iOS 9 Safari supports content blocking!

[Shlong]

Worked for newspapers for centuries. Static ads certainly make less than targeted ads, but they make infinitely more money than ads that aren't viewed.

"New technology"? LoL! bring it on. I'll be blocking those like I do from every other malware serving, privacy stealing network. My computer, my rules. I decide what I run, not some arbitrary website.

A static text ad viewed 1,000,000 times will make $100 vs. maybe $2,000 in another format. If a website has large overhead (staff salaries, CDN costs, servers, offices, etc.) they won't be able to pay that with static text ads.

Your computer, your rules? Well, websites will start making countermeasures for this since its their website and their rules. I'm sure anandtech appreciates the content and forum community you're using but in return not giving them any ad revenue and only using up resources.

 

[Shlong]

Ad-blockers work on DOM level, as far as I can tell. Transmission protocol doesn't matter as long the page is HTML. Since the mobile revolution, Flash-based sites are dead. They aren't coming back.

If you go to large foreign news websites (ie: in Korean or Chinese) the ads and flash ads load even if you have adblocker on. It's because adblocker hasn't filtered the origin servers. As for TCP, I believe these new anti-adblocker agencies are going to use UDP and they claim that adblockers won't block this.

 

[lxskllr]

A static text ad viewed 1,000,000 times will make $100 vs. maybe $2,000 in another format. If a website has large overhead (staff salaries, CDN costs, servers, offices, etc.) they won't be able to pay that with static text ads.

A dynamic tracker/ad viewed zero times will make $0

Your computer, your rules? Well, websites will start making countermeasures for this since its their website and their rules. I'm sure anandtech appreciates the content and forum community you're using but in return not giving them any ad revenue and only using up resources.

Yes, my rules always. I might be willing to pay some money for AT, or buy a tshirt, but I won't expose my computer to exploitation, or waste time/bandwidth downloading ads. Or, I can just do without. The vast majority of my life was spent with no internet whatsoever. There isn't anything I need online.

 

[Shlong]

A dynamic tracker/ad viewed zero times will make $0



Yes, my rules always. I might be willing to pay some money for AT, or buy a tshirt, but I won't expose my computer to exploitation, or waste time/bandwidth downloading ads. Or, I can just do without. The vast majority of my life was spent with no internet whatsoever. There isn't anything I need online.

I have adblocker but I disable it on all websites I visit frequently (like anandtech). On some other sites I leave them on unless I find the content to be good. It's only fair for the publisher to get ad revenue if you enjoy their content. With over 40,000 posts on anandtech you may not "need" the internet but it seems you sure enjoy visiting and partaking in discussions.

If you don't like the current free content ad supported model. The alternative is a paywall, start paying $9.99 a month for monthly subscriptions to anandtech articles, ars-technica articles, etc. For most people, that'll add up quickly but the paywall will be the way to go if the current free ad supported model dies.

 

[lxskllr]

I have adblocker but I disable it on all websites I visit frequently (like anandtech). On some other sites I leave them on unless I find the content to be good. It's only fair for the publisher to get ad revenue if you enjoy their content. With over 40,000 posts on anandtech you may not "need" the internet but it seems you sure enjoy visiting and partaking in discussions.

If you don't like the current free content ad supported model. The alternative is a paywall, start paying $9.99 a month for monthly subscriptions to anandtech articles, ars-technica articles, etc. For most people, that'll add up quickly but the paywall will be the way to go if the current free ad supported model dies.

Ads are a security risk. I don't enable them anywhere. I paid over $300 last year for software/services that didn't require anything from me(and didn't try to foist ads or crapware on me). I gave because I valued what they provided. If AT asks for money, maybe I'll give some, or maybe not. It's a for-profit corporation. Non-profits get first shot at my money. Maybe I'll just make my own forum on i2p. That's a road to be crossed some time in the future...

