I think this is a critical point. I bet that Google has reams of internal research on the use of ad-blockers. I am further willing to bet they have discovered the following:

1) Users say they block ads because they are annoying, rather than any deeper philosophical arguments about the nature of advertising

2) Users tend not to bother with white-listing and just use the defaults - i.e. block all ads, even Google!

3) Once they have used an ad-blocker, users are very resistant to browsing the web without one

4) Users who ad-block are among the most educated and tech-savvy, and as such are a valuable demographic to miss out on

5) Ad-block use is growing steadily with no signs of slowing

So, Google's provocative and somewhat desperate move is an attempt to gain control of ad-blocking before it becomes a serious threat to their business, even in the face of serious backlash. I hope they fail.

So Google is responding to criticisms of overly-intrusive advertising with less-intrusive advertising that doesn't poison the well for everyone, and blocking for the ads that do?

That's true villainy right there, how dare they! /s

People concerned with privacy are not against ads because they are annoying but because of the systems of surveillance behind those ads. Making ads less annoying so that the majority of users continue to accept surveillance is villainy from that perspective.

This is just accelerationism. "Let's make ads terrible so people hate them, because I disagree with the fundamental concept of advertising".

Who in this thread has been advocating making ads terrible?

They are not responding to criticisms, but rather that people are installing spam protection for the web, making web advertisement about as relevant as email advertisement. Google did not become one of the richest companies in the world through email advertisement, and the reason is obvious. Email advertisement is kind of dead as it is impossible to have a email box without blocking unwanted email.

The OP simply said all ads are annoying, not "overly intrusive ads". You're responding an imaginary point.

I hope they fail as well. Here is one scenario where I think they will:

1) As you pointed out - Users (or their friends) will go out of their way to install an ad-blocker and set it up the first time.

2) If I still find prominently placed Google ads annoying (and I do, despite the fact that they're not animated or audible), then I will still go out of my way to block them.

> Their goals are not really anti-competitive

One could make the argument that by putting a web browser in Windows, Microsoft was only providing a common service to their default OS. The problem here is that Google makes almost all its revenue from the very medium that they are now actively blocking from other providers.

The point I am making is that they are not doing this to freeze out competitors. They have already won. They don't have any meaningful competition to worry about. The threat is ad blocking and alternative browsers.

That doesn't change the anticompetitive nature of their behavior but it does explain the motivation.

Then I'm really glad sane anti-compete and trust-busting laws wouldn't care about the motivation.

This is using large scale marketshare in one market to effect a tangible and monetary benefit in another market.