The adblocking revolution is months away • Hacker News Board

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#261

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 5:17 PM UTC

qq66 wrote: post #259

charlesarthur wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Apple pushing ahead with this will just make Google desperately push Android as hard as they can." What does that mean, exactly? "they might be more willing to see Android devices put into consumers' hands at break-even (or even loss-making) prices" That already happens. Samsung's profits and phone shipments are substantially down, LG made 1.5cents operating profit per phone in Q2, Sony made a loss, HTC made a loss;…

> This is a common refrain since about 2010. Hasn't happened so far. iOS market share has declined tremendously since 2010, from approximately 80% to approximately 20%.

> iOS market share has declined tremendously since 2010.

Has it? It looks to me like most measures have current iOS smartphone marketshare at or above 2010, but down from a peak in 2011-2012. Android is a lot higher than in 2010, having eaten most of everything that isn't iOS

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#262

Post by s73v3r » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

hiou wrote: post #130

Luc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, aren't your comments as much an example of Apple bias as what you're commenting on, but with the sign reversed?

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…

No, it really does require bias.

"Ban flash."

Because Flash was buggy as all hell, and ran like absolute shit on mobile. Remember the short time it was available for Android? Remember how no one really used it, because it was crap? Remember how Adobe gave up because they couldn't do it worth a damn?

"- Cripple the iOS web browser just enough that web apps trying to have native style performance will struggle."

You're gonna need a citation for that one.

"Release their own map to push Google out of their ecosystem. When that didn't work now they are trying this."

Yeah, no. Apple and Google had a dispute over licensing. They were unable to resolve their differences, and so they parted ways amicably. Google Maps is still freely available for iOS, and developers are still able to use it in their apps.

"You don't need bias to see something as obvious as this now is."

No, but apparently you need a tinfoil hat.

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#263

Post by pessimizer » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 5:23 PM UTC

eevilspock wrote: post #174

hiou wrote: post #130

Earlier 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…

Will you accuse Google, Mozilla of the same? Google, Mozilla disable Flash over security concerns http://www.marketwatch.com/story/google-mozilla-disable-flas... Even this Flash proponent admits, "Jobs was slightly ahead of his time" in You don't have to be a villain to say Flash must die* http://www.macworld.com/article/2948131/software-web/you-don... - Banning Flash has been a boon to HTML5 uptake. YouTube Switches…

> Google, Mozilla disable Flash over security concerns

That was a version of flash, and after the bug was fixed, it was reenabled. How is that in any way comparable?

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#264

Post by s73v3r » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 5:23 PM UTC

hiou wrote: post #203

usaphp wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Cripple the iOS web browser just enough that web apps trying to have native style performance will struggle." Are you saying that web apps run on android browser smoother than on iOs Safari? I don't think so... > "Ban Flash. Biggest competition for apps". I think Flash was banned because it's crap in terms of security and battery drainer, not much because its a competition to apps. You seem to be pretty bias in yo…

The statement of discussion was > User experience is what Apple puts above pretty much everything else, and they’ve decided that they don’t like it the experience available through the ad-supported web, and so they’re going to do something about it. My points were evidence to the contrary of that statement. I was not discussing the motivations of Google in regards to their users. My point is that Apple's business mod…

Your points offered absolutely no evidence, except to your own bias.

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#265

Post by s73v3r » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 5:25 PM UTC

Mikushi wrote: post #94

Luc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, aren't your comments as much an example of Apple bias as what you're commenting on, but with the sign reversed?

So looking at facts is a bias now? How about all the different ways Apple breaks the web for its own sake? Things like the HTTP Protocol are fundamentally broken by Apple, and this is not ok. They are a despicable company, a dragon only interested in increasing its cash reserves. I do not understand the support they are getting from the developer community, they shit on them constantly, make their life difficult, and…

"So looking at facts is a bias now?"

No, but making up your own facts, like you have, is.

"Things like the HTTP Protocol are fundamentally broken by Apple"

[Citation Needed]

"They are a company for profit"

As opposed to whom? Google?

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#266

Post by untog » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 5:25 PM UTC

zodPod wrote: post #99

MadcapJake wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the New York Times....pretty sure they're not all "bullshit media rewriters" there. Expect a LOT more "Become a member" or "Subscribe to..." websites as adblockers become more popular.

Which will likely, hopefully, just create a new media. Things like Periscope. Newer generations will ignore the big media garbage and follow citizen reporting. This is all speculation and I'm sure there are problems with it but these big companies will just be digging their own graves with bull crap like that. They already have enough trouble selling print media who's going to pay them for their content (which is 80%…

Which will likely, hopefully, just create a new media. Things like Periscope.

And how would Periscope users get paid, exactly?

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#267

Post by s73v3r » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

interpol_p wrote: post #205

danielweber wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people incorrectly assume that the alternative to "free with ads" is "free with no ads" then we will have a market failure.

I think "free with ads" is being done backwards most of the time. It's all about analysing the user to algorithmically determine the best pre-designed ad to serve them. It's tacky and people are extremely good at ignoring it, even without ad blockers. "Free with ads" should be that my favourite authors get paid to use a product or service and then write about it if they like it. I don't want to see ads for things tha…

How in the hell would that work for some dinky little mobile game?

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#268

Post by Kalium » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

interpol_p wrote: post #187

hiou wrote: post #130

Earlier 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…

Apple wanted turn-by-turn, and Google wanted branding and some influence over the app in exchange. Apple wanted turn-by-turn, but apparently wasn't willing to give up much of anything to get it.

So Apple jettisoned Google to do it themselves. Then Apple discovered that mapping isn't nearly as easy as Google made it look when their users were unhappy with a decidedly inferior product.

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#269

Post by s73v3r » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 5:30 PM UTC

Tinyyy wrote: post #199

kazinator wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apps can be written to refuse to run if they can't fetch their ads. This can be baked into compiled code. Apps can be written to download and cache ads periodically as part of their "update" process, and display these ads even when you don't have an internet connection. If they are not able to update these ads for some time (say 60 days), they can then refuse to run: "the application has expired and needs an update;…

I can also not use these kinda apps lol. Whats the point of putting in all these features to stop people if it merely results in an uninstall?

90% of users won't uninstall.

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#270

Post by hsod » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 5:30 PM UTC

kinghajj wrote: post #250

hsod wrote: post #244

A 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…

> Would you still block ads on the site? Yes. Even the "non-obtrusive" ones. My computer, my browser, choice; I'm under no obligation to interpret their content as they intended.

But aren't you entering into an implicit agreement with the site owners? Is it not wrong to intentionally violate an agreement you entered into willingly?

Lets take advertisement out of it, since people feel strongly about it.

What if the site asked you to donate one dollar to a particular charity? And if you are unwilling or unable, please simply stop using the site, thanks and have a nice day. Again, no enforcement-- honor system.

Would it be "right" to continue using the site but refuse to donate?

What if it was a cause you disagreed with?

What if the money went to the site owner, not a charity?