Every Major Advertising Group Is Blasting Apple for Blocking Cookies in the Safari Browser (adweek.com) 442
The biggest advertising organizations say Apple will "sabotage" the current economic model of the internet with plans to integrate cookie-blocking technology into the new version of Safari. Marty Swant, reporting for AdWeek: Six trade groups -- the Interactive Advertising Bureau, American Advertising Federation, the Association of National Advertisers, the 4A's and two others -- say they're "deeply concerned" with Apple's plans to release a version of the internet browser that overrides and replaces user cookie preferences with a set of Apple-controlled standards. The feature, which is called "Intelligent Tracking Prevention," limits how advertisers and websites can track users across the internet by putting in place a 24-hour limit on ad retargeting. In an open letter expected to be published this afternoon, the groups describe the new standards as "opaque and arbitrary," warning that the changes could affect the "infrastructure of the modern internet," which largely relies on consistent standards across websites. The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
The varnish is off (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The varnish is off (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: The varnish is off (Score:4, Insightful)
Advertising is a wasteful industry. It's completely not needed at all. The pharma industry unethically and immorality advertisers to consumers and give doctors perks for selling their shit instead of letting the professionals pick the appropriate medicine and treatment
Most ads for products are for complete junk nobody actually needs. The advertising industry is a leach on society
Re: (Score:3)
Most ads for products are for complete junk nobody actually needs. The advertising industry is a leach on society
True, but only for "most". There are some companies I actively follow on Facebook and/or Twitter simply because I'm truly interested in seeing their new products when they come out. Sideshow Collectibles being a prime example.
The ting is, from what I can tell, they STILL haven't gotten a computer algorithm that really targets things you actually want to see. Sure, if I'm searching for a guitar it might start showing guitar ads, but that's something was actively looking for already, so I don't really need
Re: The varnish is off (Score:3)
Re: The varnish is off (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: The varnish is off (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing inherently wrong with advertising. It serves an important role.
But it's gone very wrong, and not just online. I think it's gone wrong in three basic ways:
1) It generally fails to fulfill one of the primary reasons for its existence: to actually and honestly inform people about products.
2) It has become too pervasive. Ads shouldn't cover every square inch of everything.
3) It has become way too intrusive.
Personally, I'm resigned to the notion that #1 and 2 will never change.
#3, though, is completely unacceptable. The fact that advertising companies spend so much time and energy working to defeat my efforts to keep them out of my metaphorical drawers means that they have placed themselves in the role of my enemy.
And since they have chosen to be my enemy, I will treat them as such until/unless the time comes that they can act in a more decent fashion.
Re: The varnish is off (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention the psychological problems caused by playing with people's self-esteem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hippo butt leeches. (Score:2)
Perhaps the biologists studying hippo butt leeches [slashdot.org]? Because "yes, there are simularities."
Cheers,
Re:The varnish is off (Score:4, Interesting)
What's the Latin phrase, about "who benefits?" It applies here. Who benefits from online advertising? Among others, Google, one of Apple's main competitors and the single major threat to the IOS ecosystem. Hurting online advertising hurts Google, and Apple thinks that benefits them.
Re: (Score:3)
It may have a lot more to do with where Apple makes their money, who their biggest competitor is, and how their competitor makes their money.
Maybe more likely than your pipe dream that the companies with high profit margins make decisions that benefit customers.
Re: (Score:3)
However, I'm referencing what the summary actually said
You shouldn't ever accept summaries as authoritative. In this case, you shouldn't even accept the article that was summarized as authoritative.
The reality is we don't actually know the nitty-gritty details of how this works yet, and to draw any conclusions (let alone get outraged by them) is extremely premature.
Can ads get any less timely and useful? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can ads get any less timely and useful? (Score:5, Insightful)
I constantly get ads for the thing I've recently purchased.
I can't imagine a less effective form of advertising.
Re: Can ads get any less timely and useful? (Score:3)
Re: Can ads get any less timely and useful? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps they're selectively feeding you some ads that are more relevant, but tossing in some crap like that so it doesn't appear too obvious. Or maybe someone else temporary had that IP and was making different searches with it that are influencing the results.
