iOS 9 Content Blockers

During this summer’s WWDC, Apple introduced a new WebKit Content Blockers category of App Extensions that will be a part of both iOS 9 and OS X El Capitan.  App Extensions itself is a framework that was introduced at WWDC 2014; one that allows developers to enable system wide features in an approved and secure manner.

The WebKit open source site has a further primer on this new category.

In app advertisement currently isn’t affected by this framework as this is something that is specifically enabled within Safari’s (and other browsers if they expose it) settings once a content blocking application has been downloaded (the setting only shows up when such an app has been downloaded).

There are apps that do block unwanted content at a wider level on iOS (Wi-Fi only since there isn’t any way to configure this for cellular data) using an HTTP proxy server (Weblock is one of the best as it creates and manages a Proxy Auto Configuration file; this file contains the usual content blocking rulesets that are defined by the app and all those are downloaded to the device and processed there; the proxy server is just a dummy one that is used for matching rules and sending that request to ones of Google’s openDNS servers where those connections are basically terminated since it isn’t an HTTP server.

But this isn’t a standard framework like WebKit Content Blockers are (ones that will work regardless of data connection type).  On the desktop, ad blockers and other methods to block content weren’t an issue since it’s not a locked down environment.  Myself, I’ve documented here in this blog about the methods I’ve used on the desktop to filter out a lot of this stuff (I’ll revisit this in a bit).

With the release of iOS 9 earlier this week, a slew of content blocking applications were released on the App Store (and once El Capitan is released, ones for the Mac will also become available).  And several paid ones have made their way to the top of the charts.  When I searched for “content blocker” on the App Store, most unsurprisingly showed up as being Ad blockers.  And that aspect has set off a crap storm of debate regarding user privacy/user browsing experience on one end, with the rights for online publishers to generate revenue.

First some really brief history is required (I’m going to be glossing over a lot of the details since it would end up being too long).

Back before the commercialization of the Internet, if users wanted to consume media, it had to be paid for.  You bought a physical magazine, newspaper, document, etc.  With the web, content like this was considered “free”; it’s actually one of the great thing about the early Internet where the barriers to entry weren’t that high where anyone could create content and make it widely available to an audience.

With the commercialization of the Internet, monetizing opportunities also abounded.  But that also meant many others doing it (thus the advent of the search engine).  Advertisers however had a huge challenge because advertising online isn’t the same as traditional advertising.  In the early days, everyone created an online presence of some sort just to be there.  That included many traditional publishers of magazines and newspapers.  And back in those early days, no one had any clue as to how to monetize this content; thus many put their content (some times not all of it) online without any sort of paywall.

From the user perspective early on, such online content was considered “free” where that psychological aspect cemented itself early on.  Paying for online content seemed like a ridiculous notion even though such original content, takes a lot of time and work to actually create.  Eventually as time passed, several distinct business models appeared; content that was supported by online advertisement and actual paywalls.

Students at universities like Stanford and UC Berkeley also did research in this area, creating projects that tried to categorize what existed online, into an Internet directory of sorts.  That led to new companies like Yahoo, Excite, Alta Vista, Infoseek, and Lycos (just to name a few of the early ones).  But it wasn’t until the folks who created Google’s search engine algorithm, that the real monetization of Internet content as well as search results really exploded.

And advertisers saw huge growth opportunities given the tools that companies like Google offered in this area.  It’s also where I happened onto the seedier side of the early page ranking and search engine optimization shenanigans that were taking place by early Internet “marketers”.  I’m also not going to go into the full details about this but what happened is that I came across an online forum where these marketers (and there were many of them) who basically figured out ways to game the system in their favor.  This included going to the extremes of creating a lot of front ended sites that they tried to get highly ranked in Google’s search results, and would create a huge round robin of affiliate sites that were all linked to each other in some fashion.  Some of these sites would sell actual product while others would be what looks like a review site with a lot of testimonials.

There were a lot of cottage industries including ones that had inexpensive merchandise for sale which these marketers could use (as well as these “review” sites where regular people were recruited to write those reviews).  It’s difficult to explain without giving an example but this wasn’t just physical merchandise; this also extended to software.

One example I like to use is when someone is searching for say a Flash video converter (to some other format).  Many of the top results shown are a perfect example of the above.  There will be what looks like many different software products.  There will be some review sites mixed in.  There will also be legitimate freeware/shareware software download sites that also hosts these software to give the entire thing even more relevance and weight.

The money is made several ways here.  One is via online ad revenue impressions and more so click-throughs (since those have a higher payout) which can be huge given the page rankings of many of these sites with the highest search results.  This nebulous interweaving of sites also gives weight to these results and feeds on itself (some of the top folks pull in 5 figure a month checks from Google).  Also, some of this software is shareware/trial versions where the full version can be unlocked by purchasing a key/unlock code (so additional revenue is created there).

The thing is that most of this software is exactly the same thing.  Just the user interface and application name is different.  Basically, a software developer is commissioned to write an app and changes the UI to give each one a different appearance.  But the underlying functionality is basically the same (right down to the exact same bugs and issues with performing the conversion).

