New windows 10 browser (Edge) has built in reader that will block out distractions (ads)

Going to get tougher to make money from any device.

It will block scripts etc

Do you have a link to any specifications etc?

[businessinsider.com...]

Publishers are already concerned about the low returns from mobile, and the more ad blocking that goes on the greater that challenge. [webmasterworld.com...]

None of us here are representative of the average user, so we may have strong views or take explicit actions to blocks ads already.

Remember, users have to opt-in, so an action needs to be taken through choice.

I'm sure that Google will have something to investigate on this news, at some point, especially if it's going to make dents in its mobile ad distribution.

There is talk of mobile carriers blocking ads by default.

Apparently they're tired of making a pittance on the data service, while Google etc. rakes in.

That's be more serious.

There is talk of mobile carriers blocking ads by default.

Yes, in Europe, where (if a Financial Times report is true) carriers are looking to extort money from Google in return for not blocking ads. This was discussed in another thread on Webmaster World:

[webmasterworld.com...]

Given the legal issues involved, it sounds more like saber-rattling than a real plan.

carriers are looking to extort money from Google in return for not blocking ads.

Same way Goog is "extorting" money from SMBs all over the world in SERP?

Same way Goog is "extorting" money from SMBs all over the world in SERP?

I've never heard of Google extorting money from anyone organic search rankings, but in any case, I'm referring to something entirely different from whatever you're imagining. According to the FT article, the carriers want Google to give them a share of its ad revenues.

In other words, they want to "double dip": charge their subscribers for Internet access, then charge Google for access to those subscribers. And why stop with extorting money from Google? Why not require all of us to pay protection money to the carriers in return for having our pages accessible to their subscribers? Is that something you'd like to see?

Getting back to the topic of a default ad blocker in Safari, that strikes me as risky on Apple's part. What's to keep sites from serving pages up slowly to Safari users who block ads, maybe with a message that says "Your browser is not compliant with Web standards"?

EG,

I am an online SMB(12 years and going) and my business model is not based on display advertising(in or out), for at least 11 years.

I salute every company that makes an effort to say NO to Garbage that is called Ads, opt-out for Privacy and User Tracking across the NET, even if they do it themselves.

POP.

What's to keep sites from serving pages up slowly to Safari users who block ads, maybe with a message that says "Your browser is not compliant with Web standards"?

Probably a Storm of Negative Twitter and FB posts..... not sure that anyone wants to be there...

compliant with Web standards

What are "Web standards"?

I am an online SMB(12 years and going) and my business model is not based on display advertising(in or out), for at least 11 years.

Ours isn't either, for the most part, but not every publisher is in a niche that works well with other revenue sources. Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture.

BTW, unless I'm mistaken, "ad blocking" isn't limited to blocking display ads.

So does ad blocking block display ads, text ads, analytics, FB like buttons and youtube videos?

I salute every company that makes an effort to say NO to Garbage that is called Ads, opt-out for Privacy and User Tracking across the NET, even if they do it themselves.

One of the sillier things I've read here. Content has been funded by advertising for centuries. If you salute killing off advertising then you're saluting the death of content. Either that or you're a fan of paywalls.

If my visitors block my ads and I don't reach my minimums because of the blocked ads then those visitors don't reach my content because it's not free to create/host/maintain. Furthermore my visitors, if they are blocking ads, will know exactly why and more importantly who to blame, for not being able to see my content. I suspect this will escalate my war against those who "borrow" my content for their sites and services but oh well.

Sorry, but the blowback idea is not going to stop me because I will redirect, focus and amplify it right back at the source. I don't spam ads but I do have advertisers to protect, and I will.

An idea: Laws prohibiting operating systems from arbitrarily remove sections of a website, including ads. I'm sure visitors would understand if you get it through to them that our content without ads is like their work without salary.

our content without ads is like their work without salary

That is not a good analogy at all.

