Apple Cracking Down on VPN-Based Ad Blockers That Work in Third-Party Apps

[CarlJ]

The problem isn't VPN adblockers. The problem is ads themselves. There needs to be a new business model developed which isn't based on ads and clickstreams to generate revenue.

There was, for apps. There was this neat model where apps were put in the App Store, with a price, and people paid those prices to get the apps, and they didn't have advertising. Then people complained that the price of a latte was too much to spend on computer software (silly me, I still remember when VisiCalc cost hundreds of dollars). And lots of apps decided to compete on price, and there was a quick race to the bottom, with many apps "selling" for free. At which point, ads were the only way to make any money.

I'd much rather go back to the model where apps cost $3-$20 and didn't have ads. Maybe have some games continue with the "free with ads, $1-$10 one-time IAP to remove ads" model (as the available equivalent of a trial period). But it seems like the majority want apps "for free", so we're stuck with ads.

 

[fmillion]

I feel like the bigger issue is that the app uses a VPN and a root certificate to block ads. That just sounds like an absolutely horrible idea. You are, by design, entrusting ALL OF YOUR SECURE DATA to the VPN provider in question. The VPN itself isn't the problem, it's the root certificate - that means that the provider is a typical man-in-the-middle and is able to intercept all of your SECURE communications. From that angle, I could certainly see Apple's point in being weary of the app.

There are plenty of ways to accomplish this sort of thing without needing a specific app. The app is only providing the "one-click" solution. Perhaps we'll have to see someone roll together a turnkey open-source solution based on OpenVPN for this sort of thing. At least then you don't have to trust a third party to handle your secure content. It won't be as simple as "install an app and click a button" - you'd have to install OpenVPN, the profile and the certificate, but perhaps videos and such could be used to walk people through that.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

The problem isn't VPN adblockers. The problem is ads themselves. There needs to be a new business model developed which isn't based on ads and clickstreams to generate revenue. It's time to get rid of ads altogether. No more invasive pop-ups that steal personal data. How much of internet traffic is due to just adstreams?

Just going to macrumors.com links to 4 different adserver or analytics sites. (Lightbeam is a terrific plugin.) Going to one of my favorite sites, Arstechnica, links to 12. Going to washingtonpost.com gets you 22. It's no wonder that web browsing is so slow. It's been said that 40 percent of internet bandwidth is due to porn. I think more than that is due to just adserving and the infernal analytics meant to target those ads to you.

NO MORE ADS.

Are you willing to pay for every site you visit? Expect to pay a dollar or two a month for each site. Is that really what you want?

It'd be wonderful to live in a world without internet ads but it would also be a far far different world. Look at how mad people get when they go to Business Insider or other sites that block those with ad blockers. Sorry but those sites don't make anything if they can't show ads.

How do you hope to get quality material if those producing it don't make any money? Would you do your job if you didn't get paid for it?

Ending net neutrality is along the lines of going without ads. You'll pay for all the sites you access and in turn they can make money without the need to stuff ads in your face. You just have to pay a LOT more every month to access the sites you want to see.
[doublepost=1500229157][/doublepost]

I feel like the bigger issue is that the app uses a VPN and a root certificate to block ads. That just sounds like an absolutely horrible idea. You are, by design, entrusting ALL OF YOUR SECURE DATA to the VPN provider in question. The VPN itself isn't the problem, it's the root certificate - that means that the provider is a typical man-in-the-middle and is able to intercept all of your SECURE communications. From that angle, I could certainly see Apple's point in being weary of the app.

There are plenty of ways to accomplish this sort of thing without needing a specific app. The app is only providing the "one-click" solution. Perhaps we'll have to see someone roll together a turnkey open-source solution based on OpenVPN for this sort of thing. At least then you don't have to trust a third party to handle your secure content. It won't be as simple as "install an app and click a button" - you'd have to install OpenVPN, the profile and the certificate, but perhaps videos and such could be used to walk people through that.

Add to this the fact that the majority of the popular ad blocking apps are made by those in Russia and other foreign countries and the questionable aspect of sending all your traffic through a VPN becomes even more sketchy.

Most don't even bother to look at WHO is making the app they're downloading. They don't understand how the technology works but trust their data with anyone because they're ignorant to the facts. Maybe Apple is just making a move to protect the majority of iOS users who don't even know they should do their homework and instead trust Apple to do the vetting for them.

 

[CarlJ]

It's not just apps. It's full web sites, too. If I subscribe to a particular site, which is analogous to paying for an app, why should I ever see an ad there again? I'm already paying good money to subscribe to it. Isn't that enough for the site owner? I guess not.

If you subscribe to cable TV, there are plenty of channels that still show advertisements. Same deal. They're making part of their money from subscriptions and part from ads. Same with a magazine or newspaper. If you don't like the ads+subscription on a particular website, complain to them (not deflecting, really, they need to hear this kind of thing).
[doublepost=1500230089][/doublepost]

Moreover, if I do not want to connect to child porn websites, I'll put a filter to get rid of those URLs.

If you have a list of URLs of child porn websites, I expect the FBI would very much want you to turn over that list to them.

 

[UL2RA]

Told it FB Messenger devs a few times, they didn't listen ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The problem is not the in-app ads. There're browsers with no content blockers support, there're browsers embedded into apps like FB or twitter, there are dozens of trackers inside of all apps including the paid apps. We did a small research recently and found third-party trackers inside of a lot of banking apps, which is simply outrageous.