Re: Can ads get any less timely and useful? (Score:5, Funny)
Now I can sue Target for knowing I'm pregnant before I do, yet advertising scotch glasses to me, thus encouraging me to drink alcohol while pregnant!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the advertisers are only tied into the search data.. not the purchase data. They don't know you actually made the purchase already. It's cheap enough for them to take the gamble and blast everybody with their search history.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the advertisers are only tied into the search data.. not the purchase data. They don't know you actually made the purchase already. It's cheap enough for them to take the gamble and blast everybody with their search history.
That is their problem, not mine. I find things to buy by searching for them. If they want me to find their things and buy them then they need to work with the search people (google, amazon, bangood etc.) so that I find them when I search. Coming around like annoying little yippy dogs after every purchase, barking "Buy this too!!" is neither going to get them a sale nor get me to go to them for stuff in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
That example, I believe, is a failing of whoever bought that particular ad space.
And it's all too common. Well thought out advertising can actually be helpful to the consumer, but I almost never see well thought out advertising. The crap that's constantly hurled in my direction typically tell
Re: (Score:3)
Well thought out advertising can actually be helpful to the consumer, but I almost never see well thought out advertising.
I never see it. Helpful advertising is advertising that tells me what I need to know about a product and is honest in its representation.
The last time I saw advertising that was actually helpful was in technical journals in the late '70s/early '80s.
All the advertising I've seen since then (and that was niche) has been useless garbage, whether or not it's for the type of product I'm interested in.
Re: (Score:3)
My wife has a yarn store. The customer base has a very, very well defined demographic and they tend to buy yarn and related stuff many times.
The single best advertising we can buy is through Facebook. They target at the people within a certain distance in the knitting and crochet groups on Facebook with our ads, which essentially say "There's a yarn store over there". This has a measurable effect on increasing customers. Advertising through Google. the papers and other places has achieved nothing. Google m
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the advertisers are only tied into the search data.. not the purchase data. They don't know you actually made the purchase already. It's cheap enough for them to take the gamble and blast everybody with their search history.
Some times they are though. When I book a hotel through one of the sites that do this, I keep getting emails about booking in thy same place I already made reservations in.
Re: (Score:2)
I constantly get ads for the thing I've recently purchased.
Sometimes the websites are particularly stupid about it, too. I looked at a couple of items on Willams-Sonoma and other sites, and for a month after I received them after ordering from Willams-Sonoma, I kept getting daily emails from them saying that I'd put these items in my shopping cart, and they could only hold them there for 30 days before they'd fall off.
In your case, though, the ad company may only be getting information about what you looked at, and doesn't know that you bought it. If the ads are co
Re: (Score:3)
To get you to buy another as a gift (Score:2)
My guess as to the retargeting apologist's reply: "Have you bought another of the helmet as a gift for another biker in your circle of friends?"
Re:Can ads get any less timely and useful? (Score:5, Funny)
I bought a motorcycle helmet years ago, I still get ads for the helmet and others I researched.
Oh! But wasn't your purchase just the first step towards a lifelong hobby of collecting motorcycle helmets?
Re: (Score:3)
You're modded up 'funny,' but, motorcycle helmets have a relatively short lifespan (3-5 years) even if/when you don't crash. http://www.smf.org/helmetfaq#aWhyReplace [smf.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a motorcycle helmet years ago, I still get ads for the helmet and others I researched. Fucking ads suck.
I don't generally surf much on my phone. I do get gmail on it. And at home I have adblockers, ghostery and noscript. But I was at an event and I noticed some people "vaping". I was curious about it, so looked it up on the phone. I get back home, and am inundated with email and notifications regarding electronic cigarettes and vaping. Rat bastards - I verified the reason I need to lock my browser down at home.
Google, please get on board with this!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless Apple has a patent on it...
I have to manage enough other stuff and generally ignore cookies.
That said, cookies do show me what my wife is shopping for on Amazon, but I don't need to see that (it is funny to call her and implicitly talk about what's she's looking at, but that only worked a couple of times).
Re:Google, please get on board with this!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're far creepier than just an ad company. an ad company wants to sell you shit, or direct you towards people who want to sell you shit.
Google wants to *own* all of your online activities; for reasons they haven't even though of .. yet.
Re:Google, please get on board with this!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
They are, indeed, more than just an ad company. But over 90% of the total revenue comes from advertising.
