I am actually with Apple on this one, and really think Apple is doing the right thing. No, we have started on wrong footing about content should be free* thanks to Napsterization of web, we discriminate digital goods and physical goods. Now, with ads, we get junk websites or good content websites turn into junk as soon as monetization starts. We have to some how find a way to make people pay for the content they consume, advertising can stay for those who can tolerate and those of us, who cannot - I am tired of Car Ads on my kids youtube channel, I will pay.
The web will be OK, the real hell is the media like The Verge, serving mega-pages with marginal content and click-baity.. ratty tatty articles.
you didn't read the article? The ads by iAd (= Apple) are unblockable ( like facebook ads). They just do the "ad blocker" to piss of Google and third parties... ( as usual)
The author's take on ad blockers is quite alarmist. There are plenty of obvious solutions and counter-arguments:
* Is it fair that you collect and sell data on your users without telling them exactly what that data is? Do you think they'd continue patronizing your site if they knew up front?
* Create a mobile app for your content and enforce its usage
* Bring ads on premise. Back in the 90s we all hosted and sold our own ads.
The article is wrong. The author thinks this is about a war between the big 3. It's not. There's no insidious plot to pull the rug out from under google. Apple isn't trying to push their ad platform. Ads right now are just a shitty user experience. You can try to construct whatever narrative you want, but the simplest explanation fits; ads are shit, mobile browsing is shit because of it.
"TAKING MONEY AND ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE WEB MEANS THAT WEB INNOVATION WILL SLOW TO A CRAWL"
This is the sort of messaging I would expect from a journalist who has a stake in the online-advertisement game. Does anyone really buy this argument?
I enjoy this Apple-Google death spiral as a spectator, and I hope it will drive more websites to subscription-based, freemium models, instead of playing friends with global spy regimes that incentive advertisement platforms to extract every detail of your internet browsing in order to "serve you better ads", aka, develop behavior profiles of consumers in order to find the "terrorist", and definitely not aggregating the behaviors of individuals in order to create a huge information disparity that becomes a vector of population control. Yes, that poorly placed Google AdSense blurb is trying to take over the world.
Advertisements suck, and they're only getting worse, and more subversive, and the intent of the platform creators is only becoming further aligned with these spy regimes.
Apple is not killing the ads, its killing ads in the browser. Content producers are just going to leave the web and do native apps with ads. On iOS, those ads are controlled by Apple. It's genious.
I don't think that is true. My understanding is that Apple has certain policies about user tracking. It does not force ads to use iAd or take a cut from ad revenue.
Ever since iOS became ascendant I've been scared of a future like this - where the bulk of internet use is funneled through a small number of gatekeepers, doing an end run around the leveling power of the web. It's hard to put into words, but it's the fear that the "internet as we know it" - chaotic and untamed, or more importantly unruled - will evolve into something akin to TV before cable: more interactive, but still essentially a content delivery system for four or five corporations. That is, a thing that our grandkids will be free to consume, but not to create or improve.
It's funny - if a TV network had ever tried to sell people TVs that only played that network's shows it would have flopped, but iOS has proven that the principle can work if the experience is good enough, or the alternatives poor enough. I suppose it's all inevitable, and maybe some think what I'm worried about is already here, but I sure hope not.
As you note at the end, human history is nothing if not a lesson in the build up of power and influence and eventual corrosion of the same. There's a cycle to these things, and I think the great issue is that we've all begun to believe the futurists who imagine that technology can solve the problems inherent in human communities.
Also worth noting that the vast majority of these doom and gloom prognostications are coming from media companies that don't actually have much to sell. As someone else pointed out, the world only needs a few BuzzFeeds and TechCrunches.
> the world only needs a few BuzzFeeds and TechCrunches
This part I don't actually think is that worrisome, or even interesting. If banner ads die I assume such sites will come to depend on native, and survive, or they won't, or they'll do something else. It's the bigger picture, the Open and Unruly Nature of The Internet, that I fear for.
The 'leveling' power of the web is an illusion. The web is controlled by those who have the resources to develop and distribute web browsers, which is a tiny elite at this point.