 

[Commodus]

Ads are a security risk. I don't enable them anywhere. I paid over $300 last year for software/services that didn't require anything from me(and didn't try to foist ads or crapware on me). I gave because I valued what they provided. If AT asks for money, maybe I'll give some, or maybe not. It's a for-profit corporation. Non-profits get first shot at my money. Maybe I'll just make my own forum on i2p. That's a road to be crossed some time in the future...

That's not a very rational attitude to take. You're depriving sites of revenue they genuinely need because you think some of them might compromise your devices, but refuse to avoid those sites. That's like stealing from the grocery store because you're afraid of running into a cashier who'd swipe your credit card info. The relatively small odds of someone else's potential wrongdoing don't justify your own guaranteed, sustained wrongdoing.

Want a site to let you pay to remove ads, and refuse to see those ads? Organize a campaign to effect that change, and don't visit the site again until that change takes place. Visiting with an ad blocker costs them money, but won't really send the message that they need to change.

 

[Ichinisan]

Looks like Purify dropped from $3.99 to $0.99

Is this a temporary sale? I already bought one for me and one for my nephew.

Also, if it doesn't work for iPhone 5c or A6 devices, why does it show in the App Store as if I can purchase it on my mother's iPhone 5c?

[edit]
Yeah. Looks like a sale.

 

[lxskllr]

That's not a very rational attitude to take. You're depriving sites of revenue they genuinely need because you think some of them might compromise your devices, but refuse to avoid those sites. That's like stealing from the grocery store because you're afraid of running into a cashier who'd swipe your credit card info. The relatively small odds of someone else's potential wrongdoing don't justify your own guaranteed, sustained wrongdoing.

Want a site to let you pay to remove ads, and refuse to see those ads? Organize a campaign to effect that change, and don't visit the site again until that change takes place. Visiting with an ad blocker costs them money, but won't really send the message that they need to change.

Malicious ads have come through here; more than once. The chances of encountering one somewhere on the web, while browsing "legitimate" sites, is pretty close to 1. That's not counting the less tangible tracking, and reduction of privacy.

I'm not campaigning to remove ads from the web. If a site can't make the bills, they can pull the plug, or ask for help. I WILL NOT help by subjugating myself, or my machines.

 

[Commodus]

Malicious ads have come through here; more than once. The chances of encountering one somewhere on the web, while browsing "legitimate" sites, is pretty close to 1. That's not counting the less tangible tracking, and reduction of privacy.

I'm not campaigning to remove ads from the web. If a site can't make the bills, they can pull the plug, or ask for help. I WILL NOT help by subjugating myself, or my machines.

Sorry to hear about that, but it's safe to say that most people haven't run into malicious ads -- you'd be hearing about it all the time if that were true, because it'd be an epidemic. Privacy is another matter, but at least we have Do Not Track and private browsing modes.

I'm still baffled by your justification, though. Why is it okay that other people should subsidize your visits, or that every ad-supported site must suffer because you've had a few bad experiences that most people won't have? It comes across more as a rationalization than a legitimate defense.

 

[lxskllr]

Sorry to hear about that, but it's safe to say that most people haven't run into malicious ads -- you'd be hearing about it all the time if that were true, because it'd be an epidemic. Privacy is another matter, but at least we have Do Not Track and private browsing modes.

I'm still baffled by your justification, though. Why is it okay that other people should subsidize your visits, or that every ad-supported site must suffer because you've had a few bad experiences that most people won't have? It comes across more as a rationalization than a legitimate defense.

I've never been exploited, because I don't allow it. DoNotTrack is a joke, and private browsing is a half measure that's best suited to the technically inept as a quickie fix.

I won't get in to the rest of your post. It's complete nonsense. There's been three solutions to the issue posted in this thread. Because a site doesn't want to avail themselves of those solutions is of no concern to me. I'll continue to block ads, and a site can exist, or not. My machine, my rules. It's that simple.

 

[Phynaz]

A static text ad viewed 1,000,000 times will make $100 vs. maybe $2,000 in another format. If a website has large overhead (staff salaries, CDN costs, servers, offices, etc.) they won't be able to pay that with static text ads.

