“Here’s a basic version of how most Internet publishers make money: They produce content, they get people to click on that content, and they make money from the companies who put ads around that content,” Jacob Davidson reports for TIME Magazine. “That’s called display advertising, and the more clicks a publisher gets, the more money it can make this way. This has been a primary revenue source for many online publishers for decades, and it lets some publishers survive without charging users for content.”
“Ad blockers were banned from Android’s Google Play store in 2013, and were not previous technically possible on the iPhone. But Apple’s move to allow ad blockers has changed all that,” Davidson reports. “If mobile ad-blocking continues to take off, it could shake out in a number of ways. First, we could see online publishers start using more ads that can’t be sniffed out by ad blockers, like native ads or pre-roll ads on video content.”
“There’s another camp that argues publishers will flee from the web and into apps where ads can’t be blocked,” Davidson reports. “Even if ad blocker users do whitelist their favorite sites, their good web citizenship could be undercut by the ad blockers themselves. Adblock Plus, for instance, lets Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and roughly 70 other companies pay to be whitelisted by default. Eyeo GmbH, the company behind Adblock Plus, is now reaching out to iOS ad blockers and offering their developers a similar display-for-pay arrangement. At least one iOS blocker, Crystal, has taken Eyeo up on its offer.”
“Publishers are already beginning to talk to their readers about a contract that’s only been implicit up until this point. Ad blocker users visiting sites like The Washington Post and The Atlantic, for instance, are being greeted with a message reminding them that revenue from ads make those sites’ content possible,” Davidson reports. “That’s a conversation that’s been a long time coming. If nothing else, it could help readers appreciate the economics of online content.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We regard the general panic, hand-wringing, and hullabaloo over iOS content-blockers with amusement.
We are longtime Mac users. We relish change.
And we’re not going anywhere.
Currently, the Top Paid 200 iPhone Apps include the following content blockers:
2. Purify Blocker $3.99
41. Crystal $0.99The Top 200 Paid iPad apps include the following content blockers:
18. Purify Blocker $3.99
57. Crystal $0.99Let us know which one you like best!
SEE ALSO:
Apple’s ad-blocking move causes big problems for retailers’ online stores – September 24, 2015
Rush Limbaugh: What Apple’s iOS 9 ad-blockers will unleash – September 21, 2015
iOS 9 adblocker apps top App Store charts; developer pulls ‘Peace’ adblocker – September 18, 2015
iOS 9 content blocking will transform the mobile Web – August 24, 2015
Apple’s iOS 9 ad blocking threatens Google’s lifeblood – August 14, 2015
Apple News shows that Apple wants to bolster and profit from ads, not eliminate them – July 10, 2015
Rush Limbaugh on his new Apple Watch: Really cool, pretty slow, and Siri is now pretty much flawless – May 5, 2015
Rush Limbaugh: ‘Nine out of 10 tech bloggers hate Apple’ – August 5, 2013
Rush Limbaugh: ‘High-tech lynching: Senate attempts to crucify Apple’ – May 21, 2013
Rush Limbaugh: Apple products create jobs in America – October 18, 2012
Exactly a 39 spot difference in ranking on both iPhone and iPad. Coincidence?
Purify is straight forward and simple, works like a charm and males Safari blaze in addition to adding battery time consequentially.
Purify is better than Crystal who makes deal with advertisers to be excluded from their filters, now if that ain’t hypocrisy and sheisterism, what is?
No shit!! I want a refund.
I contacted the Crystal developer for clarification and he did respond personally pointing me to a post he has made on his site to address the false reporting of this situation.
Article can be read in full here:
http://murphyapps.co/blog/2015/9/25/on-acceptable-ads
He makes clear that as far as Crystal users are concerned, they have total control of any additional features.
A partially working ad blocker is a really stupid idea. It will soon be overtaken by a real ad blocker that actually does the job it was intended to do.
I don’t get all the excitement? Ad Blockers have been on Windows/OS X for years! Why all the whining on mobile? It does suck for the sites with the advertisements, but its been around for years! It wouldn’t be so bad if a website put a couple of advertisements on, but when they spread malware, or sound playing out of no where I’m all for the blockers!
I remember ad blocking being a fear back in the 90s. There’s a new wave of fear because up until now, installing an ad blocker was more cumbersome for most people than just accepting the ads. The average user didn’t know how to install one on their computer, let alone how to jailbreak or root a phone to install one.
Now, installing an ad blocker on an iPhone is as easy as seeing the top blocker being promoted in the store and tapping the icon for it. Also, the benefit isn’t just in the direct experience, but also in a reduction in the data usage (which matters more for mobile).
As people see the benefits of doing this in mobile, it then provides incentive to do this on their computers. For a huge number of people who never even knew this was possible before, this is a big deal.
Wait, so now instead of really getting the use you paid for Adblock Plus, Crystal, etc., the developers of these ad blockers are getting paid by the advertisers to whitelist and circumvent their own purpose of originally developing the app? What good is an ad blocker if it stops blocking ads because the dev was paid off?
I agree that the practice seems slimy. But the payments are to be “white listed by default.” I infer that to mean that you can still blacklist those sites…they have simply paid to be “opt out” rather than “opt in” by default, understanding that many people go with the defaults rather than customizing.
Ads are annoying when every click requires you to have to sit through a commercial before your content opens. It worse than TV because unlike fast forwarding through DVR’d recordings, you can’t fast forward though web advertising.