The leveling power was never about the web - it was inherent to the Internet and open source. What we needed was a true open-source app platform that was a community property the way Linux was. If we had that, it wouldn't matter what Apple did.
Unfortunately Google killed that dream with Android.
> The 'leveling' power of the web is an illusion. The web is controlled by those who .. develop and distribute web browsers
I mean the leveling power of open content exchange, not the current technical particulars. If browser wars mess up HTML badly enough the world can invent a better system, or at least it could have. But once everyone gets their internet though walled-garden devices, that ship has sailed.
> The 'leveling' power of the web is an illusion. The web is controlled by those who have the resources to develop and distribute web browsers, which is a tiny elite at this point.
Not even slightly. If I wanted to, I could post a .txt file on an HTTP server somewhere and anyone could consume it. More broadly, web browser are accessible to all, and anyone can put a web page online. That's not true with apps at all.
> If I wanted to, I could post a .txt file on an HTTP server somewhere and anyone could consume it.
Sure, right now. Of course, the browser manufacturers are moving to actively discourage that by flagging HTTP as unsafe, as a first step to blocking it by default. At which point you'll have to use HTTPS for most people to be able to see it, which means you'll have to go through someone with a relationship with a root CA trusted by browser vendors to make content visible to the public, which means, again, back to the web being controlled by those who develop and distribute web browsers.
Also also, "those who develop and distribute web browsers" are not a uniform cabal of shadowy conspirators. You are, of course, always welcome to use Firefox, Chromium, or any of the sundry other open-source browsers out there.
re: "Unfortunately Google killed that dream with Android"
I am curious why you think that since Android seems a little more open than iOS?
I mostly run Linux (one Mac laptop, 3 Linux laptops) and I do get that owning your own hardware, using open source software, and prefering to use your own domain and web site for your business and general web presense is the way to go. I think that we are in agreement.
That said if I am wasting some time reading Twitter using the default web browser on my Android phone, that seems like the same experience using a web browser on my laptop.
It is a little more open than iOS - that's the problem. It isn't really open - just a little more than iOS. Apple was never going to make an open system, but Google could have done.
Remember pop-up ads? I am pretty sure websites depending on ad revenue will do fine. They will need to adjust their behavior and be more thoughtful about how to serve their ads instead of lazily copy-and-paste a dozen tracking scripts.
Highly ironic that Gruber is complaining about blocking its website ads on the grounds that they're not annoying like other websites. Same with plenty of other Apple bloggers.
Guess what: adblocking because some ads are obtrusive is like killing a fly with a cannon. Or more like killing a fly with a nuclear bomb. No adblocker maker is going to start whitelisting every single non-obstrusive ad network. They're going to block most of them. Most users will not make the effort of whitelisting their favorite websites either, they'll just see some adblocking app on the Top list in the App Store, download it and forget about it.
Bigger websites will get smarter about ads. Probably more "sponsored" stories and similar things that you can't block. Smaller websites are going to have a harder time tho. All because some people can't understand that if you don't like obtrusive ads the best thing to do is to stop visiting sites with obtrusive ads.
I don't believe Gruber is complaining about The Deck being blocked, rather arguing that some ad networks are "more equal than others" (which I believe is true BTW).
It matters little financially though, Gruber's main revenue source is not the puny little square at the bottom left corner of Daringfireball.net anyway.
People are talking about this as if there are two options here: ads pay for the internet or the internet drops behind paywalls.
There's another option: we go back to using non-monetized or minimally-monetized services. Frankly, those are better. I don't care about giant media websites aimed at providing oversimplified, sanitized content for the lowest common denominator of people. I don't care about social media or snappy web interfaces that put a layer of varnish on crap. I care about quality information, and people who are knowledgeable and care about a topic will share information on that topic even if they don't make much money for it. People running blogs or small informational services will still do that. Services like PBS/NPR will still be funded by government and donations. Bloggers who are knowledgeable enough will still be able to sell books. Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc. can all go bankrupt and I don't care. Sites can go back to being straight unstyled HTML with no CSS and I'm fine with that. Web 2.0 is completely worthless to me. Ads AND paywalls can go to hell.
