Crystal, iOS ad blocker, to accept money to let ads through

http://www.wsj.com/articles/propelled-by-apple-ad-blocking-cottage-industry-emerges-1443115929

by NN88 • 11 years ago

306 192 11 years ago

Karunamon5• 11 years ago

And just like that, Crystal was uninstalled.

Didn't take long for the conflicts of interest to show up!

"According to Mr. Murphy, he isn’t adding the option for financial gain, but rather to make sure publishers aren’t overburdened by all-out blocking of ads on their sites."

My response to which is: "Who do you think you're fooling? You are taking money to allow people to defeat the core purpose of your application."

Secret Media plans to only work with “premium” publishers who don’t bombard users with large amounts of low-quality advertising.

Is there any other kind?

danielhgma• 11 years ago

taking money to allow people to defeat the core purpose of your application.

Seriously. This is so bad for users

epistasis5• 11 years ago

Perhaps for you, but this does not subvert the core purpose of Crystal for me.

I will continue using Crystal, with the default option, since I don't mind seeing minimal, non-intrusive ads that don't completely disrupt my user experience. And I don't have a problem with responsible websites with responsible ads getting paid.

In fact, this option to have vetted ads is pretty much ideal for me!

Edit: I'm curious, why do people dislike my preference here? I'm not saying anybody else has to like Crystal, just that it's matches my desires.

dapearce• 11 years ago

According to the article it sounds like an optional feature which can be turned off.

It allows people who want to support ad-based publishers with quality ads, while still blocking the heavy junk.

Not an unacceptable thing to me, especially if it makes the developer some extra money without forcing me to let the ads through.

Karunamon5• 11 years ago

It's always an "optional feature" - but the app is closed source.

Also, given that the blockers don't have the sophistication level that you'd expect from say, µBlock, where you can just click on something annoying and banish it, is that ad being displayed because the ad company is giving backhanders to the developer, or was it just missed in the filter? Who knows?

Ad blocking software having "acceptable ads" is identical to antivirus software having "acceptable viruses".

Ooh, I just reread the article. The company trying to convince blocking software to do this is the outfit behind the original Adblock Plus, the original people who started this practice.

nugget5• 11 years ago

Quality ads like Taboola and Outbrain? It's an extortion scheme to shake down ad networks for money and nothing else. I'm surprised the developer of Crystal was so short sighted, as this increases the chances that someone will make a no-whitelist app that will become more popular and displace him (as uBlock and Adblock are slowly displacing ABP). Not to mention the fact that users are PAYING him to block ads and then he turns around and defeats part of the app's only feature.

mkozlows• 11 years ago

If Crystal gave an option to "allow high-quality ads" and then that list of high-quality ads was curated carefully in the users' interests, it could make sense.

But as soon as people start paying to be included on that list, it's not a list of high-quality ads, it's a list of people that have paid you money that you have decided meet some minimum bar (that you have incentives to keep low).

guyzero• 11 years ago

This is exactly what the most popular desktop browser ad blockers do.

mtgx• 11 years ago

You mean what Adblock Plus alone does.

adiabatty• 11 years ago

> large amounts of low-quality advertising.
Is there any other kind?

I'd say The Deck manages to be high-quality, low-volume advertising. One of their rules is "our ad is the only ad on the page".

http://decknetwork.net/

Artisanal ad networks targeted to web workers don't exactly _scale_ to the rest of the ad industry, but non-irritating advertising exists.

mbesto• 11 years ago

There are a few others who also operate with the same model, but they are generally considered small businesses (or "lifestyle businesses"). Unfortunately these inherently have ceilings to them and market dynamics dictate you will always have someone more greedy who will try to build AdSense-like dominance.

tedunangst2• 11 years ago

This is where the people making the blocklists get stuck. Marcus Aurelius, ad block developer, decides that the deck ads aren't that annoying, don't break the page they're on, are low bandwidth, don't track you, etc. And so MA leaves them out of the list. But everyday he gets 100 bug reports "I still see ads!!!" from users who never want to see a single advertisement on any site ever. What's MA going to do? Probably give up.

rnovak• 11 years ago

Those aren't video ads. The specific example the GP is referencing says specifically they develop video ads that aren't detectable.

     to help them deliver video ads in a way that 
     cannot be detected by ad-blocking tools.

