back to article You shouldn't be paying for mobile ads (please buy our software)

Israeli ad-blocking company Shine has climbed on to the moral high ground, taking out an advertisement in the Financial Times calling on the mobile industry to block mobile ads. Roi Carthy, Shine’s chief marketing officer told El Reg: “Any rational person can agree that we should not be subsidising Google, Facebook and so on …

  1. WibbleMe

    Ever has cookies disabled and told to "get lost" when visiting a website... I can see that happening to sites that cant show their adds on your screen.

    Though most websites are not responsive to mobile design add seem to be annoyingly non responsive and in some cases impossible to disable as the X close does not work with touch screens as its too small.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Nerver mind cookies, websites are out there that actively detect AdBlockers and shunt you to a garage page if you're using one.

      If I don't really need the info, or if I can find it elsewhere, I generally do not return there - which shouldn't bother them since they're more interested in shoveling ads at me than in me seeing their website.

      1. MrWibble

        Most of the time the "you are using an adblocker, please disable it" messages, can be blocked by the adblocker custom rules.

        cat and mouse games!

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "I can see that happening to sites that cant show their adds on your screen."

      Back in the olden days when I was still using Windows, TuCows did exactly that. You could browse the software libraries for ever, but any attempt to download a file was met with a re-direct through the ad-server. IIRC, the only "ad-blocker" back then was a custom hosts file routing the ad-servers to localhost and blocking the TuCows ad-server meant no downloads. I stopped using TuCows, Blocking the ads was my response to the increase in ads per page and "in your face" GIF anim ads. (was flash a thing for ads back then? I forget, it's so long ago now). They "won" the advert arms race but it was a Pyrrhic victory since they lost me anyway.

  2. Ralph B

    Commentard Qualification

    To qualify to comment on this story you must not be using an adblocker on this website.

    (Should be quiet then.)

    ((And before you ask, yes, I have (temporarily) disabled by adblocker to comment. There's Gartner Business banner and side panel ads currently on this page as I type this.))

    1. Aggrajag

      Re: Commentard Qualification

      I haven't disabled my Ad blocker and I can still reply. (Chrome with AdBlock.)

    2. oneeye

      Re: Commentard Qualification

      No,you are the commentard!

      I'm using Firefox with Ghostery and do NOT have to make any adjustment and certainly DO NOT have to disable!

  3. ratfox Silver badge
    Coat

    He also said it was down to publishers who rely on advertising for funding to find alternative business models.

    …Well, we'll always have Wikipedia I guess.

  4. heyrick Silver badge
    WTF?

    I had a new one yesterday

    Visited gizmodo (Google search) and had the window replaced by an advert saying that a virus scan was being conducted. Nothing new there. What was new was that this was shortly followed up by Orange texting me to remind me that purchasing services on my mobile account (added to phone bill) has been disabled.

    WTF?

    That sounds a lot like some shady advert "offered" me something I didn't want and then wanted to bill me for it. All simply by visiting a page that has embedded adverts.

    At this point I'm leaning less towards using AdBlock and more towards public castration of those responsible...

    1. JetSetJim Silver badge

      Re: I had a new one yesterday

      Another good case for the following within phone OSes (without having to root/jailbreak them:

      access to hosts file on the phone - so the user can add a blacklist of sites (or even a whitelist). Suitable protections required to stop apps from modifying it, too.

      toggleable permissions on each app - so you can switch off the apps ability to request such things and not have to rely on the operator to be so nice. Sure, some apps may legitimately (or deliberately) break when a user toggles something that either gives it revenue or functionality

    2. oneeye

      Re: I had a new one yesterday

      Shady ad? Sounds more like malware if they attempted to charge your account without your interacting with the ad, or if you hit the "x" to clear the ad,that may have triggered your agreement to being bilked! If and when I have seen those kinds of ads, I back out immediately. But I have not even seen one since using Firefox on Android because Firefox mobile has all the ad block extensions(add-ons) that are available for desktop. I really can not understand why more people don't use it. I also have Self Destructing Cookies enabled. Firefox has so many great things like a reading mode,and a section to save those articles (in addition to the pocket integration) and downloads of pdf files works better than chrome. Firefox is by far a superior browser for Android.

  5. tony72

    Roi Carthy, Shine’s chief marketing officer told El Reg: “Any rational person can agree that we should not be subsidising Google, Facebook and so on.” He calls the presence of ads on mobes “pollution” and that his company believes that “The right to block ads is a consumer right”.

    I don't get it. Sure, we all dislike ads, but we all also dislike paying up-front for stuff if we don't have to. Advertising is a well-established way of funding TV, radio, newspapers and magazines, as well as apps and web sites. What's suddenly so special about ads on mobiles as opposed to other forms? Why should we not be "subsidising" Google and Facebook for using their services?

    I can't help thinking that since that since they're pitching their services at the networks, this will ultimately be about who controls the revenue from ads, rather than actually being about reducing the number of ads seen by the consumer. Too cynical?

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Well I can see what Roi Carthy is getting at, but yes it isn't just mobile, although Roi is focusing on mobile because it tends to have the most restrictive data allowances and expensive data rates.

      Basically, what Roi is arguing about is that we the customer have paid for our data and hence we are within our right to dictate what data we will and won't accept over our line. Roi is taking this to the next step and saying that because the ISP's don't get any payment from the advertisers for forwarding their ad's then they shouldn't be forwarding them.

      I suppose it's a bit like a newspaper, whilst you pay for it, everyone in the distribution chain gets a cut of the sale, currently ISP's don't (in the main) get paid to serve content.

      It seems this argument has some ramifications with respect to net neutrality.

      1. Velv Silver badge
        Headmaster

        "I suppose it's a bit like a newspaper, whilst you pay for it, everyone in the distribution chain gets a cut of the sale, currently ISP's don't (in the main) get paid to serve content."

        ISPs get paid for how much data the consumer uses. They don't really care how you use up that allowance you've paid for, they profit by you using more of it.

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          "ISPs get paid for how much data the consumer uses."

          Precisely, they are paid by the consumer, and does the consumer really want to pay the ISP) just so that they can receive ad's that only benefit a third-party, particularly when they know that their broadband subscription isn't being subsidised by the ad revenue?

          "They don't really care how you use up that allowance you've paid for, they profit by you using more of it."

          Only to a certain extent. ISP's do care about how (and when) you use your allowance because services such as telephony and streaming media/tv have a different traffic profile to email and web browsing, which have an infrastructure and service management impact.

          As for profiting from usage, that only really applies when the customer is charged per MB, whilst this is the case for some ISPs (and the majority of mobile telcos), it isn't necessarily the case for many fixed line ISPs. However, here in the UK people may have missed the reasoning behind Three discontinuing their unlimited mobile data tariff, namely, because of market development (ie. more subscribers and greater usage of mobile data) they no longer have an under utilised (3G) network.

          So it is natural for ISP's to look at the ad networks and say, if you want to make use of our distribution and delivery network, then you need to pay.

    2. oneeye

      When Adblocking on mobile reaches a tipping point,then the advertising industry and the website owners will have to reform themselves. To make it safer for all consumers,the website should be the one who filters and delivers the ads in a respectful way,and not have twenty other ip addresses loading content individually. That's the real problem. And the major fact that the ad people have not taken responsibility to vet every single ad uploaded to their networks. I for one am tired of being called the bad guy just for protecting myself!

      " Why should we not be "subsidising" Google and Facebook for using their services?"

      Because they are not loading the ads,they only provide the template or platform to deliver which the website designer places into his pages. Only God knows how many shady ad companies will load thru those avenues. Because it IS NOT Google or facebook vetting those ads!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019