A Longer than 140 Character Discussion on Ad Blocking
IOS 9 is now released and with it, Apple’s addition of the ability to install ad blockers into your mobile Safari browser. This has created a lot of discussion across the internet, including yours truly.
This is a complex issue with many good points on all sides. I resisted using an ad blocker for a long time, finally deciding to do so when it became clear how painful using most web sites had become and how much data was being collected and tracked on users.
And this is my beef. Not advertising; I get it that people who create content need to make money and pay the rent and feed their family. Where they’ve lost me is the sheer size and greed and impact of the advertising on my use of the net. When a web page is bloated from 1-2 megabytes to over 10, when accomodating the trackers of all of the systems attached into the advertising spreads information out across 25 or more sites — and the capture of that information is not disclosed, there’s no transparency on what it is or who has access to it, and there’s no opt-out opportunity (I won’t go into the idea that I ought to have been asked to opt in to this tracking), the greed and aggressiveness of the advertisers has passed the limit of my wilingness to put up with it to access the content.
This is not a cost-free thing, either. That bloat adds up; if I go over my data cap on my mobile plan, I hear the ca-ching of the cash register over at my carrier’s accounting office and $10 gets added to my monthly bill; this has become common when I’m out travelling, which I’m doing on a more regular basis this year and as more of my day to day activity shifts to my iPad and phone.
My choice is that I am now running ad blockers on my browsers and disabling some advertising and most trackers. I whitelist some of the trusted analytics systems like Omniture and Google Analytics and I’m going through and whitelisting sites (like Daring Fireball or The Loop, for instance) that use ad networks I feel are non-abusive (DF uses The Deck).
The common argument on the other side is that I should simply not visit sites rather than block ads. Some of those arguments go reductio ad absurdum quickly, such as those that equate my blocking ads with their ability to take a car without paying if they don’t like the price. In general, I have sympathy for this argument, but the reality is more complex and nuanced.
There are two aspects to why I don’t buy into the “just don’t use the site” argument:
- First, if the site feels I shouldn’t use the site with advertising disabled, they can block access to users that have ad blocking installed. This is happening in a few cases and if they choose that path I’ll honor it.
- Second and more important, I think it’s important for those sites to know I both want to use their content and I want to have a way to pay for it — just that their current environment is not acceptable to me.
I consider this a form of negotiation with these sites. If I simply stop visiting sites, they will never come up with alternatives that I can accept and remove the blocker for that site. Once I stop visiting a site, it’s unlikely I’ll ever be recaptured as a reader or customer. If that’s what they want, fine, and I admit that ad blocking is a bit of “negotiating via taser”, but then, I consider the activities of these ad networks abusive and less aggressive attempts to moderate their behavior (such as the “do not track” request) were widely ignored. If I am in a park and I’m attacked by an unleashed and angry dog, please don’t tell me I should have let it keep biting me until the owner could come by and calm it down. I’m going to kick it in the nuts until it stops biting..
Some people have argued that ad blockers are unethical, but I think trying to take an ethical high ground while defending the groups ahve have ignored “do not block” and invented things like SuperCookies and other persistant cookies that were designed to allow a user to be tracked weven when they were explicitly trying to not be? It’s up to everyone to make their own decisions, but these ethical arguments are uninteresting and unpersuasive to me.
There is a workable middle ground here: There are a few sites starting to display excerpts of articles, enough to make a rational reading decision on whether I want to see the entire thing; and then asking me to disable the ad blocking to see the entire piece. I’m all for wider adoption of this technique, and if the article is interesting to me, I will.
What I want on the larger scale, however, is for the advertising network industries to fix themselves. They’ve gotten bloated and arrogant, they’re sucking out way more information that I’m willing to voluntarily hand over and they’re acting entitled about accesssing that information. This is not going to be an easy or fast change, and I realize there are going to be casualties. I’m now at the point where I feel that’s a necessary collateral damage, because nicer attempts to say “hey, the interests and needs of the reader needs to be better balanced here” have been rather rudely ignored or rejected. So yeah, a bit of scorched earth is going to happen.
And that’s bad, but the status quo is also unacceptably bad, and if the advertising network industry had been less aggressive and greedy here, there were acceptable middle grounds available. Now, however, they’ve pushed it far enough that the only way back through that middle ground is going to be through some pain and suffering.
I know the publishing sites are caught in the middle here. Rene Ritchie at iMore has been very open about the complexity of this problem. But ultimately these sites have to take responsibility that these ad networks are their vendors and have to find a way to push the vendors to clean up their act, of find alternatives — one hope I have here is that there will be alternative vendors created that promise to solve these issues AND can scale to the needs of these publishers.
The ad networks need to realize they’ve pissed off too many users for too long, and these users now have the tools to gut the advertiser networks off the sites. they can go for scorched earth which will likely kill a lot of sites and ultimately many of these ad networks, or they can work for solutions that users live with (knowing, of course, that enough people are enougb pissed off now that they’ll happily just block everything, probably forever — a side effect of what happens when greedy people find the people they’ve been sucking on are given options that let them return the favor).
I hate forcing a conversation by taser, and running ad blockers feels very much like that. I also feel like I was left no choice, so I don’t have any qualms doing this. I use terms like abuse and entitlement and greed very carefully and thoughtfully here, and I hope the ad network vendors think about why the actions they’ve taken have left so many of us with those feelings about them.