Literally one of the worst types.

PhasmaFelis3• 11 years ago

I am told that Project Wonderful (https://www.projectwonderful.com/) is pretty good. Haven't looked into it deeply myself, though.

bpicolo• 11 years ago

The real shit ones are mobile websites that do both the following at the same time 1. Giant in your face have-to-close ad. 2. Massive bar at bottom with tiny close button

tomjen3• 11 years ago

They allow gif ads if i recall and haven't got a way to give feedback (ie your ad is for a bad product).

SmellyGeekBoy• 11 years ago

Artisanal ad networks

Now I really have heard everything...

markcerqueira• 11 years ago

Is there any other kind?

Yes there is. Sometimes I see ads for stuff that I didn't know about and am genuinely interested in. Yes, it's rare, but it does happen.

newscracker3• 11 years ago

One reason I didn't jump into buying an ad blocker was because I knew there could be some free ones coming in. Another reason was because I knew there could be some compromises that the makers of the ad blockers would make "in good faith" on behalf of their users (which could also be a sellout or seen as a sellout).

I'm glad I didn't buy Crystal. I would've been frustrated enough to request a refund from Apple if I did.

KenanSulayman• 11 years ago

And it's deleted. Thanks

ceejayoz2• 11 years ago

Don't just delete it. Go to https://reportaproblem.apple.com/ and get an (instant, no questions asked) refund.

dang2• 11 years ago

We changed the title from "Creator of Crystal, iOS ad blocker, to accept money to let certain ads through", which appears editorialized (unless WSJ changed their title). Submitters: please use the original title unless it is linkbait or misleading, and definitely please don't use the titles of HN submissions to editorialize.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: ok you guys, thanks for the feedback. We rely on you to point out the important exceptions. Title reversion reverted.

kylec4• 11 years ago

Normally I'd agree, but the real story here is the new information about Crystal's business practices and not the generic story about ad blocking surrouding it.

Karunamon5• 11 years ago

Yeah... unfortunately that's not editorialized, that's pretty much a fact per the article. WSJ really buried the lede here.

eli• 11 years ago

I disagree with you on this one. The headline no longer represents why the story is of interest to HN and the original headline was factually correct and, actually, pretty similar to the WSJ's subhed, "Software promises to cut clutter; some ads skirt filters—for a price"

manicdee2• 11 years ago

The original heading was not editorialised: it was not an opinion or interpretation but a summary of the content, and in fact the only reason I read the article in the first place.

The new title, which does not show up in RSS, would not have attracted me to read the article.

dang2• 11 years ago

Choosing the lede, i.e. highlighting the detail you think is important and thus framing the story for everyone, is the essence of editorializing. However, there are exceptions for everything and this is clearly one, hence the fix above.

sergiotapia• 11 years ago

The article is literally saying that though. It's the one lead, the title should have stayed.

noobie• 11 years ago

Purify: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-simplest...

Safari Blocker: https://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/safari-blocker/id1011678834?...

polysaturate• 11 years ago

Good ole computer age extortion! I think I may continue to wait out the iOS ad blocking apps, as these things continue to shake out.

I, however, am genuinely interested to see if this generates and revenue or if everyone just disregards the app(consumers and publishers)

berberous• 11 years ago

"Mr. Murphy said he has taken Eyeo up on its offer, and plans to implement an option within his app whereby “acceptable” ads will be displayed to users. The feature will be switched on by default, Mr. Murphy said, and he will receive a flat monthly fee from Eyeo in return."

Whether or not this is in bad faith, so long as there is an option to switch it off, I don't really care.

kylec4• 11 years ago

How hard do you think he will continue to work to block the ads of his business partners? Even if there's a switch, his incentives are not aligned with the users of his app.

kylec4• 11 years ago

In addition to deleting Crystal, I also suggest writing a review and requesting a refund.

