Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would venture to say that the relentless push to move as much as possible to the client has much more impact on battery life than the handful of ads we typically see.
Definitely. A modern octa-core Exynos shouldn't be chugging along to render a blog post. It's absurd.
The adblocking revolution is months away
241–250 of 355 posts
Re: The adblocking revolution is months away
#242Re: The adblocking revolution is months away
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple provides hooks so that a web page can display an official, system supported "there is an app for this web site, tap here to download it" banner. I will bet $5 that Apple does not provide a way to block those.
But is that really an ad? If I go to CNN, and CNN tells me I can use the same site in a native app, I'm not sure that quite counts. Now if CNN carries (for a fee) a download link for an app for something different , a brokerage house, or Ford, or something, now that would be interesting to see if they block it. My guess is that they would initially, then relax the blocking. Seems to be the preferred way to manipulate…
You might disagree, which is fine. Whether something is an "ad" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Which is why this stuff ought to be configurable.
Re: The adblocking revolution is months away
#244Imagine a blog with quality original content that is relevant to your interests.
Imagine that, the first time you go to that site, you see the following text:
"This site and it's content are supported by advertisement. If you would like to read our content the only thing we ask is that you do not use an ad blocker on our pages.
If this arrangement is unacceptable to you, we understand and there are no hard feelings, we simply ask that you refrain from accessing the site.
There is no enforcement mechanism-- this agreement is based on the honor system."
Would you still block ads on the site?
If you answered no, a follow up question:
Are all ad-supported sites saying this implicitly?
Re: The adblocking revolution is months away
#245At NPR: major movies, product launches, etc., are framed as stories and are given decent editorial treatment. But it's just part of the PR Blitz package that the advertiser is taking out into the marketplace. There's a TV commercial, a magazine ad, a Charlie Rose booking, a Terry Gross segment ... and a pre-written 80 second slot for "Here and Now". It's just part of the blitz and it's just pacakged slightly differently when it plays on NPR. But make no mistake that Terry Gross interview with Mr. Phoenix as "Her" was moving into theaters was not a coincidence.[1]
at boingboing: constant, never-ending "stories" that are nothing but frames of words for amazon affiliate links. They've gotten very brazen about it[2], but other outfits could be more subtle and I think you'll see it.
[1] Highly recommended. Hilarious interview. At one point, Phoenix forgets what her name is and at no point does he even know what show he's on. Classic.
[2] Regular postings along the lines of "remember that one movie ... man that was great ... two more lines of content ... affiliate link to the DVD".
Re: The adblocking revolution is months away
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look at moves made by Apple in the iPhone era it becomes quite clear and does not require bias. - Ban flash. Biggest competition to native apps. - Cripple the iOS web browser just enough that web apps trying to have native style performance will struggle. - Release their own map to push Google out of their ecosystem. When that didn't work now they are trying this. Apple's business model is pretty simple. Aquir…
> Ban flash. Biggest competition to native apps That's not why that happened. Flash wasn't "banned," Apple chose not to allow support for it in Mobile Safari from the beginning. It was never removed or banned. Flash was a dog. Power hungry, slow, inefficient. I recently had to touch the codebase for an Adobe Air iOS app and the runtime is pretty horrific. Adobe never got flash good enough for mobile, and Apple was ri…
Re: The adblocking revolution is months away
#247>>Of course, at this point we should step back and ask “why were the adverts there in the first place?” Oh yes, because they help pay for the content. In some – well, many, almost all – cases, they pay for all of the content. Honestly? I don't give a crap. Too many places have abused it and thrown stupid crap in just so they can make money. Just like the idiots who are careless with fireworks and then states ban them…
When I'm presented with "answer a survey to continue" ads, I purposefully don't read the question and pick an answer at random. I hope others do the same, so that the survey results are entirely useless.
"What is your age range: 0-17 18-25 26-35 That way, if they're using the information for anything then I've hopefully screwed up their targeting at least a little!
Re: The adblocking revolution is months away
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple provides hooks so that a web page can display an official, system supported "there is an app for this web site, tap here to download it" banner. I will bet $5 that Apple does not provide a way to block those.
Regardless of whether they are ads or not, they a) do not track you b) do not take up disproportionate amount of network bandwidth and CPU/battery c) do not interrupt your viewing after the initial scroll down which is why I personally would be fine with not blocking those. That being said, I can understand why others might be annoyed by these 'reminders' and want to block them.
Re: The adblocking revolution is months away
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
While this pay be true, at some point profit trumps UX. Look at how the iPod+iTunes morphed as soon as Apple realized how much money could be generated by adding DRM and a store.
Come on, Apple didn't want DRM, labels insisted on it. https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple....
https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple....
> The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.
"Thoughts on Music" | Steve Jobs | February 6, 2007
-----------
And I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you. Taking Jobs 100% at his word (i.e. Apple was dedicated to DRM-free music, was in continual negotiation with the labels to strip it, and was contractually obligated to continue to use it despite their reluctance), here's how the timeline ultimately turned out:
* October 23, 2001 - First iPod introduced
* April 28, 2003 - iTunes Store w/ Fairplay introduced
* February 6, 2007 - Job's "Thoughts on Music" letter
* April 2, 2007 - EMI agrees to sell iTunes catalog DRM free (initially for slightly higher price)
* ~ August, 2007(?) - Universal sells DRM-free tracks on iTunes Store competitors
* January-April 2009 - Apple completely(?) removes Fairplay from all iTunes Store tracks
Now, you can dig up a few different charts concerning Apple's iTunes music sales. Presumably, they're all compiled from SEC filings, so they track fairly closely. Let's use these two: http://www.asymco.com/2014/02/10/fortune-130/ or https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/tag/app-store/ (both offer absolute sales, not % breakdown)
The most notable thing to me is that around mid-'07 to '09, you start to see music sales no longer experiencing the same growth. Incidentally, app and video sales begin in approximately the same period and fill in to maintain total growth -- no one ever accused Apple of being stupid. Point being, by the time Apple removed DRM (and debatable in terms of Jobs' letter's timing depending on how their higher-fidelity internal numbers were looking), music was on the decline.
End result: Apple had 4 years of first mover advantage, then did away with DRM at a time when music sales were no longer experiencing growth.
Are savvy business / PR decisions and coincidence from an altruistic Apple both explanations for the above? Yes. Do I personally believe Apple was pushing tooth and nail to undermine a key business strength of their platform the entire time? No.
(Feel free to correct my timeline or numbers if I'm off on something. This isn't exhaustively researched!)
Re: The adblocking revolution is months away
#250A thought experiment for the "there's nothing wrong with AdBlock" set: Imagine a blog with quality original content that is relevant to your interests. Imagine that, the first time you go to that site, you see the following text: "This site and it's content are supported by advertisement. If you would like to read our content the only thing we ask is that you do not use an ad blocker on our pages. If this arrangement…
Yes. Even the "non-obtrusive" ones. My computer, my browser, choice; I'm under no obligation to interpret their content as they intended.