Widget Salesman: "I'd like to buy some ads for my widgets"
Google: "Cool. Some users won't see them."
Widget Salesman: "Which ones?"
Google: "Only the most-engaged ones with the most money."
Widget Salesman: "..."
I'm still going to block those ads though.
Which implies that they think that continuing to sell ads will make them more total profit than Google Premium, at any price.
Now -- if you're willing and able to pay eg. $10/month for Google Premium, then you likely worth much more than the average user. So the more you're willing to pay the more you worth as an advertisement target. I am not sure where those curves meet, but I presume it'd be a lot.
Like man, I always hear "so many people make their living on this" but uh, maybe if false advertising law is practically unenforced and most ads are practically usually lies pushed by the already established winners in their industry...
Which it certainly seems to be, then. I find it hard to feel too bad, especially when people in the advertising business are probably not going to end up street beggars if things suddenly changed.
edit: although that "makes a living" argument may go wayside a little with the inevitable AI-generated, focus-group tested future we'll be living in. Hmm.
Already have pihole on my home network and unlock on all non-iOS browsers.
Now I use youtube vanced, and as a bonus it includes sponsorblock that saves me a ton of time while I watch videos. It also plays videos while phone is locked, useful during jogs and working out.
Does anyone upload 360 or 180 videos on here?
If I have to trust someone, I trust the multi-trillion dollar company built on privacy. If they are found to be spying on people, the hit to the wealth of everyone who works there will be massive.
The catch for iOS is that you have to use Safari, unless the browser has an ad blocker built-in. It won't solve blog spam either.
This is bad why exactly?
and hamstrung browsers that are all basically Safari
Content blockers work in original Safari. Which part don’t you like? Content blockers as an app, safari itself, or inability to load third party js into every page you visit?
I just mean that 'content blockers' are a solution to a problem of Apple's own creation -
> Content blockers work in original Safari.
I know, what I mean there is that all the browsers on iOS are only superficially not Safari; which is the only reason 'content blockers' work in anything 'not' Safari.
Besides, if I care about my privacy, why would I want to use an ad blocker that has access to my web browsing history?
iOS content blockers tell Safari what to block and don’t have access to where you go.
> Mozilla uses GeckoView to power Firefox for Android, Firefox Reality, Firefox Focus, and other Android apps. GeckoView serves a similar purpose to Android's built-in WebView, but it has its own APIs and is not a drop in replacement.
So the only way you can actually use your ad blocked system wide is through a series of hacks
That’s definitely a lot easier than just…going to the App Store.
Of course when your phone is using an OS that is created by an ad tech company, they aren’t going to make it easy to block ads system wide.
Its why it's important for folks like yourself who are pro-Apple to push for Apple to open up. That way we can have the best of both worlds (if you believe the marketing, like it would appear you do). I'll use the most open device at the end of the day.
You don’t just get a pop up that allows you to enable it. You have to go into settings and get a scary warning.
It works, so thanks. Maybe you're referring to the impossibility to access the plugin's settings from the embedded web view. But if it's a site you've visited before and configured to your preference, then it takes effect in the same way there as in full FF.
> iOS content blockers tell Safari what to block and don’t have access to where you go.
If I tell it 'block scripts from example.org on news.ycombinator.com' then it's a pretty good bet that I visit news.ycombinator.com.
Right, I realise iOS content blockers aren't that powerful, so it's hypothetical. ;)
Feel free to reproduce it yourself: block third party by default (for example), open some broken page, observe it as such; 'open in browser' from 3-dot menu; amend settings to allow whatever it needs; back out, observe it functional.
Did you also verify that Firefox installed from the App Store was the same as the open source version?
Are you using only open sourced code on your phone or are you using Google provided binaries? Are your drivers open source for your chipset?
If not, you are also using “locked down code”
Vote with your wallet and we can have a better future. I don't care if it's iOS, Android, or Linux! Just that it's actually open.
I assure you that Nvidia is not going to lose market share to Intel in the GPU race. Even Apple is creating chipsets Thad trounce Intel in graphics performance.