Karunamon5• 11 years ago

Done and done. Link for anyone who wants to do the same: https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1022177308

542458• 11 years ago

It sounds like it's optional. I can understand why you'd want to leave a negative review, but it seems a little extreme to demand a refund when the old functionality is still there and presumably fairly simple to switch to. It still does exactly what you paid for.

monochromatic• 11 years ago

For now...

Gys2• 11 years ago

No, it does not what I expected. I expected it to block all ads. Not to only block ads that do not pay them money.

mkolodny• 11 years ago

Here's a link explaining how to request a refund. It took me about 30 seconds, and I received a refund immediately.

deanclatworthy2• 11 years ago

Where's the link?

pavornyoh• 11 years ago

So what does the creator of Crystal consider "acceptable ads" based on this post? “Given how popular Crystal has become, it doesn’t provide any way for users to support publishers,” he said. “I decided that’s a good feature to provide, and from what I’ve seen the ‘acceptable ads’ policy doesn’t let through what I’d classify as bad ads.”

Why take money?

ropiku• 11 years ago

Looks like it's using the list from Eyeo (Adblock Plus) https://acceptableads.org/

kylec4• 11 years ago

The acceptability of the ad is determined by how much the ad company is willing to pay him to let it through.

stevenh• 11 years ago

The only reason Apple didn't bake an ad blocker into iOS themselves is because they didn't want to get into legal trouble for what is obviously anticompetitive behavior toward Google (AdSense). They instead encouraged devs to be the patsies for the damage this will do, and they boosted these devs' blockers to #1 in their app store so everyone would see them and download them.

Spare me any preposterous claims of corporate altruism; this wasn't enabled and encouraged by Apple to reduce page load times on the web. If Apple had their way, the web wouldn't even exist anymore.

It's been transparently obvious for years that Apple would like to replace the web with their own walled garden app ecosystem. Apple would also like to replace web ad networks such as AdSense with their iAd network. This is what we are seeing unfold currently. Their News app with its unblockable iAds is another tentacle of this plan.

derefr3• 11 years ago

If Apple had their way, the web wouldn't even exist anymore.

Apple certainly doesn't run any web technology—they don't have skin in the web-app game like Google and Microsoft and Amazon do. (They have a web store, but on iOS it heavily suggests its native-app equivalent.)

But that doesn't mean they want their users to not use the web. Web-browsing is a feature; Apple invested a lot of energy into WebKit for a reason.

Apple just don't give a damn about the supply side of the web; they don't care if they kill every web business in the process of giving users the best web-browsing experience possible.

I have high confidence that if Apple could integrate something like e.g. Tor into Mobile Safari without a latency hit, they'd jump at the chance. Better privacy for their users! Breaks analytics and ad targeting? Who cares?

scoreponok2• 11 years ago

giving users the best web-browsing experience possible

Do you really believe this is Apples paramount motivation? The only reason this is acceptable is exactly because they have nothing to lose, only everything to gain by hurting competitors that rely on advertising revenue. Ask yourself this -- if apple iAds was wildly successful would they be taking the same action? To ensure the "best web-browsing experience possible"?

Better privacy for their users! Breaks analytics and ad targeting? Who cares?

Maybe companies that generate revenue using these tactics? Again if this was Apples bread and butter they wouldn't be implementing any security measures might interfere with their bottom line, user experience would surely be taking a back seat to profit.

nicky04• 11 years ago

Apple certainly doesn't run any web technology—they don't have skin in the web-app game like Google and Microsoft and Amazon do

What about Apple's web versions of its iCloud services: Mail, Notes, Find my iPhone; plus Pages, Numbers and Keynote which are full featured web applications.

manigandham3• 11 years ago

This is the tough part about both sides.

Being all or nothing means good ad networks and publishers are hurt but removes any arbitration and slippery slope issues.

