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

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...

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.

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

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.

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...

There's something weird with this app, it asks to "sign in with icloud" to update the blocking rules... I'm already signed into icloud and I honestly don't understand how this is related to an app's block list update feature??!

Hi! I'm the developer of AdMop. The reason why you're being ask to login is because app needs access not only to iCloud but also iCloud Drive. This is for downloading new rules, which I publish as files over iCloud Drive. I'm planning to change that mechanism in the next version of AdMop; the current approach was the fastest "quick and dirty" solution to have a working implementation. That said I do want to keep using CloudKit as a backend - which requires iCloud access - so I can use it as a place for users to store their own white lists; something quite a few have asked me for. Anyway thanks all for trying AdMop - thanks to your feedback I'll include a note in the store description in future for why the app needs iCloud access.

It has a feature to download new block rule sets. Perhaps that's where iCloud is used?

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.

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

well, you kind of do. the HIRED.com ads are everywhere in the programming subreddit

Sure, but that's not through a third party as network.

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

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

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.

That's pretty shabby of Apple to claim one thing and have their official developer tools say something else even without having to tweak anything :-/

I believe their claim is that it's for performance reasons. Drawing the line at everything without a 64 bit processor seems reasonable (from a "where do we draw the line" not a where dhould we draw the line)

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

Yeah, I love how they make it sound like old iphones "weren't powerful enough to handle blocking ads!" when blocking ads actually significantly cuts down on the resource usage. What's frustrating is that on their new phones you can block ads in Safari proper, but apparently not from within an app like Flipboard. I guess they're saving that particular "feature".

Correct me if I'm wrong. I watched the Safari Content Blocker video that is presented in WWDC 2015 and it mentioned that the list of content to be filtered is compiled to bit code instead of reading it as a JSON file, which makes it more efficient and less draining on CPU. Since it is compiled down to bit code, 32-bit will not be compatible to 64-bit and that's why only the newer iPhones and iPads are compatible. It is not that iPhone 5 is not powerful enough but simply the CPU architecture doesn't support.

That's the most artificially overengineered solution I've seen in a while. Since the adblock list is custom, it would have to be "compiled" on the phone anyway, so arch mismatch simply doesn't apply. Even if it did, it could be done at phone startup. It's "compiling" a list of strings, not building an office suite...

There are so many high-performance/low-power ways to solve the extremely complicated problem of "does a given string appear in a given list?"... this is just Apple looking for excuses to force people on 5 to upgrade, as usual.

If Apple was looking for excuses to force people on 5 to upgrade, they'd simply not support iOS 9 on that device at all...

Supporting old devices is kind of marketing against Android. How those devices actually work with new OS is another matter.

They would need to be compiled to a different architecture. Guess Apple doesn't want to write the code to compile the list to older 32-bit ARM.

How would a framework that is explictly part of and designed for Safari possibly work in a third-party app with sandboxing? Seems pretty silly to accuse Apple of nefariously "saving" this.

Similarly, Apple never "made it sound" like old iPhones "weren't powerful enough". You really shouldn't put things in quotation marks and attribute them to others when you just made them up.

They could have it edit the hosts file or some better global interface for blocking/not blocking certain hosts from any app (which would be most users' preference when using ad blockers?)

I think it's ok to use scare quotes to convey sarcasm instead of a direct quote. There's admittedly some ambiguity there.

32bit vs 64bit is a super lame limitation to claim, and to most people "number of bits" would appear performance related. It's nice they finally enabled a way to block ads, but it's hardly a feature they deserve a pat on the back for. It's more like, I was seriously considering switching to Android if they didn't add it.

Ad blockers will work if the apps use the new safari view controller instead of UIWebView or WKWebView.

Right. No one is going to do that, because they make money off of ads.

This is why every other implementation of ad-blocking does not require the website owner to make changes (because they wouldn't, that's why there are resource hogging ads everywhere, because they put them there).

