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

Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 186 posts

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#101

Post by juliangoldsmith »

paulmd wrote: post #85
fortythirteen wrote: post #27

How is this not anti-competitive behavior? If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their operating system, how is an advertising company like Google using their browser, which has the largest market share, to block competing ads not the same thing?!

Because there are multiple competing products you can switch to, or even multiple additional products (i.e. ublock/adblock) which you can add in Google's own product if you disagree with their stance. It's not anti-competitive just because you don't like it.

Anti-competitive behavior isn't necessarily monopolistic.

Google is leveraging Chrome's dominant market position to (potentially) harm their competitors in an unrelated market.

You were always able to install Firefox or Chrome on Windows, but Microsoft was fined for using their dominant market position (Windows) to push a product in an unrelated market (web browsers).

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#102

Post by hutzlibu »

fortythirteen wrote: post #30
ourmandave wrote: post #6

Long as I can keep using uBlock Origin and disable theirs it's fine with me.

Still doesn't make it ok, from an anti-competitive standpoint. "As long as I can download Netscape, having IE pre-installed is fine with me."

"As long as I can download Netscape, having IE pre-installed is fine with me."

Sure it is. If I buy a operation system and it comes bundled with a browser ... why should that be a problem?

(the problem I see somewhere else...that you have sometimes no choice except to use that OS because of market dominance)

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#103

Post by fortythirteen »

paulmd wrote: post #85
fortythirteen wrote: post #27

How is this not anti-competitive behavior? If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their operating system, how is an advertising company like Google using their browser, which has the largest market share, to block competing ads not the same thing?!

Because there are multiple competing products you can switch to, or even multiple additional products (i.e. ublock/adblock) which you can add in Google's own product if you disagree with their stance. It's not anti-competitive just because you don't like it.

And I used IE to download Netscape. Didn't stop that being anti-competitive.

It's about what the average user is aware of. Google just decided to have the majority of computer and smartphone users be opted in to an ad blocker that, of course, won't block Google ads.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#104

Post by [deleted] »

adwhit wrote: post #77
saas_co_de wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I don't see how this can possibly not be considered illegal anti-competitive behavior. Their goals are not really anti-competitive. The point of this feature is to stop the bleed from ad blocking extensions and alternative browsers which are the real threat to their business. But there is no way for them to do this that doesn't end up looking really bad. Probably they know it will get shut down eventually, b…

I think this is a critical point. I bet that Google has reams of internal research on the use of ad-blockers. I am further willing to bet they have discovered the following: 1) Users say they block ads because they are annoying, rather than any deeper philosophical arguments about the nature of advertising 2) Users tend not to bother with white-listing and just use the defaults - i.e. block all ads, even Google! 3) O…

[deleted]

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#105

Post by epicide »

user5994461 wrote: post #75
sly010 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just need a browser extension to _install_ a single non compliant ad on every page and let chrome do the rest :) Is it just me or the web is becoming more fragmented than ever: First the Safari intelligent anti tracking stuff, then Firefox's delayed loading and now this. Things will break is subtle ways.

It's always been pretty fragmented by browser. The different only affect some edge case around tracking, don't really mind breaking evil websites. It's good on long term. The infestation of ad is really really bad. My mother and my girlfriend can hardly browse the web anymore.

There's a huge but subtle difference between the prevalence of ad blockers vs an ad blocker that is both backed by an ad company and built into the browser (presumably with no way to turn it off).

We've seen examples of ad blockers becoming problematic when they have too much market share (AdBlock Plus).

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#106

Post by syphilis2 »

As someone who was already using ad block this might be bad for me. If everyone starts using ad block, and if intrusive ads are more profitable than the approved ads, then advertisers will be pressured to find better ways to subvert ad block. The good times of ad block might be in the past, and the arms race accelerating.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#107

Post by epicide »

anon1385 wrote: post #58
jicks wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article, the ads deemed "overly annoying or intrusive" are defined by "the standards established by the Coalition for Better Ads, of which it is a member". Since it's not Google actually deciding this, how is that anti-competitive? BTW, the Coalition for Better Ads has many members [0], including Facebook and other big ads providers. I'm personally not convinced this will solve the issue, but I belie…

Is Chrome going to block ads on the Google search results page for taking up more than 30% of the page?

They wouldn't be adding it to Chrome if it did. That's the problem.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#109

Post by deno »

9point6 wrote: post #33
Artlav wrote: post #21

I bet it won't block all the damn "download our shitty app instead of using the fully functional website we have" full screen popups...

Isn't there a Google PageRank penalty for sites that do that now?

There’s a dedicated API now…

https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/app-install-b...

It uses some heuristics:

> Be visited by the user twice, over two separate days during the course of two weeks.

I think apps installed this way should be also limited to some subset of permissions they can request[1]. Otherwise this is almost like a bookmarking mechanism.

[1] They could still explicitly ask for more, on use.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#110

Post by d0lph »

fortythirteen wrote: post #27

How is this not anti-competitive behavior? If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their operating system, how is an advertising company like Google using their browser, which has the largest market share, to block competing ads not the same thing?!

Although that was the central point, they did a lot more than just default the browser. IMO I don't think bundling a browser in and of itself is anti competitive.

"Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct." [1]

"Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified" [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...

Post reply on HN