They odds of Google "getting on board" with this are less than zero. They may well hire ninja assassins to take out the Apple execs behind this.
Google won't, but Mozilla could. (Score:3)
As has been pointed out, Google is an advertising company cubed and won't do this unless they're forced to. But Mozilla and Firefox (and it's descendants) could, and I hope they will. All the more reason to switch (back) to Firefox.
might get me to use Safari (Score:2, Insightful)
This might just get me to use Safari.. The idea that advertisers have any right to users browsing habits is a concept that needs to be crushed.
Targeted Ads? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I have to see ads on a web site, my preference is that they are "generic and less timely and useful" since I'm going to ignore them anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
If I have to see ads on a web site, my preference is that they are "generic and less timely and useful" since I'm going to ignore them anyway.
Um, if you're ignoring them why do you care what they are? Do you mean that you're trying to ignore them, but those damn timely, relevant ads are tempting you to use money you shouldn't? If so I think you're their primary market...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't click on ads as a matter of principle. At the same time, I recognize that ads are highly engineered to distract me and grab my attention, and that this engineering is not without success. So, even though there is a 100% chance that I am not going to "bite", I know that a good ad will be able to distract me.
As such, wishing for less effective ads is perfectly reasonable and respectable.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, if you're ignoring them why do you care what they are? Do you mean that you're trying to ignore them, but those damn timely, relevant ads are tempting you to use money you shouldn't? If so I think you're their primary market...
I don't know about them, but when I get an interest in buying something I'll look around various places looking at pricing and alternatives, then put it aside for a while to ruminate about it. If I start getting ads for that product every second or third webpage I go to, it makes me start wondering what's wrong with it that they need to try to flog it that hard to me trying to get me to buy it, and it makes me less likely to buy it.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, if you're ignoring them why do you care what they are?
Personally, I don't care if they're there -- but I care a lot about the tracking that they bring with them.
Re: (Score:3)
It must be good then! (Score:5, Insightful)
If "Every Major Advertising Group" hates this, then it shows that Apple is probably doing the right thing :-)
These guys killed "Do-Not-Track" in the US and made a joke of "cookie laws" in the EU. Looks like now they have found a stronger opponent.
Re:It must be good then! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is really significant in a few ways:
1) This isn't something Google can do, because obviously Google's bread and butter is ads (though, let's be real—I bet Google could do better, less disruptive advertising if they wanted to)
2) Apple's users are disproportionately represented in online purchasing. When you see stats for online Black Friday sales, most mobile sales are on iOS devices. This makes Apple's decision hit twice as hard despite having less market share.
I'm sure it won't be long before ad agencies come up with some other irksome method of ruining my online browsing experience, but I'm so happy someone is trying *something* to mess with these guys.
Re:It must be good then! (Score:5, Informative)
Google used to. Google used to be famous for unobtrusive, text only ads.
Then they bought DoubleClick.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony is that if these advertisements weren't so abusive to begin with, people wouldn't be nearly as annoyed with it and we wouldn't need to spend development time on making it go away. It's the same situation as an industry that self regulates in order to make it unnecessary for government to regulate them.
That is, until a bad actor comes along and forces the government's regulatory hand...
Re:It must be good then! (Score:4, Interesting)
or maybe someone who can make those decisions just got pissed at cookies for some reason and they don't see any harm to Apple in using their 800 pound gorilla status.
Re:It must be good then! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's both, in this case.
1) Their major competitors rely on advertising, so disrupting the advertising market has the potential to damage their competitors.
2) Ads diminish the user experience, so disrupting their ability to operate provides immense benefit to their users and could become a differentiating factor, given that their competitors can't afford to attack ads so directly.
So yup, it's self-serving, but their interests align with consumers in this case, so we get to win.
Subsidies (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple doesn't subsidize their hardware by selling your private information to people.
Ever wonder why Google gives away Android?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Their #1 competitor is Google, which gets a large majority of it's money from internet advertising.
Gee, I wonder who they could possibly be targeting with this move...
Re:It must be good then! (Score:5, Insightful)
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. It does not make us friends. It may make us temporary allies.