It's not their choice, that's the point. They can deny access to the site or app if they detect ad blockers enabled, I'm fine with that. I just think they'll lose their audience if they do. But what apple has done here is enabled the absolute minimum amount of ad blocking because they are at competitive risk if they can't at least check the box.

Thanks! Although jailbroken ad blockers were working. Guess it's an Apple framework limitation.

Most definitely an artificial limitation. There's nothing about blocking ads that requires a 64-bit CPU.

Apparently the block list is compiled/JITed to native code when loaded for better performance and battery life.

They probably decided it wasn't worth the engineering effort to add a second code generation backend for 32bit phones (which are now three+ generations old and already facing RAM limitations).

What if there are (2^32)+1 ads on the screen!?

Just don't look at Yahoo sites then. :)

Or The Verge!

Apples framework for ad blockers is 64bit only.

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

The fact that iOS 9 supports the iPhone 4S and iPad 2, which were released in 2011, kind of takes the bite out of the grand conspiracy theory.

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

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.

I'd love it if there were a choice between your current approach and something that's like "aggressively block all ads".

7 rules ? Where can I find the list

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

Hmmm, that's truth in advertising...

Fantastic.

Thanks!

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?

> > 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.

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.

Probably mediate in his tent on the virtues of stoic persistence in the face of overwhelming user stupidity.

Just ask the user on first execution if small ads that don't use a lot of bandwidth and that don't track the user should be allowed and leave that as an option in settings. The app could also provide a link to an example site for the user to see what the ad would look like. With iOS 9, it's also easier for the user to get back to the application after viewing the example site/page.

I do commend Deck ads for having no cookies, no JavaScript, no counting clicks, etc. It's not a model for the entire web since many marketers want insights and statistics on users, but it definitely works quite well and is used on several popular sites.

Or maybe build a "Block this" feature on touching.

The architecture of iOS content blockers seems not to allow that. No information is allowed to flow from safari to the ad block app (to allay concerns that the app itself is spying on you).

Put the user in control?

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.

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

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

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.

> Artisanal ad networks

Now I really have heard everything...

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

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

Seriously. This is so bad for users

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.

Vetted or acceptable ads is a fake narrative - a smokescreen - it's just a way for these adblock apps to extort ad networks for a payout. In the article it mentions that hundreds of companies including all the big search and display networks, and all of the big native ad networks, are included on the whitelist. Who is left?

While it could be a smokescreen, it certainly doesn't have to be a smokescreen. If it turns out that Crystal is letting intrusive ads through, then they're doing a bad job and I'll stop using it.

We already know who will be let through - the ABP whitelist is public. It's the majority of the ad tech world including the most intrusive native networks.

I don't have much experience with ABP, but I'm also having difficulty finding complaints about intrusive ads getting through ABP.

Is this something that you've experienced personally, or is it just from the companies reputations that are on the whitelist?

I experienced it personally and switched from ABP to uBlock as a result.

This caught my attention, as I am allowing "acceptable" ads.

1. What was the ad like? 2. Didn't disabling "acceptable" ads on ABP work?

1. Standard native click bait.

2. I didn't test disabling but assume that it would work as advertised - I didn't want to support a company that would enable whitelisting/acceptable ads as default in order to build up enough users as a means of extorting everyone else in the ecosystem.

Thanks, that's good to know, I'll keep an eye out for this!

Seems almost like extortion.. the advertisers already paid for advertising but now Crystal demands additional payments from the advertisers or else it blocks the ads. The websites don't seem to get any additional payment from Crystal for this "vetting".

It could seem like extortion, or it could seem like certification. Websites have proven that they're terrible at vetting ads for security and intrusiveness, they do not care about that. By paying a different company to perform the certification, then there's less of a conflict of interest.

Of course, this depends on trusting someone. Trust can be misplaced, but I already know I can't trust websites, so Im looking for someone else.

The adblocker companies cant be trusted either since they only stand to gain from this behaviour. ABP makes tens of millions from this.

