I don’t get the author’s comment about ad blocking: he says that iOS 9 introduced support for ad blocking...but people just revert to the default browser...Safari and Chrome?!!! Wasn’t it Safari on iOS 9 where Apple added said ad-blocking support??? As we speak, I have 2 installed (although I have to admit they don’t seem to be blocking all that much).
Ad blocking basically doesn't exist on mobile
Ad blocking may prompt fearful publishers to seek help from consultancies, but it isn't actually interfering with the delivery of ads on mobile devices. According to Augustine Fou – a cybersecurity and ad fraud researcher who runs Marketing Science, an ad consultancy – the actual rate of ad blocking on mobile devices in the US …
COMMENTS
-
-
Saturday 26th August 2017 14:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Safari blocks the worst of the ads
I just picked an ad blocker at random a couple months after the facility became available with iOS 9 - I couldn't even tell you the name of the one I'm using without looking, or if there's something better about. I have no idea how it is deciding what ads to block, but I'll see pages that have panels reading "advertisement" here and there which presumably are the blocked ones, but there are also some ads left in place.
There's a great way to tell how well it actually works though: Facebook. When you follow links in the Facebook app you're using Facebook's built-in browser. It uses WebKit for rendering but doesn't invoke Safari's support for ad blocking. You see all the horrible ads in all their glory, including all the ads that pull you into a different page you can't escape (you can hit Facebook's back arrow at the top left to leave its browser, but then if you go back to the link you have lost your place) that tells you "you won" or shows a roulette wheel type thing...I don't really pay attention because I rarely see that since I got the ad blocker. It is also much slower browsing in Facebook - not sure if that's because Safari is faster, or all that crappy ads are slowing things down.
If you try to read a site using such mal-adware (is there a name for ads that steal you from the page you want?) it is impossible if it requires hitting "next" a dozen times to read the whole thing, like "listicles" will do. You'll get pulled off your page before you can get through it, and then if you go back you'll be at the start again! However, if you use the "open in Safari" option and read it there, it works perfectly. Even better than perfect for pages that support 'reader mode' so it is all in one page with ALL the ads gone. I've never once had an ad steal me to a different page there, either the ad blocker is getting them all or Safari itself has built in protection for ads trying to pull you to another page. It is night and day different.
I know some people hate Apple's control freakery, but one place they could exert some positive control (well positive for users, not for mal-adware scammers or Facebook's bank account) is to require every app using the WebKit framework to use the available adblockers like Safari does.
-
-
-
-
Saturday 26th August 2017 16:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Finally I'm the 1%
So, in a few short posts we've got recommendations for Ublock, Ghostery and AdAway. I use two of those, but how many of us pay for these? And if people don't, how does it all hang together?
Individually, some of us can probably say "I pay, I do!", but that's still not true of the majority of users of these add ons. So what's the catch?
-
Sunday 27th August 2017 23:00 GMT Adam 1
Re: Finally I'm the 1%
uBlock origin (for example) is on github and is GPLv3. The moment they stay any funny business will be the same moment the project gets forked. Whilst I'm sure they would appreciate your donations (and need some), the amount they actually need to survive and even thrive works out to be a very small amount by a very small percentage of users.
Asking "how does this thing make money" is never a bad idea though.
-
-
-
Friday 25th August 2017 23:45 GMT Anonymous Coward
Doesn't exist.. my ass..
The only real issue is to do it meticulously requires a device to be rooted, so novices beware and ensure you accept the risk.
I've rooted all my devices for the past several years and enjoy an ad free experience even for most native applications.. but I've had to spend many long hours fixing a bricked phone after an upgrade as gone wrong. Is it worth it, hell yes.
-
Saturday 26th August 2017 05:00 GMT Bob Vistakin
Re: Doesn't exist.. my ass..
Same here, but I've recently noticed apps detecting rooted devices and refusing to run. Most recently it was the Tesco PayQwik one, which is even worse because when I installed it there was no problem, it's just an update that now throws a fit. The message waffles on about the phone being more susceptible to malware because it's rooted. Some banking or finance app did it a while back too, can't remember which now because, err, it never made it to my phone.
-
-
Saturday 26th August 2017 09:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Doesn't exist.. my ass..
That only works within Firefox though. As above, I use Firefox with ublock and it does the job. All of the other apps I use are ad-free because if they're not, they get uninstalled.
I'm happy enough with the situation. If advertisers get to spam the majority of the population then that's fine by me, as long as I don't have to waste my screen space on annoying flashy graphics that I'll never click on.
-
-
-
Saturday 26th August 2017 21:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Doesn't exist.. my ass..
> The only real issue is to do it meticulously requires a device to be rooted, so novices beware and ensure you accept the risk.
Assuming stock Android or LineageOS (ex-Cyanogenmod), root is not strictly necessary if the user is capable of "freezing" so-called non-uninstallable apps and uses only ad- and tracking-free applications from F-Droid. Of course, if you are misguided enough to have a phone from a certain South Korean manufacturer, you're shafted.
Personally, I will not own any computers that I cannot gain root access to, and that includes phones. All mine are rooted, do not have a Google account (I myself don't), all the Google applications are removed, and of course I do not have any so-called "social media" accounts. Oh, and back to the point, the mobile browsers all have uBlock Origin installed: works a charm.
-
Sunday 27th August 2017 10:55 GMT NonSSL-Login
Re: Doesn't exist.. my ass..