You can un-whitelist a website and block its ads. It’s still your ad-blocker. Some sites pay to be whitelisted by default.
I’m still running Peace and it is unbelievable how long the 1GB/mo plan on my iPad is going to last. Unbelievable. Did I mention it’s unbelievable? (I’m not kidding.) I’m actually now reading ARTICLES in Safari, instead of just reading headlines and barely getting by.
Enjoy them while they last, moron. You think those articles just write themselves and materialize for free out of thin air?
People are so fscking stupid nowadays.
I want ads! But . . . I want them to be relevant to me and something that I am in the market for at the time. I want to buy things that are useful to me and don’t want my time wasted by silly ads for “local mom makes $78/hr part time” and the likes.
So will you let google know when you’ve purchased the thing you were looking for?
I had you whitelisted until today when confronted by that hideous T-Mobile movie in Spanish (I don’t understand Spanish) playing at the top of the articles list. Every time I read an article and went back to the list view, that movie started again and I had to click the X to stop it.
I don’t mind the static ads, but that T-Mobile movie is way too intrusive. I like your site and want you to make a profit so you can keep publishing.
I will check every day to see if it’s gone. When it is, I will whitelist MDN again.
Thank you for removing the T-Mobile movie. I have whitelisted you again.
Steve Gibson’s ‘Security Now!’ podcast at TWiT.tv recently reviewed four of the new ad blockers available for iOS. Watch, hear or read episode #526, “iOS Content Blockers”. Steve Gibson’s provided transcript and audio versions are available here:
https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
His review is near the end of the episode.
A quick summary:
He prefers the ad blockers that allow WHITE LISTING specifically because this means they allow users to approve seeing ads at websites according to their tastes and their interest in supporting favorite sites (such as MDN) with ad revenue. His other criteria were:
– How quickly web pages load with each ad blocker running.
– The level of granularity of allowed user settings.
His preferred ad blockers for iOS in order, at least for the moment:
1) 1Blocker – Fastest of all; Free, but added features will cost you $3; White listing; Offers the finest user control granularity including 2,922 ad block rule options, nearly 4,000 tracker blocking rules, etc. You can create your own rules. This is the geek’s dream ad blocker. Not for granny.
2) Blockr – White listing; $1; Offers user-defined blocking groups that can be added for a price. Maximum cost is $4.
3) Purify – This is son-of-uBlock. White listing. Simple to use. Very little user controlled granularity.
4) Crystal – It offers no white list feature. It’s on or off. Simple to use.
Steve Gibson also recommends reading this article:
The iOS Ad Blockers that Speed Up Your Browsing the Most
Yep, 1Blocker is fantastic.
Costs I forgot to add:
– Purify is $2
– Crystal is $1
““Publishers are already beginning to talk to their readers about a contract that’s only been implicit up until this point.”
And Readers are talking to publishers about the types of ads they hate.
The reality is that publishers have been getting away with it for too long and are now obliged to consider the requirements of their readers.
If it wasn’t for ad blockers, the publishers would continue to abuse their relationship with their readers.
I wouldn’t mind paying for content if some reasonable method could be worked out.
I don’t like subscriptions because I have to limit myself to just a few sites. I don’t want to subscribe every time I follow a link.
I’d be ok with a micro payment manager. Each time I open an article I get a month’s access for a nickel. Or something like that. I could wind up spending a dollar or so a day ($500 per year) for ad free browsing.
The problem is keeping track of these micropayments and not getting scammed by hackers.
Most sites are far too lazy in generating advertising revenue. They think they’re not making enough so they just shove more ads in. Problem is the ads then become annoying meaning they’re less effective so they earn less and in some instances drive people to install adblockers or just go elsewhere. It’s just a vicious cycle. And sites only have themselves to blame.
When the web was first really taking off I heard loads about micropayments, but that has never really happened. The problem is that if you pay a tenner a month of so to subscribe to something that one site is unlikely to be all you want to read and if you subscribed to everything you’d pay a fortune. There needs to be a simple way to pay a reasonable amount to access ad free content.
I sometimes think a tip jar service of sorts would be good. I’d be much more comfortable giving a few pence to each of hundreds of sites/pages a month than having to either pay a fortune for stuff I won’t use or alternatively not paying and missing out on content I want to enjoy.
Agree!! See my post below. MDN is a fine example.
MacDailyNew is the main site that makes me want to ad block. The number of ads (and the smut level of them) reached the point of ridiculous a few years ago. Especially if you like using a good Mac new site as your home page. MDN was my home page for years but not anymore, switched to the MacObserver as home base, less ads to load and no more crap ads: “Stop [INSERT AFFLICTION HERE] using this one WEIRD TRICK!” “[INSERT YOUR CITY] residents are HORRIFIED at this new law!” and soft porn shot ads…loading, loading, loading… I get it that MDN staff has to eat and pay bills, but this has become just too much. Hope they are all at least driving new cars with all the ad money. Still like the info here, but I try to make it a one stop news visit a couple times a week instead of every time I open my browsers.
I read MDN on my iPad or iPhone in their respective apps. They both have minor unobtrusive adds that are easily ignored if you’re not interested.
I agree the Safari web page is obnoxious, which is why I never use it.
I’m not experimenting with ad blockers, for now, but my spouse likes 1blocker.