> Block Annoyances: blocks cookie notices
And if you really want to, you can run 1Blocker scripts within Safari that can do the same type of thing. You have to go into Settings and you get a huge privacy warning.
And this also works with embedded web views - unlike with Android
The problem with iOS' declarative blocking framework is that it's not powerful enough to deal with more advanced ads.
The fact that Windows 10 has zero protections WRT physical or app security is not something to be proud of.
It's an open platform, so of course there are a ton of bad actors in the space who are going to add their own garbage and try to prevent people from removing it, but if you buy a phone from a reputable source, it's going to let you put it into dev mode. Obviously don't buy the malware encrusted garbage sold directly from shady telecom companies etc.
Also you can change your DNS server permanently to an adblocking one like ControlD or NextDNS, iOS hilariously enough only allows this on a per-network basis.
Google Ad Premium disables google ads only (or most of them?), while other ad nets (avg more than 80 cookies on every major news site!) will continue to annoy.
I think people also underrate how much this varies. Our company has paid $50-$100 per click in the past for certain search terms.
Letting a CTO at a tech company opt out of ads for like $50 is a sucker deal for Google.
> if the user wins the auction, [a thank you message] is placed in the ad space, and the cost of the ad is deducted from the user's monthly contribution. If the user does not win, the winning ad is displayed as normal and the user pays nothing for that slot
So the common wisdom goes. Alternative thought: the more you’re willing to pay to not see ads the likelier you are to block them or never click on them, making you worth less as a target.
Examples: cable TV, Hulu, soon Netflix?
People that would realistically pay for the product - maybe 50M. I think a ~$10/m subscription could make sense.
The problem is - they probably need to offer something beside just being ad free. And I'm not sure what they could possibly add that wouldn't be better suited just improving the product for the other 99% of searchers.
I'd pay more than $10/m for Search if I had to. I pay for YouTube premium to get rid of the ads (and free YouTube Music). But I don't think the search ads are intrusive enough that I'm willing to pay $10 to get rid of them.
And its likely a Pareto curve too.
So a 99th percentile user could be worth $1000 per month, 99.9th percentile worth $10000 per month, etc.
I imagine they would only take the risk to offer such a premium service when they can figure out how to get everyone to upload their payslips and bank account statements.
Per quarter, no?
Obviously you’re talking about a consumer offering, but I just want to point out that paid, ad-free Google Search does exist and is pretty easy to set up.
[Searx upstream doesn't seems to be keen on implementing it though](https://github.com/searx/searx/issues/2622)
What amount would make them think investigating your lock is worth the effort?
They would kinda not want to go in front of a judge even if he states they are allowed to seize peoples funds without any explanation.
> Because we have a need to protect our proprietary detection system, we're unable to provide publishers with any information about their account activity, including any pages, users, or third-party services that might have been involved.
I'm still convinced there is some small / non zero difference between banning free users and banning users that produce revenue but it might just be as insignificant as you make it out to be.
In work persona, I suddenly have found ads are actually useful. Often find myself choosing to spend 30 seconds watching a YouTube ad because it is relevant to topics I need to be aware of as a CTO. It's clear my daily browsing history influences the ads I am seeing, and I see useful information. Been looking into SIEM tools lately, and via an ad I was just made aware of some data center appliances for security. I clicked to their website and browsed a while to learn what was available. When you have some real challenges to solve and the targeting is on point, ads can be a great news feed.
Clearly segmenting my browser history into one persona where I am actively looking for solutions vs my personal persona where I want to be left alone helped the feeds target me.
Still, surreal feeling to intentionally choose to watch an ad...
Those services should not have overlapping features, like providing mail, social media, or general search, for example, as that would be a clear conflict of interest.
Would you not have come cross them if you were actively searching for data center appliances for security? Were Ads the only way to find them?
Newspapers, tv, and music, are counter-examples to the assertion that people won't pay for things - even when they've previously been free.
Google's main product focus now should be Cloud, the ad debate is long-term done.
