DS Forums

 
 

Crystal iOS ad-blocker now allowing companies to pay to keep ads unblocked


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24-09-2015, 23:01
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,646

Crystal — currently the most popular ad-blocker on the iOS App Store — is allowing advertisers who pay for the privilege to bypass the app's filters, a report said on Thursday.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/...s-restrictions

Money talks I suppose. I've ditched Crystal because of this and switched to Purify
JasonWatkins is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 24-09-2015, 23:04
KesterK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Posts: 2,618
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/...s-restrictions

Money talks I suppose. I've ditched Crystal because of this and switched to Purify
I've read elsewhere that there will be a setting in the app to block all ads, just as it does now. The developer is just trying to make extra money, who can blame them really.

This is just like a pre-set white list. It doesn't bother me if it is optional.
KesterK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2015, 23:05
sweetstyle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Stamford
Posts: 72
Purify for me, some things are worth paying for...
sweetstyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2015, 23:09
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,646
There will be a setting in the app though they are saying to block all ads, just as it does now. The developer is just trying to make extra money, who can blame them really.
Nothing like that in Crystal - it's very much a 'set it and forget it' app.

Purify for me, some things are worth paying for...
Indeed. When I saw the statistical comparison between purify and crystal for page loading speeds, it was a no brainer really.
JasonWatkins is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2015, 23:19
KesterK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Posts: 2,618
Nothing like that in Crystal - it's very much a 'set it and forget it' app.



Indeed. When I saw the statistical comparison between purify and crystal for page loading speeds, it was a no brainer really.
Crystal hasn't been updated yet, so no, the setting isn't there now, but will come in an update by the sounds of it, along with the new "controlled" ads.

I think people are being overly reactive to something that hasn't even happened yet. Some people are going way OTT about this on some websites and seem to be getting a bit aggressive.

In my opinion it's best to wait and see just how this is implemented. If it can be switched off (I.e. Block all ads as it does now) then there's no real issue.
KesterK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2015, 23:49
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,646
Crystal hasn't been updated yet, so no, the setting isn't there now, but will come in an update by the sounds of it, along with the new "controlled" ads.

I think people are being overly reactive to something that hasn't even happened yet. Some people are going way OTT about this on some websites and seem to be getting a bit aggressive.

In my opinion it's best to wait and see just how this is implemented. If it can be switched off (I.e. Block all ads as it does now) then there's no real issue.
Reading more in to it, it does appear that they'll be following the same model as Adblock plus by allowing "acceptable" ads from companies who have paid and it will be implemented as a switchable feature so you either allow all of the acceptable ads or none of them.

Personally, I'd prefer to have much more control over sites I want to whitelist so that's part of the reason I switched. The other part is that I saw that Purify is just a better solution full stop. It's quicker, has one touch whitelisting and can block images, scripts and fonts as well as everything else. 79p well spent.
JasonWatkins is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2015, 00:33
alanwarwic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
Not a total shock, the blocker with the most users has the most extortion/blackmail power.

All that surprises me is how quick they moved into a secondary plan.
alanwarwic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2015, 07:55
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,646
Not a total shock, the blocker with the most users has the most extortion/blackmail power.

All that surprises me is how quick they moved into a secondary plan.
I suppose you could potentially argue this was the plan all along. Offer it for free on day one to hook people in and become the de-facto face of Safari adblocking and go straight to allowing paid for adverts through.
JasonWatkins is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2015, 08:25
xreyuk123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 509
I dot see why so many people have a problem with this. It's switchable.
xreyuk123 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2015, 08:37
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,646
I dot see why so many people have a problem with this. It's switchable.
Obviously, but with over 70 companies apparently paying to have their ads allowed through with potentially up to 700 more being in a position to do so, you don't really have much of a choice if you only want to support specific sites - if you wanted to whitelist DS but not Google because you objected to how much data they collect on you then you wouldn't have that choice because it would be all or nothing.

And it's kind of the principle of it as well - if you're in the business of blocking ads, tracking cookies and the like then you shouldn't be allowing people to pay you to circumvent that.

And I say that as a person with very few principles
JasonWatkins is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2015, 11:22
alanwarwic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
I suppose you could potentially argue this was the plan all along. Offer it for free on day one to hook people in and become the de-facto face of Safari adblocking and go straight to allowing paid for adverts through.
It is why I near never update an app I like the function of. They often get busy monetizing existing users, rather than chasing new sales.
alanwarwic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2015, 10:49
-GONZO-
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 8,954
I'm using Clear Ad Blocker which is currently free and so far is working a treat on DS.
-GONZO- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2015, 10:55
Gigabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,876
It's no surprise that this adblocker allows certain ads through. It is owned by the same people as Adblock Plus which does exactly the same thing (i.e. lets adds through).
Gigabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2015, 11:14
xreyuk123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 509
Obviously, but with over 70 companies apparently paying to have their ads allowed through with potentially up to 700 more being in a position to do so, you don't really have much of a choice if you only want to support specific sites - if you wanted to whitelist DS but not Google because you objected to how much data they collect on you then you wouldn't have that choice because it would be all or nothing.

And it's kind of the principle of it as well - if you're in the business of blocking ads, tracking cookies and the like then you shouldn't be allowing people to pay you to circumvent that.

And I say that as a person with very few principles
He announced that in the very same update he's allowing sponsored ads, he's adding a whitelist option.
xreyuk123 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2015, 12:53
dephanix02
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 332
If you read and understand what he is doing you'll know this is ALL OPTIONAL.
dephanix02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2015, 13:45
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,646
He announced that in the very same update he's allowing sponsored ads, he's adding a whitelist option.
Probably too little, too late as the move has lost the author a LOT of goodwill if you go by various websites and the comments about the move. And it's scheduled as a "future update" as well, so it certainly hasn't happened yet as far as i'm aware.

The problem he'll have now is that with so many new ad blockers hitting the app store now that are much faster at rendering pages and also far more customisable - and free, I do believe his user base will erode very, very quickly.

If you read and understand what he is doing you'll know this is ALL OPTIONAL.
i'm FULLY AWARE it's all optional ..
JasonWatkins is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:39.