Sheldon Brown's website is still the best resource about bikes on the internet. The worst degradation it has experienced is the apologies for politically incorrect content that its current maintainer has added due to pressure from people on social media.
I'm torn on whether this will make things worse or better. I can see sites starting to adopt in-content ads more aggressively, which will be more difficult to block. Like the sponsored links at the bottom of news articles. I find those much more annoying than a simple banner ad that's in the sidebar.
While the article makes interesting points, I feel that it is only relevant to big media and expensive content.
The other side of the web is small businesses and individuals making money with their own web sites for customer support, maintaining a consulting business (I have used my web site for 20 years for this purpose), selling their products, sharing their creative works, etc. I would argue that this side of the web is huge and is still ripe for Google style revenue generaton.
I don't underestimate the effect of mobile app use though, and I don't like raising the bar for individuals and small businesses having to spend money to create apps. This is a shame since the web is better in my opinion. When I do engage in productivity killing activities like Twitter and Facebook, I use the web versions of the sites on my phone. I do this partly to support the web as a universal platform and partly because I resent the access permissions so many apps require on my devices.
what a difference in tone and attitude the tech media has for the movie/tv studios (snickers and shrugs of indifference) and for themselves (plaintive appeals to the reader's benevolence) when they both have issues with making money on their content.
47 comments
[ 102 ms ] story [ 1632 ms ] threadNo one challenged apple either legally or technologically and everyone tried to emulate them. Enjoy your brave new world.
The web will be OK, the real hell is the media like The Verge, serving mega-pages with marginal content and click-baity.. ratty tatty articles.
Like the article says.
Web sites that rely on advertising will die or move to Facebook and native apps.
What percentage of Hacker News links rely on advertising? 90%?
What?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
* Is it fair that you collect and sell data on your users without telling them exactly what that data is? Do you think they'd continue patronizing your site if they knew up front?
* Create a mobile app for your content and enforce its usage
* Bring ads on premise. Back in the 90s we all hosted and sold our own ads.
* Pivot. The world only needs so many BuzzFeeds.
Shortly after Nilay took over at The Verge the mobile app was killed off. Likely to drive mobile traffic where they can display, rather invasive, ads.
This is the sort of messaging I would expect from a journalist who has a stake in the online-advertisement game. Does anyone really buy this argument?
I enjoy this Apple-Google death spiral as a spectator, and I hope it will drive more websites to subscription-based, freemium models, instead of playing friends with global spy regimes that incentive advertisement platforms to extract every detail of your internet browsing in order to "serve you better ads", aka, develop behavior profiles of consumers in order to find the "terrorist", and definitely not aggregating the behaviors of individuals in order to create a huge information disparity that becomes a vector of population control. Yes, that poorly placed Google AdSense blurb is trying to take over the world.
Advertisements suck, and they're only getting worse, and more subversive, and the intent of the platform creators is only becoming further aligned with these spy regimes.
Apple is not killing the ads, its killing ads in the browser. Content producers are just going to leave the web and do native apps with ads. On iOS, those ads are controlled by Apple. It's genious.
It's just a shame that the web is a casualty.
I don't think that is true. My understanding is that Apple has certain policies about user tracking. It does not force ads to use iAd or take a cut from ad revenue.
And Google. And any number of ad networks that the developer can choose to use.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's funny - if a TV network had ever tried to sell people TVs that only played that network's shows it would have flopped, but iOS has proven that the principle can work if the experience is good enough, or the alternatives poor enough. I suppose it's all inevitable, and maybe some think what I'm worried about is already here, but I sure hope not.
Also worth noting that the vast majority of these doom and gloom prognostications are coming from media companies that don't actually have much to sell. As someone else pointed out, the world only needs a few BuzzFeeds and TechCrunches.
The market is a harsh mistress.
This part I don't actually think is that worrisome, or even interesting. If banner ads die I assume such sites will come to depend on native, and survive, or they won't, or they'll do something else. It's the bigger picture, the Open and Unruly Nature of The Internet, that I fear for.