Let me get this straight. The idea is that Google has deliberately constructed several different systems over the years to enable micropayments or subscriptions to replace ads with the plan of them failing so they can use this as evidence that the ad model is unstoppable and that people shouldn't try to replace it? And this was done despite knowing that an alternative would make Google more money? And not a single person who was involved in this deliberate sabotage has ever spoken about it?
> Newspapers, tv, and music, are counter-examples to the assertion that people won't pay for things - even when they've previously been free.
Newspapers are a dying industry and are filled with ads. TV is filled with ads. Even paid streaming services like Hulu (and soon maybe Netflix) are ad supported. Spotify has an ad-driven free service.
> Google's main product focus now should be Cloud, the ad debate is long-term done.
Ad revenue continues to grow every quarter. Yes, Google obviously wants another similarly sized revenue stream and there are very few domains that can generate that kind of revenue. But "the ad debate is long-term done" is just not based in facts.
It's not at all hard for me to believe that a company that has built, shipped, and killed multiple chat apps has also built and killed multiple subscription and micropayments systems. Then, the employees who are pushing adtech can use those failures as evidence that adtech is the only way.
I work at Google. What you say here is not true.
Yes, Google is indeed often very bad at long term product strategy and has rebooted its chat offerings an embarrassing number of times. But "it shipped, fuck it if it works" is not actually a sufficient justification for promotions.
There are people who struggle to get promoted and leave. A very coarse piece of failed promo feedback is "not enough impact" and people sometimes interpret this as "you must launch new stuff." For actual data, the Core Developer organization has historically had one of the higher promo rates in the company despite being primarily focused on internal tooling, maintenance, and iterative improvements like refactoring and optimization.
I have my own hunches for why Google seems to have such terrible product strategy as a company. There are a few cases where I've seen the actual root cause and, while still being stupid at the end of the day, had nothing to do with promotion or career advancement.
Give me something approaching YouTube premium and I'll go for it. Does Scroll support enough sites ye-- oh no Twitter bought them and gutted it.
Invited and signed up on 2015-04-28, service ended 2017-01-17. I had a $2 monthly reoccurring charge to fund the account, but I just accrued a balance, so I cancelled the charge in 2015-11-15 and that balance lasted until the service ended. In the final email they sent they included some stats:
> Thanks for being a Contributor! Your contribution of $14.01 helped to fund 351 sites! A refund for your remaining balance of -$0.02 is being processed and your account is now closed.
I don't remember it being particularly noticeable, and I think on some sites it would just replace the ads with a banner saying something like "Thanks for being a contributor". I also recall there being tiers / budgets you could set.
Is this the upside or the downside of ad blockers? So hard to decide...
Indeed, it would require a google account, and one that is always connected. Basically giving full view of my private life to google and trust that no matter how bad their track record is, from now on they are going to respect it.
I don't trust them to give them that data, and even if I did, I don't trust a gov won't abuse it eventually or something else down the line.
Hence I'd rather not have a google account, and use ad blockers so that the data is just not communicated to them. It should be a constitutional right to do so.
And I don’t think most people would buy a Premium offering if all it did was remove results in Google Search; the only people that helps is Google and most people can easily scroll past those even without Adblock.
That's an incredibly tiny fraction of Google Search users.
Maybe it is different for companies literally paying millions of dollars, but don't expect more than bot treatment below that.
Haven't tried it, but it looks promising.
Would seem to address those concerns — if the only money coming in is users paying directly, that would seem to preclude selling the data for further monetization. Or are those known weasel words?
Note: I am a Xoogler and was far more concerned about the state of the organization in early 2016 than in any year since I was “hired” as an L3 Engineer in Network Software Engineering and Testing in Google’s Cloud division. While I do not expect that to mean anything, it does mean that politics and workplace safety matter more to me than most people. Google paid me less in total compensation over that time than anywhere else I have worked internationally. Alphabet Women decided to walk out separate from issues with Maven, Dragonfly, TCP, BBR, BBRv2, Stadia, and other “magic” features that clearly risked lives long before Waymo admitted that even DeepMind can’t “solve” self-diving cars any better than ReCaptcha’s success rate.
