Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 504 posts

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#191

Post by dvdhsu »

Arizhel wrote: post #172
WhitneyLand wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad blocking strikes so deeply at the heart of Google's success, it's simply not credible to believe there is no more to the strategy than the simple defense mentioned in the article. To speculate on just one possible strategy: - First order of business, crush Ad Block plus' pay to play business. Possibly just by entering the market with resources, IP, and channel that would overwhelm them. - Continue on this path unt…

While this is a possibility, the wrench in the works is the Firefox browser. How is Google going to get them to play along and prevent 3rd-party blockers like UBlock Origin from working? I don't see it happening. They can certainly put ABP out of business, which honestly is fine with me. But UO isn't a business AFAIK, it's a Free open-source project. That's like trying to put vim out of business; you just can't, beca…

You "kill" vim by preinstalling a friendly text editor by default, like TextEdit or Notepad. Many of my technical friends (myself included) use vim, but vim will never be used by everybody, everywhere. When most people first get a new computer and want to edit text, they use TextEdit instead of vim.

The end game of ad blocking is that everybody installs one. That would be devastating to Google. Instead, they would rather preinstall theirs. If theirs is the default adblocker even on just Chrome, they'll have substantial market share. Most people won't bother installing a browser extension if it the default is good enough, just like how most people don't use vim if TextEdit is good enough.

Most of my nontechnical friends don't use adblockers. In 10 years most people might. Google is preventing that from destroying them by shipping their own as a default instead.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#192

Post by bmurphy1976 »

altern8tif wrote: post #184
forgotpwtomain wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On mobile Chrome does not support extensions while Firefox does. Recently on acquiring a new phone I used Chrome for a few days -- I had entirely forgotten how terrible the user-experience is without UBlock!

Go with Brave on mobile ( https://www.brave.com/ ). They've got an ad-blocker built in.

Also, disable javascript by default. It's really easy to turn it on per-site using the brave button in the toolbar.

The single best improvement I've made to my mobile browsing experience in years wasn't getting a new faster phone, it was installing Brave and disabling javascript.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#193

Post by SquareWheel »

pdog wrote: post #171
TechRemarker wrote: post #140

At first it sounds insane that Google would do such a thing since while ad blocking is growing, enabling the feature natively especially by default would incredibly increase the number of ads blocked. My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use…

It's far more likely that Chrome's ad-blocking feature will be similar to the implementation of content blockers in Safari (introduced at a WWDC 2015 session)[1][2]. The new model for content blockers in Safari is faster and a lot more memory efficient because they're compiled into byte code. Content blockers are also more secure and better for privacy because they have no knowledge of the browsing that users are doi…

You're being downvoted, but I'd actually agree. My guess is this idea originated from the Chrome team in an effort to improve the browsing experience.

Google rarely makes unilateral decisions from the top down to product teams. They mostly operate independently.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#194

Post by firebones »

Arizhel wrote: post #172
WhitneyLand wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad blocking strikes so deeply at the heart of Google's success, it's simply not credible to believe there is no more to the strategy than the simple defense mentioned in the article. To speculate on just one possible strategy: - First order of business, crush Ad Block plus' pay to play business. Possibly just by entering the market with resources, IP, and channel that would overwhelm them. - Continue on this path unt…

While this is a possibility, the wrench in the works is the Firefox browser. How is Google going to get them to play along and prevent 3rd-party blockers like UBlock Origin from working? I don't see it happening. They can certainly put ABP out of business, which honestly is fine with me. But UO isn't a business AFAIK, it's a Free open-source project. That's like trying to put vim out of business; you just can't, beca…

> While this is a possibility, the wrench in the works is the Firefox browser. How is Google going to get them to play along and prevent 3rd-party blockers like UBlock Origin from working? I don't see it happening.

