• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Mobile Phones
Crystal iOS ad-blocker now allowing companies to pay to keep ads unblocked
JasonWatkins
24-09-2015
Quote:
“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
KesterK
24-09-2015
Originally Posted by JasonWatkins:
“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.
sweetstyle
24-09-2015
Purify for me, some things are worth paying for...
JasonWatkins
24-09-2015
Originally Posted by KesterK:
“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.

Originally Posted by sweetstyle:
“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.
KesterK
24-09-2015
Originally Posted by JasonWatkins:
“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.
JasonWatkins
24-09-2015
Originally Posted by KesterK:
“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.
alanwarwic
25-09-2015
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.
JasonWatkins
25-09-2015
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“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.
xreyuk123
25-09-2015
I dot see why so many people have a problem with this. It's switchable.
JasonWatkins
25-09-2015
Originally Posted by xreyuk123:
“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
alanwarwic
25-09-2015
Originally Posted by JasonWatkins:
“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.
-GONZO-
27-09-2015
I'm using Clear Ad Blocker which is currently free and so far is working a treat on DS.
Gigabit
27-09-2015
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).
xreyuk123
27-09-2015
Originally Posted by JasonWatkins:
“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.
dephanix02
27-09-2015
If you read and understand what he is doing you'll know this is ALL OPTIONAL.
JasonWatkins
27-09-2015
Originally Posted by xreyuk123:
“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.

Originally Posted by dephanix02:
“If you read and understand what he is doing you'll know this is ALL OPTIONAL.”

i'm FULLY AWARE it's all optional ..
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map