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.)