumers too in the long term. As the Verge article states, this is both an attack on Google's fundamental business strategy (ad serving) and an attack on every free ad-driven website that relies on ads like Google's to survive and produce content for everyone to consume.
Then, with easy adblocking integration for Safari, again, awesome for user experience, but terrible for the outlook of free ad-driven websites. What's the alternative business model? Paywalls or begging for donations? Hell, people are reluctant to even pay the $3 for an adblocker with whitelisting functionality.
Apple wins in both cases. User experience on iOS improves. But content providers are increasingly fucked, and that'll affect consumers too in the long term. As the Verge article states, this is both an attack on Google's fundamental business strategy (ad serving) and an attack on every free ad-driven website that relies on ads like Google's to survive and produce content for everyone to consume.
I don't see why Google of everyone wouldn't be able to crack down harder on this if they wanted to, but they probably don't. I'm currently getting this fucker again (it was common a couple of months ago but disappeared after a while):
It blinks, and *BEEPS* when you hover it, which is every time you want to get to your subs. I don't blame your site (which does ads pretty much perfectly), only Google for not putting in enough effort to eliminate crap like this.
If revenue declines enough, will you consider redirecting iOS traffic to a neogaf app where you won't be blocked?
Will you stay with your current advertiser or consider iAds in that scenario?
This required a bit of administrative nonsense on top of what's already here. With ads they mostly say "yes Google, do your thing," and they get money. Taking subscriptions requires making an entire program, hiring people to administer it, etc.
https://developer.apple.com/library...l/News_Publishing_Guide/MonetizingonNews.html
It's not like you don't get any compensation.
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
The advertising companies and the websites in the beginning are responsible for how bad it has gotten. I had zero issues with ads in the early days of the actual web. Never even gave them a single thought. From the most obnoxious flashing gif images or even popups. That didn't really bother me. The moment when FLASH ads popped up that slowed my PC to a crawl or music started playing or timed full screen ads I immediately went searching for a way to stop that from happening.
Keep ads simple and honest and the vast majority of people will have no problem with them. They just bit off more than they could chew by trying to force us to notice them and users fought back. "Content" will survive just fine as sites evolve like they always have. For better or worse? We'll see.
Keep ads simple and honest and the vast majority of people will have no problem with them. They just bit off more than they could chew by trying to force us to notice them and users fought back. "Content" will survive just fine as sites evolve like they always have. For better or worse? We'll see.
entremet
Member
There will never be a final solution since it will a cat and mouse game.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Shed one tear for the verge. Sites I like and trust get adblock disabled.
Raitosaito
Member
This is all I see on TheVerge mobile.
One single banner ad. The general consensus is out of line with the truth.
There's ways they can do that, by distributing creatives across each website rather than have them requested from a central location.
This would in effect render ad blockers as they are now useless, unless one goes in and blocks every single domain with ads... and if the address the ads are requested from varies it makes it even more difficult without blocking legitimate pages.
It does make things like tracking views and whatnot more difficult though, so not sure how feasible it is.
Lil'DigiOp
Member
Completely understandable,
but why are content providers trying to be hostile towards consumers? We didn't code content blocking into iOS.
Content providers need to take that aggression and point it towards apple or start coming up with viable optional business plans. Consumers will flock anywhere if the business is right.
And you also know what? GAF users have the knowhow for ad blocking but the very VAST majority of users will not be using any adblocking software anyway. The Verge can cry tears because they should have estimated that their readerbase demographics would squarely include people using adblockers and other types of software.
Sites like Huffpost and CNN will not have such issues since their demographics are so much wider.
Ah, didn't see any ads across News from various sites. Probably mostly isn't implemented yet, then.
I forsee the following future:
Top Story from IGN:
Super Super Mario Brothers 5, the best game ever to be put to disc*, will be coming out November 13, coincidentally the day Sarbucks releases it's new super quadre latte*. It features what in this writer's estimation**, is the most superb game play to ever be featured in a platformer* (platforming shoes are just $9,99 on Amazon right now!! Gain confidence and height). Preorders are now open for the incredibly low price of $90 - get your copy from [GREEN MAN GAMING]* Today!
* - this is a paid advertisiment, statements referred to as objective and factual, may in fact not be objective or factual.
** we were paid to say this.
Top Story from IGN:
Super Super Mario Brothers 5, the best game ever to be put to disc*, will be coming out November 13, coincidentally the day Sarbucks releases it's new super quadre latte*. It features what in this writer's estimation**, is the most superb game play to ever be featured in a platformer* (platforming shoes are just $9,99 on Amazon right now!! Gain confidence and height). Preorders are now open for the incredibly low price of $90 - get your copy from [GREEN MAN GAMING]* Today!
* - this is a paid advertisiment, statements referred to as objective and factual, may in fact not be objective or factual.
** we were paid to say this.
Doctor Ironic
Member
As long as ads that redirect me to App Store pages exist on NeoGAF, I will always use ad blockers.
I love when they are upfront about native advertising, there is nothing worse than clicking on an article only to discover its just a fucking paid piece. Some channels in Sweden show a P in the bottom corner in TV shows whenever something is a sponsored piece.