Block third-party cookies, done... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hadn't thought about it, but all major browsers allow users to block third-party cookies. If they would only make this the default behavior, it would do a world of good. And piss of the marketeers even more.
The only problem I ever have is when I want to read comments on a site that has outsource them to an external service like Disqus. But then, that's usually a good reason to skip the site entirely...
Re:Block third-party cookies, done... (Score:5, Insightful)
And most of them will die off, and nothing of value will be lost.
There was an internet before it was taken over by the likes of marketers, and it was great.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ads will just be less targeted, that's all. They will still make money,
How about: Instead of PayWalls, websites start prompting users to provide their E-mail address or Facebook username, before you can see the content you want; they might network publishers and give you a "User Key" you type in once to set a 24 hour cookie and use across their network.
People are more likely to supply some small bit of info than to pay, AND the small bit of info can be used as a database key to attribute the username
Re: (Score:2)
Will they make less? I think there's a good chance that the current advertising market is the result of runaway selection. Like a peacock. The advertisers might be better off if they were all forced to use simple, cheap, generic ads rather than all having to throw money at tracking, maintaining giant databases, data analysis research, all just so they don't fall slightly behind their competitors.
Re: (Score:3)
In addition, the issue here is targeting, but ads have already been targeted for decades simply on the basis of where the ad would appear.
I think the issue isn't targeting, it's tracking. The sort of targeting you mention here is not objectionable at all. In fact, it's kindof interesting because you, as a user, could get an idea of what the target audience for the site in question is based on the ads it runs.
like how supermarket reward cards work.
The "reward" you get for supermarket reward cards is that they won't egregiously overcharge you. You aren't really getting anything of value, since those "discount" reward prices tend to be the normal price at stores that don't do reward
Re:Block third-party cookies, done... (Score:5, Insightful)
* I understand that I haven't clicked on an ad on purpose since 1997, so even if blocked entirely, they're not losing any money from me.
* I understand that advertisers can still advertise without cookies. They just can't invade my privacy to do it, and they might have to pick some other metric (like being topical to the site they're on) as an idea generator.
* I understand that sites can still run ads and make money without the use of massive spying organizations. They can make their own ads. They can use cookie-less ads. They can do a lot of things.
So no, I don't see how adding some privacy and cookie-blocking makes everything all go away automatically, without any recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
* I understand that sites can still run ads and make money without the use of massive spying organizations. They can make their own ads.
I understand that you never tried to operate a website in your life. I was with you until this piece of self-centered ****.
Most sites specialize in one thing, whether it's selling ceiling fans, reporting local news or sharing pictures of sloths. That's what they are good at. Getting additional personnel who are qualified at managing and selling ads for the site is prohibitively expensive and difficult. This is why online ad agencies exist. They are the middlemen who specialize in the buying and selling of a
Re:Block third-party cookies, done... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see the problem here. How much do you think that page impression is earning the site? The reason micropayments have never taken off is that advertising is easier. Make advertising harder, and maybe I'll finally get a mechanism that supports the sites I visit without demanding that I be exposed to brain viruses when I visit it. This is a win for me, and it's a win for the site—ask any web designer how much they love making space for ads on their pages.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple = Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
For all of the complaints people have about Apple, I feel the one thing that really sets them apart is their continuing effort to protect the user's privacy, even at the cost of software functionality. Siri has been lagging far behind other services, and at least some of it is due to her inability to track a user's preferences and habits. Apple is now introducing changes to the software that attempt to solve this by storing the information locally on the user's device so that government and law enforcement officials can't "demand" the data from Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup.
For all the shit I give Apple (and it's a lot -- Apple is not exactly a saintly company), they do have this going for them. It places them head-and-shoulders above the other major players.
When will they learn? (Score:2)
Advertisers are lost... (Score:4, Informative)
The idea that "consumers" want ads, much less that they want "timely and useful" ads is mistaken.
Ultimately though, I imagine it is good for Google, Facebook, and other advanced tracking providers; they can easily evade any tracking avoidance strategies... unless Apple decides to proxy everything via iCloud.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they do. What? You think you are the consumer? Ha, you are the product! Nothing is ever free whether it is Chrome or Windows 10.
Unless you want to pay money in this case for Apple products you are going to get shafted.