Your computer, your rules? Well, websites will start making countermeasures for this since its their website and their rules. I'm sure anandtech appreciates the content and forum community you're using but in return not giving them any ad revenue and only using up resources.

The success or failure of Anandtech's business model is not my concern.

 

[Artdeco]

Just installed 1blocker, it works pretty well

 

[mrochester]

There seems to be an ever-quickening movement against the exploitative nature of advertising. Personally I just block all advertising as I disagree with it as a way to monetise. But just this morning I saw an advert on TV for an app you can install on your phone that detects when you are watching an advert on TV and gives you points for each advert you watch. You can then win prizes based on how many points you have.

 

[lxskllr]

But just this morning I saw an advert on TV for an app you can install on your phone that detects when you are watching an advert on TV and gives you points for each advert you watch. You can then win prizes based on how many points you have.

Clever, and I support that approach if it's explicitely opt in. I think it's foolish to give up security and privacy for baubles, but it's proven to be popular with the masses.

 

[Ichinisan]

Any website worth its salt wouldn't last with ads of static image files from their own servers, they would barely make anything. There are new ad networks popping up that are using new technology that tries to circumvent adblock by using protocols other than TCP.

Ad-blockers work on DOM level, as far as I can tell. Transmission protocol doesn't matter as long the page is HTML. Since the mobile revolution, Flash-based sites are dead. They aren't coming back.

I didn't touch on this, but "new technology" sounds like "malware browser plugins" to me.

 

[Commodus]

I've never been exploited, because I don't allow it. DoNotTrack is a joke, and private browsing is a half measure that's best suited to the technically inept as a quickie fix.

I won't get in to the rest of your post. It's complete nonsense. There's been three solutions to the issue posted in this thread. Because a site doesn't want to avail themselves of those solutions is of no concern to me. I'll continue to block ads, and a site can exist, or not. My machine, my rules. It's that simple.

So let's get this clear: if any site manages to either block you from visiting or circumvents your ad blocker, you'll have no complaints whatsoever, right? After all, it's their site, their rules.

The whole point is not who has control of what, it's about treating people fairly. The right thing to do is to either view the site, ads and all, or to visit another site and send a message that their ads aren't cool. I'm reminded of music pirates who insist that stealing an album they probably won't like is okay because they were never going to buy those songs anyway. No, if you have an inkling that you won't like the album, you don't download it at all -- you buy something else. In both cases, there's a false sense of entitlement, that your desire to get content trumps the creator's ability to make a living.

 

[lxskllr]

So let's get this clear: if any site manages to either block you from visiting or circumvents your ad blocker, you'll have no complaints whatsoever, right? After all, it's their site, their rules.

That's right. Their server, their rules.

The whole point is not who has control of what, it's about treating people fairly. The right thing to do is to either view the site, ads and all, or to visit another site and send a message that their ads aren't cool. I'm reminded of music pirates who insist that stealing an album they probably won't like is okay because they were never going to buy those songs anyway. No, if you have an inkling that you won't like the album, you don't download it at all -- you buy something else. In both cases, there's a false sense of entitlement, that your desire to get content trumps the creator's ability to make a living.

Copyright infringement isn't stealing. Removing ads isn't stealing. The users here create the value. Without the users there is no AT forums. *I* am the "content creator"(who knew I was so important! I'm blushing). Foreign ads and scripts aren't acceptable to me as a creator. They can rectify that, or block access since it's their machine, but no one dictates how I use my machine.

 

[mrochester]

So let's get this clear: if any site manages to either block you from visiting or circumvents your ad blocker, you'll have no complaints whatsoever, right? After all, it's their site, their rules.

The whole point is not who has control of what, it's about treating people fairly. The right thing to do is to either view the site, ads and all, or to visit another site and send a message that their ads aren't cool. I'm reminded of music pirates who insist that stealing an album they probably won't like is okay because they were never going to buy those songs anyway. No, if you have an inkling that you won't like the album, you don't download it at all -- you buy something else. In both cases, there's a false sense of entitlement, that your desire to get content trumps the creator's ability to make a living.

