Opera has a market penetration of 1.2% to 2.9%. In the scheme of things this is pretty insignificant.

However, having an ad blocker built into a browser is a sign of the times and perhaps ... things to come. Ad blocking itself is already at the 25% level world wide (higher in some areas).

Those who foresaw this day have long since moved to other methods of advertising which does not make use of third parties, or took the next step to create viable pay to play (subscription based) content websites.

Yes, Opera has small market share, and on its own won't feature much, however, when added to other browsers, and services, it's bound to be making an impact.

Unfortunately, it's difficult for individual websites to measure the true impact across the board, however, major services, and IAB will be the ones to watch as they eventually will be reporting on the impact of ad blocking.

Is there anyone (afterall I posted this in Adsense so I'm trying to discuss this with people who are relying on Adsense for revenue) who put in the efforts to speed up their site and mobile site? I would wonder if you feel like I do, that those efforts were in hopes of some favors from Google search (more organic traffic) and to satisfy visitors has been a futile effort given the marketing that Opera has decided upon. I don't see this as a one off so I view this as just the beginning of built-in/marketed/promoted features of more browswers.

People can dismiss Opera and their market share, but how about this being their marketing push to increase that market share? See, we put in an ad blocker and it's faster than anything else! I'm sure their graphs are next showing them vs. the third party solutions.

To suggest that the marketing stops at Opera is BS. What I would now be concerned about is those alternative advertising and revenue generating models. Killing affiliate links? Sure, market the non tracker bonus too. Why not? Opera wants customers afterall. Everyone wants more users and what's more trendy than saying you're faster than everyone else and that your privacy is better than anyone else?

Can anyone here dispute the marketing ploy of "Browse faster with fewer ads?". Of course it would be completely disregarding the work and effort that webmasters made over the past couple years to make their sites faster, especially with mobile.

The day of on by default is not quite here, but when you have a splash page that says choose which option you want: slower page loads and sacrificed privacy vs. ads enabled? That would be like asking on television if you want the ad free version or the ad version of the show. People will choose which one I wonder. Here are two movies. One comes with free popcorn and a drink vs. just the movie and no free popcorn and drink. Geez I wonder which one people choose. At one time a company came up with a clever product that removed ads from television shows. That company was sued/went out of business. The web doesn't have that sort of protection but the idea of blocking out revenue generators is actually unethical don't you think. I mean at the very least that's what I call it. Any jack A can point to abusive ad laden sites that suck your bandwidth and make you go over your monthly unlimited usage ;)

Here's some instructions on how to track Ad Blockers in Google Analytics. Probably good to find out how much of a problem it actually is for your site.

[kaushik.net...]

(Avinash is very much a trusted resource on this, which is why I post the link)

Great post netmeg. Thank you for sharing your sources :)

"No, I'd like to see ads!", said no-one ever.

"Hey, my favourite website's gone / behind a paywall / been bought by a multinational", said someone soon.

(Sung to the closing refrain of the Beatles "The End")

And in the end, the web goes on.
Ad blocking's here, just pick your fate!