Or they can try to do an "acceptable ads" list but in this case it's always inevitable abused and turned into some extortion scam with the highest bidders (who usually have the worst ads) getting through.

It would be best if there was an neutral industry group that didnt make adblocker software or sell ads and worked with all 3 sides to come up with a real democratically approved list of vendors.

Karunamon5• 11 years ago

What I don't get is why payment is involved in this process at all. If you want to build an adblocker as a project, fine. If you want to allow ad companies to apply for whitelisting, ehh, but at least make the option off by default.

Taking money for the process just screams corruption.

manigandham3• 11 years ago

Because its "abused and turned into some extortion scam"

The current whitelist is nothing but a business model run by an adblocking company and makes them millions. It is NOT in the interest of the consumer and doesn't verify ad standards for anyone. Just look at some of the companies they let through - it includes clickbait links, in-image banners and autoplay videos inside articles.

gglitch• 11 years ago

The word for this is "bait and switch."

kctess5• 11 years ago

It's interesting to me how the "Acceptable Ads" thing has managed to inserted itself in the middle of all of this - for a price of course. Yet another middleman which skims off money from the content producers, but this time under the guise of helping them get impressions.

jobu• 11 years ago

All of these blockers use SFContentBlockerManager which only blocks ads for Safari and any apps that use SFSafariViewController (basically none).

Does anyone know if it's possible to do ad blocking through the NEFilterProvider classes? (https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Networ...) This looks like it would block requests at a lower level, possibly for all Apps. Has anyone else tried digging into it?

anonred• 11 years ago

A quick search shows that NEFilterProvider requires the device to be supervised to work.

vbezhenar2• 11 years ago

It's not hard to supervise the device. Majority of users won't bother, but there's still market, I'm sure.

Another approach is to sell ad-less VPN. User will have to install custom root certificate, so VPN server can MITM secure connections in order to strip and block ads. It's certainly easier to setup.

manicdee2• 11 years ago

I can not understand Secret Media's twisted rationalisation of simultaneously wanting to avoid bombarding users with ads, and developing techniques to bypass ad blockers.

Any site that starts displaying auto-play ads with sound will not get any repeat visits from me. Surely they realise that this escalation is a bad idea?

qq66• 11 years ago

Well, if you're blocking a site's ad, the site probably doesn't want you as a repeat visitor.

fwn• 11 years ago

Eyeo declined to disclose which companies are on its “whitelist”—those that escape ad-blocking.

Yeah, right.. https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...

equalarrow• 11 years ago

Seriously.. This is unbelievable.

I think there's a lot of room for devs that will stand for their users. My friend is actually releasing a pretty killer, no holds barred blocker (it's in the approval process):

Halcyon Blocker: http://www.halcyonblocker.com

He's the only one I've seen come forward saying he's 100% committed to privacy and his app does not download anything. He curates the lists himself (I've helped profiling some of his block rules).

I have a beta and it's fast, clean, and works. Can't wait for it to come out. He's pretty excited too.

lorenzhs• 11 years ago

There's no information flow from Safari to the adblocker app, so that privacy point is really moot. Baking in the filter lists instead of downloading them from a server seems like a pointless restriction, preventing users from customizing the filter lists.

Gys2• 11 years ago

Taking money from both sides ? I don't like that. Just bought it and got refunded when I reported it as a problem: 'wanted to buy another one'. But maybe that is something that only works in Europe ? Refunding, I mean ?

fnayr• 11 years ago

No, Apple will give a refund to anyone in any country that asks for any purchase on an app or IAP.

plg• 11 years ago

Come on, EFF, please develop an ad blocker

dmerrick• 11 years ago

I know it's not exactly what you're asking for (it's non-mobile and it's not exactly an ad blocker), but this seems like a good opportunity to plug the EFF's Privacy Badger.

https://www.eff.org/privacybadger

tobltobs2• 11 years ago

I do not think that the eff want to help to make the web a playground for big companies only. They do not have anything against small publishers, so why should they develop a adblocker?