I’m going to be curious how this all plays out. I expect it to be slow, painful for many and fatal for some sites, and that makes me sad nut won’t keep me from sleeping at night. And I, for one, am hoping it won’t be too long before I feel like I can turn the blocker off again — but not as long as doing so will slow down my page viewing times, litter my devices with tracking cookies and spread my usage info god knows where (because none of these trackers are transparent, disclose what they capture, who they distribute it to, or give me opt-out options).
The relationship between the reader of the web page, the publisher of the web page and the advertising vendors has to balance off the needs of all three against each other in a series of compromises. To date, the needs and interests of the reader have been ignored (because they could be), but this new blocker capability ends that and is going to force a change on this. Ultimately, the people who abused this balance for their own short term needs have only themselves to blame for this, too. This pain could have been avoided, but really, once it was decided to ignore the “do not track” options that were put out there, it was clear this fight was inevitable. And now it’s here.
- Is using ad blocking software morally wrong?
- A question about the future of the world wide web
- De Facto Veto Power
- There could be a silver lining behind the ad-blocking apocalypse
- Hands-on with content blocking Safari extensions in iOS 9
- The best content and ad blockers for iPhone and iPad
- AD BLOCKING AND THE FUTURE OF THE WEB
- Who’s to blame for online ad-blocking?
- Welcome to hell: Apple vs. Google vs. Facebook and the slow death of the web
The iPad Pro
Apple has announced their latest version of the iPad, the iPad Pro. it’s large (well, it’s huge), and the best way to describe it is “this is the 17” Macbook of the iPad line”. it’s aimed at a couple of key market segments: artists and graphic designers, and the enterprises road warrior looking for an email/powerpoint device so they dn’t have to carry a large, heavy laptop on the road with them.
Along with this new device Apple announced a new, full-sized keyboard/cover, and a stylus, which has all of the normal Apple technology magic applied so it doesn’t suck like all of the third party stylii did.
This is clearly a niche machine, much like the 17” Macbook was. If you’ve never used a 17” Macbook, it was less a laptop and more a portable office, one you could haul with you but not one you’d want to hold and use — so it was perfect for that person who moves around but wanted a big screen wherever they sat up their office.
This device is not for me, although parts of me are tempted. When I go on the road, I need something much like the iPad pro, except I also need to process images from a day’s shoot, and the iPad just isn’t ready for that yet — two years from now, this might well be different.
The interesting thing (for me) is that I’ve been thinking a lot about having some way to go on the road without hauling my 15” Macbook with me, because over time, it’s gotten big and heavy. the iPad pro is 90% of what I’d need on a road trip, but the other 10% is a killer (I’m not alone in thinking about this). So if I do decide to get a road machine, it’ll likely be a MacBook Air or some other 11/13” screen sized beast. It feels funny to be thinking about buying a laptop so I don’t have ot carry my laptop on the road, but that’s where we are, and the 15” macbook works great as a home device and I see no real value in upgrading to either a Mini or an iMac for a few years.
I do think the iPad Pro will be successful as a niche device, and I’m curious how well it’ll do. There are some fairly well documented issues in the App store that I think Apple needs to think about — specifically the lack of timed trials and no way to do paid, discounted upgrades — but these problems are fixable if Apple chooses to.
The developers of Sketch did a nice job delineating these problems if you’re curious and Ben Thompson of Stratechery has gone into more detail about the challenges of the iPad as a viable market for small developers. Also take a look at Boris Mann’s take.
I know there’s a lot of negativity about the iPad. I’m not one of them. I think the key issue is not that it’s a failed product, but that it’s not a “must have” product and it has a fairly long upgrade cycle because the existing products do quite well at their jobs. Imagine that; a tech company being dinged for not designing planned obsolescence into a product or marketing them in a way to hype people into upgrading them before they really need to… In fact, the iPads out there are being used and not stuck in a drawer, and that tells me these devices will be viable and a good (if not iPhone insanely profitable) for Apple for a long time to come, and I think we’re still figuring out exactly how best they can be used — and the iPad Pro is a sign Apple has found a niche they think it will be useful in and targetted a model specifically into that niche.
- The Forgotten Project That Could Have Saved America From Drought
- Earthprints: Lake Powell
- Saving the Bay: From Rescue to Restoration
- Endangered species return to restored salt pond in southern San Francisco Bay
- Five Steps Toward a Brighter Water Future for California
- Symbols Take Wing: As Habitats Shrink, State Birds Head Elsewhere
- The Great Quake and the Great Drowning
- How Marijuana Farming is Worsening California’s Drought…And What We Can Do to Help
- WHY FREQUENT BUSINESS TRAVEL IS SO BAD FOR YOU
- Chamath Palihapitiya on Insane Burn Rates, IPOs — And Raising A New Real Estate Fund
About Three Dot Lounge
Three Dot Lounge is an email newsletter that collects interesting things that catch my attention and the opinions they generate. Current interests include high tech, living in Silicon Valley and California, the challenges of protecting our wild areas and the impact of the drought on those areas, but content in this newsletter will vary wildly.
Three Dot Lounge is written and produced by Chuq Von Rospach. Chuq is a long-time high tech and internet citizen who’s places of employment include Sun, Palm Computing, HP, Cisco, National Semiconductor and a 17 year tenure at Apple. You can follow Chuq on twitter at @chuq or on Google+ or Facebook.
You can subscribe to or find out more about this mailing list and all of the Three Dot Lounge mailing lists by visiting http://www.threedotlounge.com. Full archives of previous newsletters are available here as well.