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

361–370 of 504 posts

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#361

Post by tyingq »

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…

Sounds risky to me. It specifically says mobile, an area where current ad blocking is cumbersome and clunky.

So if it's any good at blocking Google ads, it costs them money.

If it blocks ads other than Google ones well, and allows Google ones to display, then they run the risk of lawsuits or antitrust action.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#362

Post by tyingq »

mseebach wrote: post #264
pdog wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's pretty clear that Google's strategy is that making the web better for everyone and everything is what will grow their ad business long term, rather than violently shoving as many ads as possible into their users faces as fast as possible. It's also pretty clear that they are capable of pursuing a long term strategy over chasing short-term cash.

It also doesn't hurt that Google will be able to control what is considered an "ad" and what isn't.

Are Google product listings ads? Google flight results? Featured destinations?

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#363

Post by _pmf_ »

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 a very risky move on Google's part

What? By know, people are accustomed to Google flip flopping on key decisions; this will be just another instance.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#365

Post by atsaloli »

TillE wrote: post #360
runeks wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, relying on product teams to shut themselves down, in case they've hit a dead-end, probably wouldn't work.

Actually, why not? It's not like the employees get fired. You generally know when you're working on a crappy product.

Google Reader was a fantastically useful product for me. Not "crappy" at all.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#366

Post by Eerie »

Zarel wrote: post #301
Eerie wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adblock Plus is pretty open about it. You can disable the option easily. And Google ads are, in fact, relatively non intrusive. I don't see the problem.

I'm not opposed to an exception for acceptable ads; I think it's a good idea. My only problem is that it seems to be a serious conflict of interest to accept money from ad providers for this.

As long as the accepted ads are really non-intrusive, there's no conflict. There would be a conflict if you could pay Adblock Plus to accept browser-hijacking popups.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#367

Post by code4tee »

So I'm guessing "stripping adds that provide a bad experience for users" is just code for "stripping adds not generating revenue for Google." A lot of other neutral add blockers block Google and hence Google needs to convince users to just let Google be their add filter.

It's a risky move by Google and one made likely more out of need for themselves than need for their users.

For all the wonders of Google it's still very much a one trick pony from a business standpoint. Anything that threatens their ad revenue is a very real threat to their business health. All the fun "side businesses" while very cool aren't exactly paying the bills.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#368

Post by JustSomeNobody »

This isn't a Google coming to Jesus moment and realizing ads are bad. No, this is getting out in front of the ad-blocking movement and proactively saving their business model.

Google has every incentive to make advertising on the web palatable for most everyone. If that means blocking some ads, then they need to do that.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#369

Post by Asooka »

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…

As long as it blocks the YouTube video ads, people won't install another one. Which would be an interesting move - block the most annoying ads, because otherwise people would block all your ads, but leave them there for the people who don't block ads at all.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#370

Post by kuschku »

dcow wrote: post #45
oDot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like it too, but isn't Google in a conflict of interest here?

No because all of their ads will meet standards. I wouldn't be surprised if a competing lower-quality ad agency sues Google over this.

Their ads meet the standards?

YouTube doesn’t have auto-playing video ads with sound?

YouTube doesn’t have countdown based ads blocking the content?

Google.com always has less than 3 ads?

Post reply on HN