How Apple’s mobile ad-blocker could backfire on the company and iPhone, iPad users

“Criteo is in the business of selling targeted display ads. Its particular speciality is luring customers back to shopping sites they’ve just left,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports for Fortune. “When the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple was bringing ad-blocking tools to its mobile browser — enabling iOS developers to suppress things likes cookies and pop-ups — investors fled Criteo.”

“Jefferies rates Criteo a BUY, [analyst Brian Pitz], came to the company’s defense. Most people don’t use Safari, he points out. And most people don’t use ad-blockers,” P.E.D. reports. “Then he goes further.”

In a worst case scenario, this is Apple against the entire mobile publisher and advertiser ecosystem; not Criteo itself. If browsers start negatively impacting publishers’ abilities to monetize their mobile content, it may trigger a backlash where certain sites are “not optimized for use with Safari.” — Jefferies analyst Brian Pitz

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Somewhere there’s a happy medium in the land of free-to-visit websites, where the ads support the publishers’ operating costs (and even – gasp! – some profit) and actually work for the users (you find a good deal on an SSD drive, for example), yet don’t bombard the user with too many ads, ads that are too intrusive, offensive, or annoying. At MacDailyNews, we’re working diligently to get there (more info here) and we thank you for your support!

Hopefully, Apple’s tools can assist users in getting better experiences without harming their favorite sites and there is never anything even remotely close to the backlash the Jeffries analyst describes above “where certain sites are ‘not optimized for use with Safari.'”

(MacDailyNews is a independent website. We’re not owned by a large corporation. Without our advertisers, we wouldn’t be here. As always, thank you so much for visiting and for your support! We really appreciate it!)


iOS 9 lets app developers make ad blockers for Safari – June 10, 2015


  1. If MDN actually allowed us to pay for their service then the ads could be optional. Since they don’t allow me to pay (I’ve asked), I block the ads.

    On OS X I block them with a blocker, but on iOS I disable JavaScript entirely. With JS turned off, MDN loads and scrolls significantly faster. Since it’s about the only site I read on my phone, that works for me.

    I’m not sorry for blocking anything. Services like Facebook and Google (and MDN) that can’t be purchased for any amount of real dollars, and instead capitalise on snooping and distraction, should not claim a right to be paid in real dollars. My attention is my own property.

  2. Fact is, a lot of the ads I see are a waste of advertisers’ money if they are paying for these to appear. That’s because I went to the site, already bought the new TV, already stayed at the hotel in a country I won’t visit again, already took the flight…you get the picture. Now I have to put up with ads that I will never respond to because I already satisfied my need–a plethora of them. And as for the “theft” argument going on in these comments, when I go to a site for information, such as news, and suddenly my whole browser is blocked out as I was just getting into reading, and I have to find the x and get rid of it, they stole my time and irritated me.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.