Spivak3• 11 years ago

Developing an application to block all tracking scripts would technically contain an ad blocker as a subset.

alkonaut• 11 years ago

So which blocker should I install now that I removed Crystal?

HSO• 11 years ago

Safari Blocker seems good (and honest, so far)

bobbles2• 11 years ago

Purify is another good one. They seem to be pretty determined to soak up all the customers the others are going to lose from being dodgy bastards

hyperbovine• 11 years ago

I'm happy with purify. Try disabling scripts and images--it's not as bad as you think! Pages load like it's 1997.

seviu2• 11 years ago

AdMop is quite good, and it has a very decent level of support (disclaimer: given by me, I am the developer)

supercanuck• 11 years ago

This is like Tivo 10 years ago but now that we're talking jnternet companies instead of old stodgy broadcasr companies, hallelujah, We've found Jesus!

tehwebguy• 11 years ago

Ugh I just paid for Crystal this morning

ceejayoz2• 11 years ago

https://reportaproblem.apple.com/ lets you request an immediate, no-questions-asked refund.

jrochkind1• 11 years ago

If I as a user pay double for the Crystal app, can I block the ads even of those companies that has paid them to let the ads through? Hm, then maybe Crystal could charge companies double to get their ads through even double-paying consumers... then there could be a triple-pay tier... I think I see the business model.

hackerboos• 11 years ago

business model

Extortion isn't a business model.

lukezli2• 11 years ago

For a free alternative that allows full customization of content blockers, try out my app, Safari Blocker: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/safari-blocker/id1011678834?...

arete• 11 years ago

Safari Blocker is great, thanks Luke! Being able to add rules on the fly is really handy.

lukezli2• 11 years ago

Thanks a ton! Lots of great features planned in updates: user whitelisting in Safari, better default blockers, native iPad support, OSX extension. Will continue to be free

icanhackit• 11 years ago

Thanks Luke, great app. I like the UI and color-scheme as well, to my eyes it seems inspired by Android 4.1 but with space and color used to delineate UI elements instead of hard borders/buttons.

nacs• 11 years ago

Just uninstalled Crystal and installed your Safari Blocker. Works great so far and has a far larger filtering list (and customizable lists too it seems).

Thanks!

pkamb• 11 years ago

I'm surprised that name made it through App Review. No issues?

tdkl• 11 years ago

Any chance to include and keep up to date an Eu cookie policy block list ? Here's a good one: https://github.com/r4vi/block-the-eu-cookie-shit-list

I'd add it myself just aren't sure how to keep it updated.

porsupah• 11 years ago

Another vote here. I've been using Safari Blocker for a couple weeks, and it's transformed sites into being actually enjoyable again. I did have to whitelist one groceries site to be able to log into my account, but that slight hiccup's a tiny matter for me, versus being able to browse without having a dozen advertisers try grabbing at my attention as I'm trying to read some article.

gecko• 11 years ago

What's a good ad-blocking browser on Android, if any? I want to like Firefox with uBlock, but it's honestly just a lot slower than Chrome.

byoogle4• 11 years ago

Open source, free, and no “acceptable” ads!: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock-fast/id1032930802

I’m one of the devs and here’s the code: https://github.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast

pduan2• 11 years ago

How come none of these ad blockers work on iPhone 5?

psophis• 11 years ago

Apples framework for ad blockers is 64bit only.

numair• 11 years ago

You have to have a 64-bit iPhone for the "content filtering" functions. The iPhone 5 is the last 32-bit CPU-based iPhone.

avn2109• 11 years ago

Planned obsolescence. You need an incentive to buy a new iPhone.

pinewurst2• 11 years ago

The store won't carry 32-bit ad blockers but they do work. Try: https://medium.com/@searls/installing-a-content-blocker-on-i...

Instructions to build and install a blocker that works on iPhone 5 and iPad Retina, where they work fine.

handedness• 11 years ago

Fantastic.