I think there's an issue of oversupply too. I can go to any number of hundreds or thousands of websites and get the same news. This in turn reduces people's ability to actually make money from the content as it is so abundant. Supply and demand.

 

[dawheat]

It's good to see this, but is there not a good free one? I don't mind paying for apps that are useful, but on Android I just load up Firefox and use an ad block extension (never mind all you can do with root).

Hey - just tried out Firefox as I missed having Ad block since my new phone isn't rooted.

Works great with the ublock add-on - much appreciated. However, there are a few things I don't like - how do you work around them?

- I added add-ons to add a new tab and close tab option directly in the address bar. However I can't open new tabs until the one I'm on finishes loading which is annoying. I like quickly opening say 6 tabs to my most common sites - and then jumping back to my first tab while the others are loading. This is one of the things I liked about my old, outdated browser (boat browser, also dolphin, etc). Is this unusual? I like surfing on my phone like I do on my desktop browser.

- Extension to the above - the new tab icon is tiny and neither icon is visible by default when the browser brings up reader mode - super annoying. I wish it was built into the nav outside the address bar.

- How do you quickly jump to the top/bottom of long pages? I'm used to seeing arrows appear when I start scrolling which let me jump to the top or bottom.

Otherwise its nice having an ad free experience again and a modern browser (boat was getting super outdated in page rendering, etc).

 

[Commodus]

That's right. Their server, their rules.

Well, that's good to know, at least.

Copyright infringement isn't stealing. Removing ads isn't stealing. The users here create the value. Without the users there is no AT forums. *I* am the "content creator"(who knew I was so important! I'm blushing). Foreign ads and scripts aren't acceptable to me as a creator. They can rectify that, or block access since it's their machine, but no one dictates how I use my machine.

See, this is where I fundamentally disagree. I'm not naive about piracy -- it can lead people to discover new music, major labels aren't exactly benevolent, and there's no guarantee that a pirated copy means a lost sale. However, I can't see someone's P2P download as a harmless act, because I know that there's a real person on the other end who's not getting paid. I stream legally, and I'll buy albums if I really feel an artist needs the support.

And you may be writing posts on these forums, but AT is still moderating them, organizing topics and keeping the lights on. Plus, many of the people here are fine with those ads and know that they're important to keep the forums running. It still boils down to asking why you believe it's okay for others to subsidize your visits, and why you "must" visit these sites rather than simply going to places where you believe the ad policies are better. I can't see ads without knowing that there's likely a site operator or writer trying to make an honest living -- so long as the ads aren't consistently annoying and aren't scraping genuinely personal data, I'd rather support those people than mooch off of their work.

 

[lenjack]

So which one or which ones to use? Crystal is 99¢ and Peace is $2.99, so cost isn't a big issue. I just want to buy whichever is best.

Others? I figure there must be several that have gone live in the past day.

I'm thinking this will help with the iPad 2 (which has the lowly A5).

It may also possibly help with the rendering bug where page sections need to be re-rendered when you scroll.

As to which is best, go to the app store and read the reviews. Some are very detailed and should help you decide. I went with Adblocker on my iphone 6. Too soon to be sure how well it works, but initial observation is encouraging.

 

[Kneedragger]

I get that websites need to make money but most ads in a browser are ridiculous. Don't these apps for iOS only block ads in browser? Which leaves ads in apps the same. I know with Tapatalk you can monetize it for your forum.. So technically they can do that and still get money..

These websites need to find another way to make money plain and simple if this is their only source.. There are a ton of other ways to make money instead of popups with flashing images. When was the last time you even clicked on an ad because you were interested?

 

[Bubbleawsome]

What is the best content blocker for ios9?

 

[Artdeco]

Yikes, the companies making the most from mobile ads are the carriers...

https://medium.com/@robleathern/carriers-are-making-more-from-mobile-ads-than-publishers-are-d5d3c0827b39

 

[Ichinisan]

In Battle With Ad Blockers, Ad Industry Fesses Up To Alienating Users