Skip to main content

The Ad-blocking Revolution May Be Mere Months Away, But That's Not A Good Thing

Charles Arthur is far from my favourite journalist, I dislike his all too apparent bias and inability to take a balanced view. Sometimes though he's right on the money. Here's a good example, on his latest post around ad-blocking, which becomes an OS level feature with the launch of iOS 9.
Let's all agree on something here. There are terribly intrusive, bandwidth heavy ads on the internet. They make pages load slower and delay you in getting to the content that you're after.
Against that you have to weigh the desire of the content publisher to be paid for the time, effort and costs of making that content available to you. My view has always been if you don't want the pain of the ads go to another site and there are sites I no longer visit specifically for this reason.
The view of others is that by blocking bad adverts we encourage advertisers to use less intrusive ones. That seems naïve to me. In any technology 'war' like this all that actually happens is that the two sides become involved in an ever-escalating war of attrition.
What does concern me is Apple's motivation behind this move. Is it really about improving user's internet experience or an opportunity to damage Google's advertising business? More so, how does putting control of allowable content into the hands of the company affect the neutrality of the internet itself.
Will websites that publish negative review or commentary about Apple or its products suddenly find that they get added to blacklists which cut off their revenue stream by blocking adverts? The potential for misuse is huge, even if that capability isn't currently part of the Apple ad-blocking model.
The truth is that if we were hearing about this as a Microsoft construct, with control of what advertising is allowed from which websites potentially resting in Redmond, there would be uproar and outcry.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…