And this is just one example.  Sure, the folks that created these sites had to put an initial large amount of time to get all of that in place.  But once established, the checks keep rolling in.  But many of these folks don’t just sit on their laurels; they keep looking for other opportunities and have to also stay on top of the constant changes that take place.

My point with the above is that there is a segment of online advertising that is like a house of cards where all of this money is being generated but not in completely honest ways.  And that also feeds into Google’s coffers since they also generate revenue from all of this advertising.  It’s a huge reason why I never bought into utilizing it when I created and ran my own sites.  It’s just a personal choice wearing the web publisher hat.

But I also have issues when it comes to the aesthetics of a site when it comes to advertisement placement.  I personally just find it distracting and ugly looking.  Do I feel the same about traditional print advertisements like in newspapers and magazines?  Yes.  The biggest difference though is that unlike online, I can’t accidentally click on them.  With online placement, publishers utilize a variety of techniques to where one cannot help but to accidentally click on these from time to time.  The display itself while distracting, can be visually tuned out.  But once you click one (when you meant to click on the actual link of the pertinent content), your attention is taken away from what you were engaged in to something that you didn’t even mean or care to do.  And then there are those sites that actually highlight links that are really actually just a link to an ad.

Once you block all of this stuff though, the actual content of many sites are just far more palatable and easier to take in.  Furthermore, the load times of many sites is just that much faster.  The downside though is that for legitimate online publishers, the wholesale blocking of these advertisements, also blocks their ability to earn revenue.

As mentioned earlier and before on this blog,  I’ve basically used both in-browser ad blockers as well as system level host level blocking (of most all known ad serving sites), and also filtering at the router firewall level.  The end result is a browsing and media viewing experience on the desktop that is almost 100% free of any ads.  The same could not be said when browsing on any of my iDevices until I came across Weblock on the App Store.  After learning how it works, I purchased it and haven’t looked back when it comes to Wi-Fi browsing.  Still the contrast is stark when browsing via a cellular data connection.

There are the occasions where a site won’t serve up its content saying that I have an ad blocker enabled.  That is completely fair and one that I don’t have a problem with.  If the sites content is good enough, I end up creating a whitelist exception for such sites.

The point I am getting at should be clear.  I believe that online publishers and bloggers shouldn’t be denied revenue IF their content is worthy of it.  The issue that I personally have is the how all of this advertisement is served up to users.  A large number of ads are what I call obnoxious in their display while the careful placement to create unintended clicks are publisher defined ones.  I basically hit the point where it was easier and less work for me to tune everything out except the actual content.

What about the ethics involved?  That itself is a hot topic.  There are ethical and privacy considerations when it comes to the kind of tracking that is involved (which Content Blockers also allow to be disabled).  Advertisers have always used profiling and behavioral analysis but some of this is going over the line now with this persistent tracking.  And many completely ignore the “Do not track me” settings that many browsers include (that included Safari where even Google themselves used a workaround to ignore that setting).  Many ad networks still use this 1×1 pixel clear images for tracking.  It’s this kind of ad network BS which makes folks like myself turn everything off.

Basically, advertisers need to tone down the noise level of some of their displays and reassess many of their privacy invading tracking methodologies to build these user profiles (that aspect also extends to Google).  Yes, I realize that is part of advertising; visual (and now audible) impact.  And online publishers themselves need to be aware of not just the visual clutter, but also to insure those ads don’t create unintended annoyances that make site and content navigation a mine field.

With this new Content Blocker category, advertisers and publishers need to go back to basics and find ways to make ads that don’t annoy users to the extent where many are actually willing to pay for some app that allows the blocking of those ads.  Some folks may choose to attack Apple for allowing this category or ability to even exist.  The burden isn’t on them to decide though.  What they are providing is an official framework that allows users to streamline their online viewing experience.

Those who create and publish content need to work on their web sites to make these ads less of a visual clutter and annoyance.  Ironically, many sites that have a mobile version, don’t have this huge noise problem.  And that is why I believe the issue is more of a design related one on the desktop side due to less layout restrictions.

Of course with iOS 9, Apple also provided a new News application where users can discover many of these same content providers, bloggers, and publishers.  That entire irony is not lost on me with this new Content Blocking category where many are utilizing its ad blocking capabilities to essentially deny the revenue making opportunities that being discoverable in this app provides.

What I personally believe is this.  Good quality content is something that is worth paying for.  Unfortunately, the early aspects of the web created this entire mentality of online content as being one that is free which led to this whole ad supported revenue model to begin with.  The paywall model isn’t going to work for large segments of the non-traditional web publishing sites unless the larger majority of these type of content providers utilize it.  And that isn’t realistically going to happen because the average user out there isn’t going to subscribe to these anyway (the ones that are successful like Ars Technica as an example, focus heavily on original content).