A salaried employee is paid under contract, a legal agreement.

Webmasters who rely on advertising revenue are engaged in a speculative venture and have no actual right to remuneration.

They are gamblers, and as such they take a risk.

...

They are gamblers, and as such they take a risk.

That analogy is no better. Content producers are no more "gamblers" than newspapers and television networks are gamblers. They just want to produce the best content, attract the largest audience and, as a corollary, the wealthiest advertisers. Publishers are salespeople more than anything else, so it's unfair that their capacity to sell and earn is undermined by adblockers and browser developers.

If there's a way to detect adblock use and deny its users access to my sites, I would seriously consider it. I don't care if they are unlikely to click ads, it's the principle of the thing that irks me.

In the grand scheme of things, that's a minor concern for me right now. If it looks like it's making a difference to my bottom line, then I'll just come up with another way to monetize them, whether it's by app or subscription or something. There's always an alternative, if you're creative and you picked the right niche.

Why not block content on your site if an adblocker is on? Without ads or ways to monetize your site, the site dies, the internet dies, and content dries up.

Its not a lot different to people fast forwarding adverts on the TV. People dont open every page in a newspaper either -- this is just the internets equivalent.
i think we will just come to accept that theres nothing we can do about it

Maybe text links will make a comeback? If people need money then that is one way of getting around the ad blockers, and to hell what google says about it -- if you need money you need money!

Its not a lot different to people fast forwarding adverts on the TV. People dont open every page in a newspaper either -- this is just the internets equivalent.

It's actually quite a bit different. It's as if the manufacturer of your TV included a "remove commercials" setup option or a news distributor offered the option of blotting out ads in newspapers and magazines.

i think we will just come to accept that theres nothing we can do about it

Google is the 800-gorilla in the room. The real question is what Google will do about it if ad blocking becomes more common than it is.

Maybe text links will make a comeback? If people need money then that is one way of getting around the ad blockers, and to hell what google says about it -- if you need money you need money!

Affiliate links are far less risky than paid text links, and in some niches they can be considerably more profitable than ads. On our site, AdSense ads are just the icing on the cake: the real money comes from affiliate links that meet the needs of our readers. Trouble is, affiliate links aren't likely to be a great fit for general news, entertainment, and information sites whose readers aren't researching or open to purchases.

Another thought: Could building an ad blocker into an OS maker's browser be viewed as anti-competitive behavior? One could certainly argue that, if the reports are true, Apple and Microsoft appear to be trying to drive a stake directly into Google's heart (with publishers and media companies as collateral damage). It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the regulatory or legal arena.

Why not block content on your site if an adblocker is on?

I'd take down the sites before I'd do that. Why piss people off when there are other ways to monetize them (if your site is useful enough)

There are advertising networks who not only tell you the percentage of browsers running a blocker, but they also replace blocked ads with a work-around ad.

How many feel this is also a reaction to those very badly designed sites with way too many ads and atrocious loading times?

Well constructed sites work fine, I can understand why people would want to block ads when encountering such garbage.

Yea, that's one reason I don't put ads in my actual content. I could probably get more clicks, but it would be annoying. I'm trying to play a long game here, not a short one.

The Boston Globe now limits pages viewed to five per month after which a visitor must pay to see more. Another webmaster option, if ad blockers insist on stripping out what pays for the content, is to place the content behind a timed ad overlay. If the visitor blocks the ad then it never completes and they cannot move on to the content. I see this used widely on game sites already and it's become normal behavior for visitors to expect an ad before receiving content thanks to sites like youtube.

Wonder if Google might sell off Adsense to ValueClick or somebody so they can put this feature in Chrome (only half joking).

Well, this is a bold move by Apple. More than anything this will affect Google's Adsense - and maybe even YouTube when viewed in the Safari browser. I actually see this as a good thing - I don't use ads at all. And yeah, ads are annoying - especially ones that pop out of nowhere on a smartphone.