Thanks!

yuhong2• 11 years ago

Good ad blockers should not have paid "acceptable" ad lists, but those that don't allow users to create their own whitelists/blacklists are not good either. Reddit for example uses ad networks sometimes, but also do their own ads.

byoogle4• 11 years ago

Pull requests welcome! (Especially if you figure out a non-clunky way to implement custom lists.)

ryanmerket• 11 years ago

Reddit Ads PM here. We actually don't run 3rd party ads on reddit.com.

Boxbot• 11 years ago

Thanks for sharing! I was initially very happy with Crystal but an ad blocker that doesn't block ads doesn't sound very useful to me.

harryf2• 11 years ago

Also free and fast with a scrutinizable list of rules is AdMop - http://admop.iphonso.com - the developer talks about it here: https://reddit.com/r/apple/comments/3ljsx9/admop_free_vs_oth...

msie2• 11 years ago

With just 7 rules you must be letting some ads through that are blocked by AdBlock?

byoogle4• 11 years ago

Correct, Adblock Fast’s blocking is meant to be “good enough” (and not catch every single, last ad) but in exchange for much better browser perf than other ad blockers or no ad blocker.

mikeokner• 11 years ago

I see your app is GPLv3 but I don't see any exception in there for Apple, nor do I see any mention of a release for other developers to sign before accepting pull requests.

The vanilla GPLv3 is incompatible with Apple's App Store and they have pulled GPL apps in the past as a result. See: http://www.zdnet.com/article/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-stor...

Here's an example of a work-around that would allow you to retain a copyleft license and continue to distribute your app on the app store: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-iOS/blob/master/CON...

byoogle4• 11 years ago

Ty! Do you mind filing a bug against the repo, so we have a good place to follow up?

nicky04• 11 years ago

Apple removed the VLC app because of a copyright infringement claim from the VLC copyright holder. The don't proactively remove GPL'd apps just because of the license.

KayL• 11 years ago

7 rules ? Where can I find the list

ianlevesque• 11 years ago

Well, on iOS it's a LOT more than 7: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast...

rajacombinator• 11 years ago

Reading through comments here that Taboula and Outbrain can be blocked has me interested in ad blockers for the first time ever.

akramhussein• 11 years ago

Unreal. These content blockers aren't hard to make. I started one the other day and couldn't believe they charge for them. Maybe I'm missing something?

trimbo• 11 years ago

No it's just the traditional "first to the app store with new feature" cash grab.

vortico• 11 years ago

Again, using free/libre software on your device would solve this problem. Any users of the software could modify the source code of the program and then share the change with other users of the software, making this a non-issue.

tlong• 11 years ago

Weak Crystal. Maybe the ad bloc guy will release one. He's cooler

werber• 11 years ago

eh, they were going to be kicked out by a better free version anyways. it's nice to see such a fast change of face. It used to take a decade or so

PhasmaFelis3• 11 years ago

I would be an enthusiastic user of a curated adblocker that only allows actually non-intrusive, non-deceptive ads. (No autoplaying video or sound, no popovers, nothing that flashes or vibrates, no "one weird trick"...) I really would like to support the sites I use, if I could find a happy medium that let me do so without undue irritation or excessive effort on my own part.

Anything that requires the ad company to pay seems like the wrong way to go about it, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. This would require a fair bit of active, ongoing curation, and that has to be paid for somehow.

geoelectric• 11 years ago

Same here.

If someone were just completely up front about what they were doing and came out with "BlockCrappyAds," I'd run it in a heartbeat. I'm OK with small filesize, static ads. I just don't want anything active.

Get me something that will only download ads if they're under some certain acceptable size (with size attributes declared in HTML), only on the base layer of the page (no modal overlays), and only jpgs/pngs/text with no active content. I'd run that.

calcsam• 11 years ago

Ad-sponsored services make you the product. These paid ad blockers make you and the advertisers the product.

Spivak3• 11 years ago

What? The advertisers are explicitly the customer.

MattOfNZ• 11 years ago

This is what concerns me most about as blockers; the potential for collusion. Without transparency around rulesets, they are fundamentally untrustworthy.