The only way trust works is if there's a neutral 3rd party that represents all sides and has respect.

Certification in your sense is conforming to a certain standard. This is extortion.

Basically "conforming" is paying. That's extortion. Pay are demands or no soup for you.

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.

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.

Yeah, I was reading this and thinking "This seems reasonable", until I saw Taboola mentioned. Taboola and "One weird trick" ads are the primary reason I want to run an ad blocker in the first place.

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.

I don't think ads are the same as viruses. There are different kinds of ads for example, and not all of them use tracking or even pay by the pageview.

They are malicious memes. Analogy could be about their effect on brains.

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).

Yeah, shame - as the leading ad blocker, he could've instead set a de facto standard for respectful ads. Maybe the Deck itself should make this.

Make it opt-in, and it's like the micropayments future we were promised.

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.

> 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.

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

You mean what Adblock Plus alone does.

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?...

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

For now...

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

Where's the link?

This[0] should work. [0]: https://reportaproblem.apple.com/

Thank you! When I filled in this form, it said I can cancel a purchase within 14 days of making one. Is it the case with all apps that you can get a refund, no questions asked, within 14 days?

> Is it the case with all apps that you can get a refund, no questions asked, within 14 days?

Answer: http://bfy.tw/1yEn

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.

> business model

Extortion isn't a business model.

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 ?

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

The word for this is "bait and switch."

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)

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?

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

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'

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

Safari Blocker seems good (and honest, so far)

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

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.

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.

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.

And it's deleted. Thanks

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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...

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.

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

What? The advertisers are explicitly the customer.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Come on, EFF, please develop an ad blocker

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

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?

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

"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.

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.

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

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

Ugh I just paid for Crystal this morning

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

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.

...

Sounds like a protection racket

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

Ask for a refund and you shall get one.

Looks like extortion to me.

Refund coming in fast.

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

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.

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.

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"

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

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

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.

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.

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.

> 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?

>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.

> Maybe companies that generate revenue using these tactics?

Well, yeah, that's what I meant. The thing saying "Who cares?" is Apple, because they have nothing to lose by doing so.

I don't disagree that Apple is a profit-driven company; I'm saying that the way they approach the web in particular is solely as a manufacturer of hardware that ships with software including a web browser, which puts them in a unique position to offer software that does what customers want even where doing so "hurts the web."

> Ask yourself this -- if apple iAds was wildly successful would they be taking the same action?

News.ipa effectively replaces web ads with iAds. And, of course, they won't let you block them. Like I said, it's just the web.

> Ask yourself this -- if apple iAds was wildly successful would they be taking the same action?

iAds was only ever an offensive against Google. "Success" to Apple is Google losing ad revenue, so you might say that the content blocking extensions will do the job iAds was meant to.

Exactly. Apple isn't just promoting ad blocking for purely benevolent reasons i.e "for the best web-browsing experience possible" - they obviously have other motivations.

Why would a publically-traded company do anything for purely benevolent reasons? Their investors would sue them.

"Providing the best web-browsing experience possible" isn't a benevolent act, anyway. Another way to say it is "making the most appealing-to-use software so your customers will buy your device instead of someone else's." Providing a better web-browsing experience makes Apple money.

It's just as easy to think of a non-sinister explanation for adding it.

In iOS 8, Apple added sandboxed extensions support. So, they go around to each team and ask "What extensions would people using your part of the OS want?" Core OS said "custom keyboards". Photos said "editing right from the photos app/other apps". Safari looked at what extensions are popular on the desktop - #1 is Ad blockers. Easy choice.

> 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.

Well, OK, but this is a counterfactual that isn't very illuminating.

> Maybe companies that generate revenue using these tactics?

Those companies have had roughly two decades to get their shit together and enforce non-invasive ads. If they can't manage basic quality standards, fuck 'em.

> 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.

I am guessing that he is the type that says "Apple is an evil corporation, that is why I buy Samsung". People get confused.

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

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.)