Re: (Score:2)
Advertisers want ads, AND they want to make as-efficient use of the space as possible -- which means showing you an ad that has the highest probability of a potential conversion. If they can't target them, then the value of the ad-space decreases, AND we will begin to see a larger volume of ads on websites to make up for the diminishing efficiency..... Remember those webpages in the 1990s that didn't just have a couple ads, but pages and pages of ads interspersed with the content, with Popups?
That's
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that "consumers" want ads, much less that they want "timely and useful" ads is mistaken.
Most viewers want to read articles without having to pay a dollar per page (to compensate for per-transaction fees typical of credit card processors) or pay per site per year. They accept ads as a means to this end.
Another reason why I use Safari mostly (Score:4, Insightful)
So on my Mac I have Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Firefox has a whole heap of extensions that help keep things tight so I'll use that in the darker regions of the net, and Chrome works well with Google Docs so that's pretty much all I use it for. Safari is my main browser and that's what I'm using now. For all the hate Apple gets they did kill Flash and if they can kill cookies then all the better, especially on mobile.
As others have said, Google is an advertising company and for all the good things about Android, that's the main thing that keeps me away. You would think though that the rise of AdBlock, and do not track, and cookie controls would be enough to tell these advertisers that we don't like what they're doing? Don't they track that stuff?
Simple solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then they'll think the website is broken. Better idea to send them to a "landing page" explaining them to complain to Apple, or prompt them for an E-Mail address or other tracking key every time they load content, and funnel that to advertisers.
Anything these jerks are against... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the advertising industry is opposed to this move, then I'm all for it. Fuck them.
Ads? (Score:3)
Protecting their product (Score:2)
Heard it before - Reader mode (Score:2)
Don't you want "timely and useful" ads? (Score:5, Insightful)
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
If timely and useful advertising is so valuable to us users, then why are they giving it away for free?
They should make us pay a subscription fee to get timely and useful ads.
And seeing what percentage of the population that signs up to pay for "timely and useful" ads would indicate whether the advertisers are full of shit or not.
Wow (Score:2)
Apple doing something good, amazing
Don't do me any favors (Score:2)
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
Won't somebody please think of the users? These ad groups are just trying to get them the information they need! *chortle*
I always get a kick out of it when these types of groups make it sound like they give a crap about the wellbeing of their cattle. Like anyone wants to see their ads in the first place.
Please complain LOUDER (Score:3)
So everyone can hear how upset you are about a marginal loss of ability to stalk users as they move from website to website.
Phone the press... demand they cover this very important issue before it's too late. Better still.. launch a public awareness campaign... after all stalkers have rights and are people too.
Yay Apple!! (Score:3)
I can't believe that the ad agencies are still trotting this out:
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
It's almost as if they actually believe that spying on everyone is a good thing. But then, they also say this:
collectively representing thousands of companies that responsibly participate in and shape today’s digital landscape
Judging by their use of the word "responsibly" there, I'm thinking that they simply don't understand what words mean.
OK then.... (Score:2)
- Sites which demand removal of ad blockers are avoided.
- Pages which demand payment after a couple of paragraphs, showing encrypted content below that payment demand have their window closed.
- Unique email addresses used for any purchase or other web contact and deleted when they start sucking.
- The greatest sucker for me right now is opera-mini, whenever one opens a new tab or window _not_ with ssl, they bring up an ad page in your face instead the URL you entered - immediately hated and ignored, not even
Your ads hurt my user experience. (Score:5, Interesting)
To the Interactive Advertising Bureau, American Advertising Federation, the Association of National Advertisers, the 4A's and two others:
Your ads hurt my user experience.
Your tracking hurts my privacy.
Your infected ads hurt my computer.
Basically, you hurt people. If you disappear that will be a good thing.
Excellent! (Score:2)
The only "standards" these guys are in favor of are the ones that line their pocketbooks. Do-not-track is a standard, and all these fuckers ignore it.
Apple should put it in raw, deep, hard, and repeatedly.
Still having trouble with this (Score:3)
I can't recall a single time in my entire internet history that I've ever purposefully clicked on an ad. Relevant or not, I blanket ignore them and always have. I've been trying to figure out how so many people use ads on the internets that they're a lucrative business.