Some Goog ads are also very useful since it’s intent based.
the other day i had visited a friend at home and their tv was at full blast. the ads felt really jarring/irritating/obnoxious to a point i requested them to just turn the tv off.
then another day i saw a coworker on his laptop, edge opened on homepage with big 2000's style banner ads, sidebar ads, full page ads and they were just keeping the page open because "eh, dont care".
try to use ublock origin on your browser for a week and then the next week without it.
I am sure companies like WPP are pressuring Google even today to open up more and share all kinds of data with them. It is not in Google's best interest to do so but how do you fend off attacks like the adpocalypse if you can't show advertisers that you don't need them as much as they need you?
I’ve tried it on a couple of demo searches, and the results seem good.
Most of these companies already profit off of the ad revenue, then they turn around and want to tax people to opt out of increasingly obstructive and unbearable ads?
Asking if you can pay an already very profitable company to end their manipulation of you is rewarding bad behavior. Too many companies are hobbling their standard services as a cover for extra pocket change annually.
Ask yourself why standard gmail has been only trending towards reduced functionality and more ads every year without innovating useful new features? Because now they know it is profitable to hobble an essential and usually stable service, they are working to slowly convert it from a (previously promised) free service into a monthly fee-based service now that literally billions of people can't live without identity management integrated into it.
This trend in software-based services is upsetting in many ways people don't realize until it's too late... Netflix pushing ads on paying customers (as another example).
However, giving extra search features for paying costumers might work.
E.g. letting you write complex queries or using operator like AROUND or page types (e.g. querying "3d printing pagetype:academic" or "3d printing pagetype:tutorial") or all the other query features that they deprecated over the years (see https://ahrefs.com/blog/google-advanced-search-operators/) or reverse citations (e.g. querying "cites:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Thing" and getting all pages that link to Crazy Thing on Wikipedia)
Youtube Premium is a perfect proposition for an easy ad free streaming to TV and to mobile. On Desktop browser adblock extension is efficient enough to cut out the ads.
Google search on the other hand is primarily for desktop and is not a streaming platform that consumes your attention minutes, hence Google Premium has little market with effective adblockers.
Similarly, I can block ads in web search results in desktop and mobile. But I can't block ads in the Android apps for Google maps and Gmail.
What would I pay to get rid of them. Not much, admittedly. But I would pay more if it was part of an overall package that'd make it easier to pretend Google is not a semi-hostile entity.
I doubt there would be much of a market, especially when ad-blockers exist.
I think this is different with Youtube. I see those ads like TV ones. Everyone know it's an ad, so the advertiser has to use their ability to catch the costumer.
 - https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2020/1/23/21078343/google-ad-d...
And if you can't on your iPhone, get a better phone
Google doesn’t want to give up its current model of operation. Google as a corporation likes being able to surveil the Earth. Google likes being able to control information. Google likes being (essentially) part of the US state department.
There is the argument that many shopping decisions start with the search, but not sure if there is an order of magnitude difference.
Is the value that Google gets from one user having ads really that high?
Youtube Premium is only ~$10/month, does Google really make that much more with ads?
Yes! Already their average per-user revenue was 21 USD per user per month in 2018 (couldn't find newer data) . Furthermore, the first people to sign up would be the richest folks, those who are the most interesting to advertisers. Meaning: they are worth way more than 21 USD per month to Google.
To compensate, the price would have to be even higher. If only 5% of Google's userbase signed up, and those 5% are, on average, worth to Google 5 times as people from the general population, then you'd have to pay 100 USD per month for getting rid of ads across all Google products. That number would also have to grow at least as quickly as the ad revenue for it to make sense for Google to do it.
Money made with ads = how much advertisers pay
Money made with ads per user = how much advertisers pay / number of users.
If they average to... $10/user, then it's viable.
Once you remove a portion of those eyeballs, you might make more money short-term, but long-term you might end up in difficult conversations with large advertisers.