That comment in the iOS content blocker screen where it says that a blocker cannot send information back to the app is very literal; while it can't communicate with the app, it could communicate with the outside world.

I wrote a proof of concept showing how a content blocker can be used to disclose a unique tracking token across all domains - seeing collusion happening with one of the biggest blockers makes me think that this could actually happen. It's a little inelegant, but it shows that it's possible.

Proof of concept for those interested - https://github.com/MattOfNZ/Hypercookie

Any feedback on how practical this seems would be appreciated, I am not sure if my concerns are real or unfounded.

Edit: swapped 'seeing this' for 'seeing collusion'

mark_lee• 11 years ago

Using ad block is equal to infringing copyright, simplest don't use the app or web stupid

mdpopescu• 11 years ago

Hmm... Good point, thanks. (Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with the second part - I'll continue to ignore both copyrights and ads - but I do agree with the analogy.)

brisance• 11 years ago

How is this not a bait-and-switch? And thus fail the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose?

nicky04• 11 years ago

Ask for a refund and you shall get one.

kemayo• 11 years ago

Looks like Purify (the previous number two blocker) picked a pretty good time to announce it was having a sale [1], and also say they'll never do this [2].

[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/purify-blocker-best-simplest... [2]: https://twitter.com/purify_app/status/647188444720951296

WWLink• 11 years ago

The word I want to use to describe a developer that sells their program, and then does something like this to their customers.. yeah I'm not going to allow myself to use that word here.

bobbles2• 11 years ago

I guess what it means is that the advertisers were willing to throw more money at him for doing this than he made from selling the app.

Sounds like a stupid plan though as the users will obviously go for something better and the deals will end up being worthless

bandicity• 11 years ago

I recommend Patreon vs. traditional Internet ads.

Then I know what Content Creators can budget in from month to month.

Plus people block ads in a variety of ways.

anonymousab• 11 years ago

An advertising industry where content is still 'free' (paid for by advertising) but the actual curation and safety costs are foisted onto the advertiser rather than the consumer - through a third party - is a nice middleground to strive towards.

But if this app doesn't allow pre-existing owners to turn off this feature, that's a pretty blatant bait-and-switch. Extremely anti-consumer at that as well.

amelius• 11 years ago

Why is this acceptable in the App store? I was under the impression that this store had strict rules in order to guarantee user satisfaction.

nicky04• 11 years ago

Yes, rule 5.6: Apps must satisfy the user. Apps not deemed to be deeply satisfying will be removed from the store.

chocolait• 11 years ago

It is chaos :)

Company pays to put ads in web pages.

You pay ad blocker to remove ads from web pages.

Company pays ad blocker to put ads back in the web pages.

You pay another ad blocker company to remove ads from web pages.

...

jlebrech• 11 years ago

Looks like extortion to me.

yoz-y• 11 years ago

I really hope that someday there will be a good, curated and vetted ad-blocking list which will take into consideration how intrusive ads are.

I don't want to block all of the ads since it is how the content producers get paid. But the current situation is really either/or. I don't seem to find any ad blocker that just removes unacceptable ads.

Demanding ad networks to pay is plain extortion.

tobltobs2• 11 years ago

And of course the guys curating this list should do this for free, just for the fun of it.

astannard• 11 years ago

Sounds like a protection racket

ypcx• 11 years ago

Refund coming in fast.

cheshire137• 11 years ago

Moving on to Purify. "Acceptable" ads don't say anything about blocking trackers.

CIPHERSTONE• 11 years ago

It's called "Bait & Switch". Crystal dev - If you read this, you should be ashamed of yourself. Very convenient for you after you have my money.

argklm• 11 years ago

I would be glad to see something like this https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/

I'm glad supporting people deserving it. I'll stick to my whitelist on iOS for a non greedy adblocker. Sadly, this is getting about who makes more money rather than offering a better web...

Crystal, iOS ad blocker, to accept money to let ads through

Related Stories