I SEE them. Sometimes they're for things that I might actually want or use. But even when Google shows me exactly what I want in my search, I skip past the advertised slots. There's 1/100th of a penny they may not get, but there's a slightly weaker advertising profile they have on me.
But this could BREAK THE INTERNET! (Score:3)
In an open letter expected to be published this afternoon, the groups describe the new standards as âoeopaque and arbitrary,â warning that the changes could affect the âoeinfrastructure of the modern internet,â which largely relies on consistent standards across websites.
When will people learn that what is provided to a web browser is merely a series of suggestions? The browser can take the suggestions, or discard them, and there is only so much the server side can do about it. I've seen website refuse to show content to browsers that block JavaScript or cookies but that's fine, I don't have to go to your site.
If their advertising model can be broken with a web browser that provides a feature that people want then perhaps they should change their advertising model. Disposing of cookies that want to exist until the end of time is a place to start. Ignoring autoplay requests would also be nice. If I want to watch your video then I'll hit the play button, thankyouverymuch.
Baked by Elves (Score:3)
Re:Microsoft wouldn't do this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
god dammit, i was just going to post that! tiny, minuscule violins are about to become the new hot ticket item. (will they come in white?)
Re: (Score:2)
Small violins, get your small violins here
flagged as spam - advertising
"yes, I would like you to follow me around while you shout in my ear about what a wonderful deal on useless crap you have for me" -- said nobody ever
Re: (Score:2)
(i jest)
No JS means you can run only 1 OS's apps (Score:2)
Now if they also stop supporting javascript it would definitely be a browser worth using !
If web browser developers were to stop supporting JavaScript, web application developers would make native applications instead. And many such developers aren't going to have the resources to make and thoroughly test five versions of each native application, one for each of GNU/Linux, Android, Windows, macOS, and iOS. This means users will end up unable to use some applications that they would have been able to use had they been web applications.
Or should a developer deliver a Windows application that has b
Re:A good start (Score:4, Interesting)
This really needs modding up. I am surprised the advertisers are even slightly concerned about cookies anymore when browser fingerprinting is a far more insidious and (currently) difficult to overcome privacy invasion for the end-user.
Since Google has persuaded almost everyone and their kid brother to run adsense code on the page, they have a canvas-fingerprint-trackable record of clickstream from page-to-page/site-to-site.
Tools like panopticlick [eff.org] and ipduh [ipduh.com] can give you an immediate sense of the problem, but trying to reduce it is tricky.
To sidestep fingerprinting pretty much means running the Tor browser or Firefox with Random Agent Spoofer, Decentraleyes, and a custom user.js set up with something like pyllyukko's prefs [github.com].
Re: (Score:2)
A better user experience doesn't involve ads.
I agree. A user experience is possible without ads. You just have to chan...
To read the rest of this comment, log in to your comments by tepples account or subscribe to comments by tepples.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the nice way of saying "This prevents us from targeting users"
Re: (Score:2)
The groups say the feature also hurts user experience by making advertising more "generic and less timely and useful."
Utter and total BS! A better user experience doesn't involve ads.
And you can argue that generic ads may bring something to your attention that you wouldn't have encountered with ads targeted toward the things you've recently read or searched for. When the advertisers start saying "less timely and useful", what they're saying is that they have to fall back on serving ads that you're less likely to respond to, making the ads less valuable, limiting the prices they are able to charge the companies for ad placement. Nothing about generic ads hurts you; they only inconvenien
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an ad blocker. It's more like a "self-destructing cookie" plugin.
Why invent a fake villain? there are real ones... (Score:3)
No, not because they are better human beings, but because *that's what their business model demands*.
They make money by selling physical devices and they are judged by how well those devices work. They have every financial incentive to improve the actual user experience.
Re:Oh noes!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
It will be when most sites will become paywalled. More high quality sites will go down the drain because of the lack of funds, so they'll either have to block completely (there are some already doing this) or devolve into clickbait.
Fine by me. Most sites -- and especially sites that rely heavily on advertising -- aren't exactly indispensible to me. The ones that are, I'm already paying cash money to.
I think it's high time for the web to break its addiction to advertising. There are other, better, ways to pay operating costs, but none of them will be adopted as long as it's easy to do ads. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the overall quality of web offerings dropped when advertising became the predominant revenue model.