Today, most publications will use something like DoubleClick to manage their ads, sell a bunch directly to specific companies, setup bidding on some others via another provider hooked into the same system, and then use Google AdSense for the remnant inventory.

From my reading of it, on Apple News, you're required to use iAd to manage the inventory. iAd allows you to do direct sales through it's own system. And then all the rest are remnant and handled through iAd. Apple locks out all other players from that large part of the ad market, including Google. Knowing Apple... especially Google.

It's a brilliant two-pronged strategy to lock content providers and consumers into the Apple ecosystem.

There's just a conflict of interest in doing it any other way. A DSP wants to play multiple SSPs against each other to get the highest priced ads for its content while preserving the user experience (DSPs often include features that allow you restrict the number of times an ad shows to the same user, etc). The SSPs are looking to get the best results for their advertisers at the lowest price.

It's not a brilliant move because platform lock-in is too easy to avoid thanks to the myriad of ad tech providers in the space. Apple will get some app developers and small sites with this, but 95% of the market has evolved past a solution like this into something far more "enterprise".

> Earn 100% of the revenue from ads you sell, and 70% when iAd sells ads for you.

https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documenta...

Quoting:

    How can I monetize my content?

    You can monetize your Apple News Format content with
    iAd, Apple’s advertising platform. Whether you sell your 
    own ads or have iAd sell on your behalf, you’ll earn 
    revenue from every impression in your articles and channels.

Way more likely is that Apple is paying them a nice chunk of cash for the exclusivity to help market their News app. Same thing they did with HBO Now for the Apple TV, and with various albums for the iTunes Store and Apple Music.

That said, I imagine you're right and Apple just paid for the exclusive for marketing purposes.

iOS9 penetration is already past 50%(1). New versions usually get mass adoption very quickly.

(1) http://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/21/apple-ios-9-50-percent/

If you are a publisher there are scripts and tools you may use to detect ad blockers. I would recommend running one.

It's brilliant and will completely change the balance of power in online advertising. Google will not be happy...

Locking away articles in native apps so people can't block ads isn't brilliant. Apple encouraging ad blocking on the web to "nudge" publishers into their exclusive native eco-system is nothing but typical tech giant arrogance.

Wired publishing stories that when clicked from Google go to place-holders with pointers to native should be penalised by Google search, and I hope they are. There is nothing on the Google results page to indicate the link is anything less than the content.

Native app "content browsers" are all about less control for users. Native has always been about that. Sometimes less control works for users. No distractions, just minimal concentrated function. Other times, like with news articles, users are missing out on basic things like bookmarking; sharing the link - there isn't even a link; accessibility is out the window; copy and paste is out the window; discussion and comments are all but closed/extinct; no choice of browser to access the article. It's not good news for users.

I'm reminded of a quote:

"After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things — terrible, yes, but great."

-Ollivander

I agree the path mobile seems to be heading down is terrible.

One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above pretty much each "modern" this site in this regard.

The point is, while introducing ad-blocking for iOS Safari, Apple are simultaneously promoting a separate platform that is immune to ad-blocking.

Apple would call it "business" and that would be valid. But when the "business" involves shifty one-two deals with publishers like Wired, whereby the website becomes nothing more than a jump-point to the app, suddenly we have a situation where not just particular technologies like Flash are in the cross-hairs, but the web itself.

We like the web, remember? When it works well it's the most accessible, light-weight, least technical-debt means to online content there is, both for users and developers/publishers.

Note that Apple are not allowing developers to write any old add-on for iOS Safari. Imagine if they opened up add-ons for Safari? That would be worth applauding. We could then fix many of iOS Safari's shortcomings, and give it some much needed extra functionality.

"One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above"

The web has more accessible characteristics built-in because of the way the data is openly available to different clients. Native apps controlled by one vendor like Apple are the complete opposite. Regardless of some advances in accessibility options within apps, accessibility isn't among the "out of the box" strengths of the technology you get for free like you do for web.

Im not understanding Wired's motivation here, but I'm not too concerned because Wired isn't the most intelligent publication in the first place.

The users may accept to install a few apps (Apple/Google/… News), but not one for each website.

</rant>

Most of the world doesn't.

Saying that you will only do business with those who has Apple-equipment is leaving out most of the market, and doing so would be suicide for most businesses.

Technically true, but most of the world doesn't matter. Only the part which has disposable income does. The more disposable income, the more it matters.

Last I heard, Apple had around 50% market share in the US and going up. And I'm betting that it's the 50% that matters most.

Only in the same sense cable monopolies are brilliant.

It's the same with content. If I go to read your article and you block it because I'm blocking ads, I'm not going to tell anyone about it and I'm not going to share the link. You then don't get the ad revenue from that sharing, so it's a net loss for you.

(And of course, if I go to read it, and it says I need a special app, I'm also not going to read it or share the link.)