Honestly I would prefer that over banners.
You could look up a few posts and see Evilore himself tell you that it's not his fault nor does it actually happen that terribly much.
So, because google fucks up once in a while he shouldn't be able to fund the servers for the site you clearly like to go to?
I haven't seen a single ad either, but I know it's supposed to be part of the plan.
If content blockers could be tuned to block only certain types of ads or ad features, that would be pretty cool. I don't mind display ads, videos that play if/when I choose to start them, and even YouTube ads before videos (so long as the ad length is proportional to the length of the video). I like supporting the sites I visit.
What I do mind are ads that force me to take some action I did not choose to engage in (e.g., closing a pop-up, stopping an autoplay video, quitting out of the app store after a redirect, or -- worst of all -- restarting Safari after the ads and http requests crash the app). And I also don't like getting tracked all over the place without my consent.
What I do mind are ads that force me to take some action I did not choose to engage in (e.g., closing a pop-up, stopping an autoplay video, quitting out of the app store after a redirect, or -- worst of all -- restarting Safari after the ads and http requests crash the app). And I also don't like getting tracked all over the place without my consent.
Of course it's part of the plan. The plan to block everything but iAds.
NullPointer
Member
That'll happen regardless.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
The internet will find a way. Even if that way involves evolving beyond the need for the terrible ad system we have now. It's gotten out of hand. Something needs to change. And since the ad providers aren't willing to change themselves, we're taking control of things our own way. Deal with it, content providers. Adapt or die.
To be honest, there have been times when I'd get redirected to the App Store multiple times per browsing session, though it's been a while since that happened to me. I tolerate it, because GAF's worth it, but for other sites, no way.
Taking 30% is a huge chunk when it comes to mobile ad revenue. Even desktop, would be death.
RedAssedApe
Banned
easier to complain on twitter though
LyleLanley
Banned
According to that page content creators are free to use their own advertisements and keep all the profit.
This is the internet we're talking about. People flock to cool stuff that's free. For anything that isn't impossibly entrenched (Facebook etc.), it's an endless cycle of:
Awesome free thing ---> gets popular and increases in value based on popularity but isn't making much if any money ---> as popularity reaches critical mass, overhead increases and investor pressure to monetize begins ---> service gains baggage of monetization and becomes considerably less awesome ---> people flock to new awesome free thing that doesn't yet have that baggage simply because it's not far enough along in the cycle yet.
Snapchat just unveiled $0.99 for three snap replays microtransactions. Probably the beginning of its downward spiral.
This is ultimately the easiest solution since most ad blockers these days look for scripts that run ads, vs flat images and banners. But most ad providers will just adapt/find ways around the blockers like they've been doing (ex: sites where the content is blocked if you use an ad blocking extension) if Google and Apple don't adapt for them.
If it's direct buys, those are on the decline. Not a long term solution for small-mid size websites.
To be fair, snapchat has been in the tubes ever since stories and snapcash came out.
outunderthestars
Banned
I clicked on a story on the Verge's mobile site and had four ads in a single story.
I just accept it when it happens to me as well. Evilore does a good job of getting the annoying ads removed.
If there ever was a valid reason for a permaban, this is it.
What? That's ridiculous. I hope you're joking.
IchigoSharingan
Member
Guilt tripping people for blocking and rejecting a monetization model that is oftentimes creepy, unpopular, intrusive, and hackneyed.
I don't get it.
I don't get it.
Prototype Viktor
Member
Tell that to all these ads I keep seeing! Oh wait I use the extension (HTTP switchboard) to block scripts and takeover/scrolling ads that cover too much of the screen
Yep. Ad blocking versus tracker blocking is an interesting dichotomy most of these Verge pieces have been missing.
Ultimately I think the biggest differentiator in the piracy argument is, as you say, the uncertainty factor. Arment made an interesting analogy regarding that and where it doesn't mesh with the classic "wouldn't steal a car" analogy--
http://www.marco.org/2015/09/16/peace-content-blocker
Web ads don't have the same sort of intrinsic contract, and unlike traditional media piracy which is one way ads are essentially using your own device for their own purposes, which is another crucial distinction.
Unknown One
Member
Don't forget those website redirection. Shit is annoying.
For Mobiles, you are doing a disservice to your advertisement when you keep on making my damn store pop up to your damn game. You're pissing me off, not advertising.
entremet
Member
They work in the ad business.
Which is fair, but shutting down any alternative to non obstructive ads, shows a lack of creativity.
That's fine. The money has to come from somewhere, however, it needs to be win-win.
I don't mind aesthetically well done advertising. Not the current shit show on mobile.
BUNTING1243
Banned
Ad block is just going to lead to more stealthy ads, which nobody wants. Our future of media publications spread out between fifteen different kinds of platforms like Facebook and Snapchat is super depressing to me.
I like the Giant Bomb model of subscriptions but I don't know how scalable it is, if at all.
I like the Giant Bomb model of subscriptions but I don't know how scalable it is, if at all.
IchigoSharingan
Member
I don't think it's about a lack of creativity.
I'm gonna say it. From my experience in the ad/marketing world, it's just that they don't give a shit about how obtrusive and invasive ads and marketing is.
- Status