Likewise, much of what exists online is regurgitated writings and opinions (mine is included in this which is also yet another reason I never considered blogging as a means to make money – I cannot ethically take anyones money for what amounts to be my own personal soap box).  And what about sites that engage in the rumor mill?  That involves a whole ‘nother level of ethics.  Sure, there is the publics right to know, but some of the snooping involves borders on stalking and dumpster diving.  And then there is that certain level of professionalism that is involved in the online publishing arena (where it is often times, shoot first, fact check/vet after wards).  Journalistic integrity left the building a long time ago.

And as consolidation continues to occur with big corporations/media buying up smaller ones, the agenda changes where folks like myself are no longer interested in what becomes tainted content.  Plus as I’ve also written about before, I’m one of those folks who rarely is affected by advertisements.  I tune them out on what little broadcast television I do watch now (and when it comes to the ones in Japan, only watch them for their stupidity/entertainment value).  I’m one of those folks who are an advertisers worst nightmare.  Furthermore, the often times vague and indirect methods of how all of this revenue is generated, gives me a lot of pause as to how much more noise there is out there compared to actual quality signal.

Which leads me to my final point.  There are going to be very polarizing opinions on this with many online publishers who make their living from online advertising, trying to paint this Content Blocking ability as being one that deprives them of revenue. Cry me a river.  The way I look at it is this though. Basically, all of these years of “easily” riding the system, is coming to an end.  It’s going to create a much needed flush.  The advertisers and content providers are going to have to adapt or go the way of the dodo bird.  Content needs to be original and of good professional quality; not just regurgitated stuff.

Consumers have shown they are willing to pay for commercial free content (Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime, iTunes, HBO, etc) when it comes to broadcast media, movies, and music.  The same goes for digital print when it comes to eBook type publications (again, Amazon Kindle and iBooks).  Notice these are what have been mostly traditionally presented content that has gone digital.  None of this happened overnight.

Matter of fact, it was a huge learning process as well as cultural shift for these industries to figure out a business model that would work.  It reminded me of the time that Metallica sued Napster back in 2000 (drummer Lars Ulrich was extremely opinionated on the entire aspect of Internet downloads even though the band eventually began selling their live concert musics on their own livemetallica.com site, and eventually began offering their releases on Apple’s iTunes).  Note that during that time, I was a huge Metallica fan.  While I personally disagreed with some of Ulrich’s early blanket opinions with Internet downloads (something that Apple rectified with iTunes which paved the way for other companies to also offer both licensed download and streamed music), it didn’t turn me into a Metallica hater during that time (I just ended up becoming less interested in the band after 2003 once St. Anger was released where nothing on that release appealed to me).

My point is that it took many years for these long standing industries as well as some artists to warm up to the whole business model.  Remember, the music industry was not enamored with iTunes nor many of Steve Jobs’ demands (including going DRM free).  But it was adapt or die and from a platform aspect, the music industry had nothing better nor even any kind of alternative solution.  And look where we are today with people actually paying for music either as downloads or via subscription streaming services (for ad-free play).

The non-traditional online publishers are mostly what is referred to as “new media” where many were in the right place at the right time when it came to creating and establishing their web presence, and thus reaping the benefits of the online advertisement model early on.  This industry has never really undergone drastic changes which so many others have had to go through.  I’ve seen that myself with multiple shifts in the IT sector (from centralized mainframes with dumb terminals, to desktops with LAN connectivity, to having to roll out networks with UTP wiring and actual IP connectivity, moving to switched Ethernet and managed networking, to this entire move towards mobile).

The typesetting and graphics publishing folks had it even worse once the Mac came out with desktop publishing.  And let’s look at the photo industry when it came to film versus digital.  Companies like Kodak and Polaroid didn’t adapt quickly enough even though they had years of heads up of what was coming.  And the portable music player industry?  Sony (and most Japanese consumer electronics firms) didn’t even see the software side as they were more focused on the hardware.  The original clickwheel iPod was also about its firmware but once Apple moved to the iPod touch, it was all about the software.

And even to this day, the lack of software focus is evident which is why most Japanese electronic devices have such terrible user interfaces.  Even the PlayStation 4 struggles on the software side when it comes to how certain features are implemented (and it’s why their smartphone devices are powered by Android and previous WinMo).  I look at the UI of the PSVita for example and just shake my head at how horrible it looks and works (the underlying SoC hardware isn’t much different from an iPod touch).  The good thing for Sony is that Apple isn’t serious about the gaming console market as they are content with the casual mobile gaming aspect of iOS.  Still, the point is that Sony had to adapt to the reality that software design is part of the deal now.

Digressing, while ad blocking software/browser extensions has been in existence for awhile, the high profile nature of this specific “Content Blocking” category of software in Apple’s App Store (initially iOS and also the Mac App Store once El Capitan goes live) just brings what is normally less visible, to the front.  And these non-traditional online publishers/content providers/bloggers are going to have to adapt because the reality is that once a user installs a content blocker, no amount of rationalization is going to make a huge difference to getting people to change their minds about removing it.  And trying to turn this into a moral/ethical issue is one that isn’t going to fly when the entire online advertisement business has the kinds of nefarious ones that I presented above.