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

121–130 of 186 posts

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

#121

Post by untog »

Artlav wrote: post #24
wst_ wrote: post #23

I still find it amusing that they consider auto-play video OK as long as it's muted. Sound is the problem, but so is auto-playing itself.

They are all probably too rich to understand the concept of paying for mobile data.

It's really, really dumb, but video is actually far more bandwidth efficient than the alternative everyone uses, which are multi-MB GIF files. I don't know enough about the file format, but I suspect it would be difficult to download the first frame of a GIF then immediately stop downloading the rest of the file (which would probably be the best of both worlds).

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

#122

Post by untog »

nofilter wrote: post #36
wst_ wrote: post #23

I still find it amusing that they consider auto-play video OK as long as it's muted. Sound is the problem, but so is auto-playing itself.

Safari doesn't auto-play videos. Safari is also very resource usage friendly.

Yes it does, if they are muted.

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

#123

Post by Donald »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #112
fortythirteen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

How would the typical early-2000s Windows user have downloaded Netscape without a preinstalled browser? FTP on the command line?

Have we forgotten how software was distributed in this era?

https://i.imgur.com/RShi0Sg.jpg

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

#124

Post by mattjsmith »

0xFFC wrote: post #38
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?!

In HN community: Because people in HN do have double standards when it comes to Microsoft vs Google.

Microsoft wanted you to buy their software. Google gives it away for free. That's the only thing I've come up with that explains the enduring romance.

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

#125

Post by hungerstrike »

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…

I hope they fail as well. Here is one scenario where I think they will:

1) As you pointed out - Users (or their friends) will go out of their way to install an ad-blocker and set it up the first time.

2) If I still find prominently placed Google ads annoying (and I do, despite the fact that they're not animated or audible), then I will still go out of my way to block them.

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

#126

Post by ralmidani »

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?!

The only thing that has changed since the 90s is antitrust enforcement, and even then the DOJ did not go nearly as far as they could have with Microsoft.

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

#127

Post by grogenaut »

baby wrote: post #86
Artlav wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are all probably too rich to understand the concept of paying for mobile data.

I pay 12-15 pounds per month here in the UK, for unlimited calls and internet in the world. (I think in Europe I can call any european number for free, but in outside of it I might be limited to free calls to the UK only.) France was even cheaper with the Free provider. They have 2 euros plans that are useful for most usages. (Internet cap is low but if you use more they charge you cheap fees.) The US prices were ins…

video also slurps battery which is the thing that gets me way more. it's basically saying to me "the things you wanted to do later today, like you know go home, they're not important". Love it when google takes every opportunity to make sure that GPS is still on.

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

#128

Post by CaptSpify »

paulmd wrote: post #118
saas_co_de wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People concerned with privacy are not against ads because they are annoying but because of the systems of surveillance behind those ads. Making ads less annoying so that the majority of users continue to accept surveillance is villainy from that perspective.

This is just accelerationism. "Let's make ads terrible so people hate them, because I disagree with the fundamental concept of advertising".

Who in this thread has been advocating making ads terrible?

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

#129

Post by vanadium »

wst_ wrote: post #23

I still find it amusing that they consider auto-play video OK as long as it's muted. Sound is the problem, but so is auto-playing itself.

It's almost like Google's talking out of both sides of its mouth: On one side, to sell through AMP, they talk through how much it benefits people with constrained/metered bandwidth (3G) as a worldwide concern, and then are just fine with auto-playing videos. For a company hyped up enough to peddle performance as a first-class citizen, this is a very questionable decision.

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

#130

Post by CaptSpify »

scrollaway wrote: post #18
nailer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand this, and believe it's true, but: gmail mobile has a full page ad asking you to download the app. I'll be surprised if Google block it.

There's a difference between a site willfully destroying UX on mobile versus including a third party's paid content. Reddit mobile also has a full page ad asking you to download the app. I also doubt Google would block that. Nothing to do with it being "Google".

I personally don't see a difference. They are putting a notice up that is trying to entice me to "buy" something. Why does it matter if it's from a 3rd party or not?
Post reply on HN