As power and money become more centralized in fewer hands, the ability to abuse DRM and standards, and to coerce partners and content providers into falling in line, becomes cheaper. Google declares legal and technical war on ad blockers while offering a "better" solution laden with incentives; Firefox gets bought off or coerced to be compliant. The barrier to disruption becomes not only a high technical bar, but a legal one as well.

I don't think there's a clear path to this that I can see right now, but we're a LONG way from Microsoft's defeat in the browser wars (both in terms of time and political environment) and a lot of shit I didn't think I'd see over the last two decades has happened after all. The broader interpretation of Gilmore's notable quote ("The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it") is less applicable today than it's ever been--in part because to a large degree, "censorship" has been replaced by "loss of profit".

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#195

Post by ziikutv »

colordrops wrote: post #181
debacle wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking far too 1984 when the answer is much more Brave New World - if the ad blocker in Chrome is good enough, people will just stop supporting UBlock.

Naw, Google has precedent for this sort of behavior, going so far as removing plugins from their web store and quietly uninstalling them from Chrome with no notification when the plugin interfered with their business model. They actively uninstalled video download plugins without notification to the user a couple years back. Nefarious.

* Download Ublock zip

* Enable Developer Options

* Add Ublock package zip

* Enable in Incognito as well

TL;DR: Them removing it would be a dick move, but not end of the world. We can still install any packages we want.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#196

Post by tutufan »

guelo wrote: post #20

Wow that seems like playing with fire for Google. Maybe they figure that Trump's lax antitrust enforcement will give them free rein to screw with competitors for the next 4-8 years.

Out of curiosity, what antitrust enforcement were you expecting in the last 100 days that didn't happen?

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#197

Post by apostacy »

ziikutv wrote: post #195
colordrops wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naw, Google has precedent for this sort of behavior, going so far as removing plugins from their web store and quietly uninstalling them from Chrome with no notification when the plugin interfered with their business model. They actively uninstalled video download plugins without notification to the user a couple years back. Nefarious.

* Download Ublock zip * Enable Developer Options * Add Ublock package zip * Enable in Incognito as well TL;DR: Them removing it would be a dick move, but not end of the world. We can still install any packages we want.

I think you are severely misunderstanding the situation. Google can do whatever they want. They've already demonstrated that they have no problem installing things on your computer that you never would have otherwise agreed to. That, and they don't take no for an answer with updates.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#198

Post by kesor »

TechRemarker wrote: post #140

At first it sounds insane that Google would do such a thing since while ad blocking is growing, enabling the feature natively especially by default would incredibly increase the number of ads blocked. My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use…

The "ad blocker" companies will go out of business? ARE YOU INSANE?!

Google is a frigging AD MONOPOLY ... its their major business for crying out loud. And the same company that controls a HUGE portion of all the Internet Ad business is creating an "Ad Blocker".

And this doesn't ring any bells anywhere?

No friend, they are not trying to put "ad blocker" companies out of business. They are trying to put "competing internet ad companies" out of business.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#199

Post by gcb0 »

derefr wrote: post #155
gcb0 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there is. They can make it so annoying that the ads doesn't look that bad. They own the browser. They can make it so bad that even flash ads will look like a good alternative to all the work required.

All what work required? Proxying is an OS-level concern, not a browser-level concern. You set it up in your OS's control panel. The browser doesn't get to be a part of that workflow, so it can't make it annoying.

You are ignoring having a proxy in the first place.

Compare adblocking today: step 1, search for extension. Step 2, install extension. Step 3, there is no step 3.

Now convince your parents to install a proxy, then proceed to explain they can have it on each machine (don't forget phones and tablets!) or centrally on the network (now don't forget to explain about local network while at home versus 4g when they are away)... yada yada yada.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#200

Post by Pxtl »

It's too late. After my 9-year-old son's start-page got taken over by a malicious ad, I set up uBlock. I was fighting long and hard to avoid adblocking because I really did think it was wrong to view the web without the ads that support it... but the industry has utterly failed to keep their houses clean.

Whatever "polite" implementation Google implements in Chrome won't be enough anymore.

Post reply on HN