Adguard for android gets around having to have root to ad-block all traffic by pushing traffic through a pretend VPN connection on the phone. Neat little trick, just can't be used at the same time as a real VPN on your phone, which is not an issue for most users.
As stupid as this sounds, I carry around two phones these days. One rooted, xposed, ad-free but also with some security software and other apps that require root. The second phone as much as I would like to root, I run banking apps, android pay and media streaming that refuse to work on rooted phone.
Running banking apps on my rooted for years before getting a new phone was safer as ads were blocked at such a low level that there was no chance of malware-laden ads infecting me with a drive by exploit. Then the banks updated their apps to not work with root...barstewards.
-
-
-
Saturday 26th August 2017 12:58 GMT Justin Clift
Re: iOS Safari
Tried out "Firefox Focus" on iOS a few days ago... but it doesn't seem to support tabs (or at least I couldn't find them) so was pretty useless.
Went to delete it then discovered that it can provide ad blocking for Safari. So enabled that, fired up Safari... and no ads on things. And that has tabs.
It's kind of weird that Firefox Focus makes Safari usable, and well, it works so no worries. :)
-
-
-
Saturday 26th August 2017 08:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Try pihole....
I was just going to mention that one, I use it for all the tablets at home, my phone runs cm and an adblocker, can't remember which one without checking as it's been that long since I installed it or saw an ad. I also run a firewall which lets me choose which network apps can access, very useful.
All the apps on all the devices work and you still do get some ads but they are the ones served by the app themselves so no annoying videos etc...
-
-
-
-
Saturday 26th August 2017 14:32 GMT DropBear
Re: No Root Firewall
Sage advice, but these days it's quite literally only calculator or torch apps that don't insist on having Internet access, and I'm not even sure about those either these days... there are entire classes of apps I have to stay away from because no matter how long you search, there's not a single one that doesn't want everything all the way to your sock size.
-
-
-
Saturday 26th August 2017 12:08 GMT Not also known as SC
iOS
I'm stuck with an iphone at the moment. The only way of blocking ads I've found is to disable javascript in the options. Most websites are still usable and the ones which aren't I just don't visit. A fringe benefit apart from no ads is that I don't seem to get auto-playing videos in the middle of the page any more.
-
-
Saturday 26th August 2017 14:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: iOS
There are plenty of adblockers for iOS. I just checked and I use Firefox Focus (it is a browser but also functions as an adblocker)
It looks like iOS can support more than one at once, even. I honestly haven't checked into this at all since iOS 9 added the support because what few ads do get through when I'm browsing with Safari are not problematic as far as I'm concerned. I don't need perfection, just a good browsing experience, which Firefox Focus seems to provide (and I didn't have to disable Javascript)
-
-
Saturday 26th August 2017 13:21 GMT David Roberts
Opera Mini here
Chrome and Firefox used to be fine on my Sony Xperia Z tablet (the original one) but gradually got slower and slower with soft keyboard and URL click through problems.
Full fat Opera was no better but so far Opera Mini seems to do the job.
I do wonder if the ad funded apps are swamping the numbers.
-
-
-
Monday 28th August 2017 08:30 GMT Tim Seventh
some large men in dark suits with a suitcase of cash in one hand and a hammer in the other, who said "which would you prefer?"
Guy 1: I'll take the cash.
The men then thrown the suitcase of cash to Guy 1, knocking him on the floor unconscious with the suitcase.
Guy 2: HA! Owned. I'll take the hammer.
The men then thrown the hammer to Guy 2, knocking him on the floor unconscious with the hammer.
Guy 3: I'll take your dark suits.
The large men took off their suits, and thrown the suits to Guy 3. Guy 3 remained conscious and picked up the suits, the suitcase and the hammer.
Guy 3: Thanks for everything.
-
Sunday 27th August 2017 09:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
Network-provider ad blocking - great concept, but $$$.
I remember Three's plans being reported in various places last year (including right here) and e.g.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/three-uk-to-block-ads-across-its-mobile-network-a7049511.html
What wasn't quite so widely reported was the family connection between the adblock technology provider and Three's parent company: Li Ka-Shing is involved with both:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/18/mobile-giant-three-to-block-online-advertising/
I don't remember seeing any reports of the abandonment of the trial, not anywhere I visit regularly anyway. I found one just now:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/three-decides-not-to-launch-ad-blocking-for-consumers-2016-11
Oh well. Pioneering UK ISP Metronet used to have an optional network-level transparent proxy on their DSL services which offered options like content filtering by category (adverts, adult, etc) and also did data compression on the fly for graphics and other readily compressible stuff. I miss Metronet.
As mentioned elsewhere, PiHole is neat, in the right circumstances:
https://pi-hole.net/
-
Sunday 27th August 2017 12:14 GMT Justin Clift
Re: Network-provider ad blocking - great concept, but $$$.
> What wasn't quite so widely reported was the family connection between the adblock technology provider and Three's parent company: Li Ka-Shing is involved with both ...
You're making that sound nefarious. It's not necessarily the case. Someone involved at a high level with (say) Three in this case could see a problem/opportunity, spin up a company to make a solution, and then get it trialled to see if it works in real world.
That may or may not be what happened in this instance, but it's a pretty standard approach.
*************
Reading that article you linked to... yeah, it does sound like they went with a scam operator "Shine" instead. They block content but if the content generator (facebook, etc) agrees to a revenue sharing split then they stop blocking them. That's definitely not acting in good faith.
-
-