The leveling power was never about the web - it was inherent to the Internet and open source. What we needed was a true open-source app platform that was a community property the way Linux was. If we had that, it wouldn't matter what Apple did.
Unfortunately Google killed that dream with Android.
I mean the leveling power of open content exchange, not the current technical particulars. If browser wars mess up HTML badly enough the world can invent a better system, or at least it could have. But once everyone gets their internet though walled-garden devices, that ship has sailed.
Not even slightly. If I wanted to, I could post a .txt file on an HTTP server somewhere and anyone could consume it. More broadly, web browser are accessible to all, and anyone can put a web page online. That's not true with apps at all.
Sure, right now. Of course, the browser manufacturers are moving to actively discourage that by flagging HTTP as unsafe, as a first step to blocking it by default. At which point you'll have to use HTTPS for most people to be able to see it, which means you'll have to go through someone with a relationship with a root CA trusted by browser vendors to make content visible to the public, which means, again, back to the web being controlled by those who develop and distribute web browsers.
Also, HTTP is unsafe.
Also also, "those who develop and distribute web browsers" are not a uniform cabal of shadowy conspirators. You are, of course, always welcome to use Firefox, Chromium, or any of the sundry other open-source browsers out there.
Unless you're using iOS, of course. (HHOS)
I am curious why you think that since Android seems a little more open than iOS?
I mostly run Linux (one Mac laptop, 3 Linux laptops) and I do get that owning your own hardware, using open source software, and prefering to use your own domain and web site for your business and general web presense is the way to go. I think that we are in agreement.
That said if I am wasting some time reading Twitter using the default web browser on my Android phone, that seems like the same experience using a web browser on my laptop.
Guess what: adblocking because some ads are obtrusive is like killing a fly with a cannon. Or more like killing a fly with a nuclear bomb. No adblocker maker is going to start whitelisting every single non-obstrusive ad network. They're going to block most of them. Most users will not make the effort of whitelisting their favorite websites either, they'll just see some adblocking app on the Top list in the App Store, download it and forget about it.
Bigger websites will get smarter about ads. Probably more "sponsored" stories and similar things that you can't block. Smaller websites are going to have a harder time tho. All because some people can't understand that if you don't like obtrusive ads the best thing to do is to stop visiting sites with obtrusive ads.
It matters little financially though, Gruber's main revenue source is not the puny little square at the bottom left corner of Daringfireball.net anyway.
There's another option: we go back to using non-monetized or minimally-monetized services. Frankly, those are better. I don't care about giant media websites aimed at providing oversimplified, sanitized content for the lowest common denominator of people. I don't care about social media or snappy web interfaces that put a layer of varnish on crap. I care about quality information, and people who are knowledgeable and care about a topic will share information on that topic even if they don't make much money for it. People running blogs or small informational services will still do that. Services like PBS/NPR will still be funded by government and donations. Bloggers who are knowledgeable enough will still be able to sell books. Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc. can all go bankrupt and I don't care. Sites can go back to being straight unstyled HTML with no CSS and I'm fine with that. Web 2.0 is completely worthless to me. Ads AND paywalls can go to hell.
Sheldon Brown's website is still the best resource about bikes on the internet. The worst degradation it has experienced is the apologies for politically incorrect content that its current maintainer has added due to pressure from people on social media.
The other side of the web is small businesses and individuals making money with their own web sites for customer support, maintaining a consulting business (I have used my web site for 20 years for this purpose), selling their products, sharing their creative works, etc. I would argue that this side of the web is huge and is still ripe for Google style revenue generaton.
I don't underestimate the effect of mobile app use though, and I don't like raising the bar for individuals and small businesses having to spend money to create apps. This is a shame since the web is better in my opinion. When I do engage in productivity killing activities like Twitter and Facebook, I use the web versions of the sites on my phone. I do this partly to support the web as a universal platform and partly because I resent the access permissions so many apps require on my devices.
what a difference in tone and attitude the tech media has for the movie/tv studios (snickers and shrugs of indifference) and for themselves (plaintive appeals to the reader's benevolence) when they both have issues with making money on their content.