Yeah, this is another thing people don't realize. StumbleUpon is a perfect example of this. I love StumbleUpon but the iOS app is almost unusable without your ad blocker since it uses its own browser and 50% of the time pages won't even load properly or at all due to ads. Facebook is definitely the worst. Before I found your app I'd always use the "open in Safari" option simply so I could actually read the article. I honestly don't mind ads, just not ads that are shoved in my face and impede my ability to actually do something.

 

[lockerc18]

If you subscribe to cable TV, there are plenty of channels that still show advertisements. Same deal. They're making part of their money from subscriptions and part from ads. Same with a magazine or newspaper. If you don't like the ads+subscription on a particular website, complain to them (not deflecting, really, they need to hear this kind of thing).

I was talking about the internet business model, not cable. I want 100 percent content, not ads. Of course, the only reason why content exists is to drive traffic to the ads. But that's my goal. Cable is a different animal. I like to think it's going away anyway in favor of streaming, but we'll have to wait and see how successful that is, and, anyway, there are ads for that, too. And there are many other ad-driven business models out there. I wasn't talking about any of them, but frankly, my same argument would apply to them as well.

I want to do away with ads. If that means I have to pay a subscription fee, then OK, so long as it's reasonable and I don't still see ads even after I pay it. But that is not exactly what I'm after, either. I know I'd have to pay for content at some point, and I'm OK with that. But not with ads.

 

[Pnr2020]

I don't mind ads if there small or at bottom of the screen. But when they flash up at you and take up the whole screen it's very annoying. Every app should have an option to pay to remove ads

 

[avatar-adg]

I wonder why do people repeat that VPN/root certificate security point all the time?

These apps aren't real VPNs, your traffic is not being sent anywhere, and there is no root certificate installed.

Also, the update from Apple clearly indicates, that the problem is not in the techniques used to block ads and tracking, but in the blocking itself.

 

[Hippocrates]

Are you willing to pay for every site you visit? Expect to pay a dollar or two a month for each site. Is that really what you want?

It'd be wonderful to live in a world without internet ads but it would also be a far far different world. Look at how mad people get when they go to Business Insider or other sites that block those with ad blockers. Sorry but those sites don't make anything if they can't show ads.

How do you hope to get quality material if those producing it don't make any money? Would you do your job if you didn't get paid for it?

Ending net neutrality is along the lines of going without ads. You'll pay for all the sites you access and in turn they can make money without the need to stuff ads in your face. You just have to pay a LOT more every month to access the sites you want to see.

Firstly, It is not about shutting the revenue stream of the content providers with ad blocking. Traditional ad is fine, paper publishers know their limit of not overpowering their content with ads, since they have to pay for the paper and printing cost too. However, internet users have to pay for the extra bandwidth consumption due to ads and there is hardly any cost on the app developers / internet content providers side.

Secondly, tracking users behaviors and monetizing individual user data go far beyond non-discriminative displaying of ads. The value in every user data has to be explicitly declared. If the app developer applies 1 tracker on me, perhaps my user data would worth 20 cents a month to them... but that value could balloon to $20/month if he tracks me with 100 trackers. This is just a hypothetical example, but users have the right to know how much their data is being sold for, so that they can make a conscious decision of whether the content provided worth the value of their data, as well as their probabilistic cost to them if their data fall into the wrong hands.

Otherwise it will be akin to selling you a product for 'free', but I'm allowed to sneakily go into your house and take one (or more items) away without you realizing what it is and the value of that item. If I'm taking away a diamond ring of yours, perhaps I should also pay you on top of selling my product to you for free!

 

[AdonisSMU]

I have no problem with developers using non-intrusive ads. The ones using ads that are loud or immediately push you to the app store, those are what push me to an ad blocker.

They should be pushing you to another app not an ad blocker.
[doublepost=1500255874][/doublepost]

Great logic.

I know. Sometimes people do extreme things when all that's needed to enjoy the competition. If you don't like the competition then maybe consider that watching the add is part of the cost of doing business.

 

[techwhiz]

In other words, we control the ad content on your phone and you will receive the ads.

 

[CarlJ]

In other words, we control the ad content on your phone and you will receive the ads.

No, more like, if you don't want to see ads in apps, then DON'T USE AD-SUPPORTED APPS.

 

[Mitochris]

I see the concern, but I think the larger issue is with third-party developers. If I make an app for iOS and can't make money because so many people are using AdBlock/Weblock to block ads in my app, I'll stop developing for iOS. Apple needs to take steps to protect the revenue streams of their developers, not necessarily for themselves. Annoying, sure, but nobody pays for apps anymore so...

I think these developers need to change their business model. If the customer uses addblockers it is a sign that the adds are irritating the user. Change your business model!!! Maybe having to pay for apps would force some developers to actually make good ones.

 

[celaurie]

This is crazy. So many apps have gone overboard with annoying, interpreting ads. I hope some vpn service will start offering reliable ad blocking.

Not only are they annoying, they chew through huge amounts of data...

 

[lowendlinux]

I'm going to continue to block ads no matter the platform, if what you produce has value I'll pay so if you think your app is valuable put a price on it.

 

[goaliemn]

No, more like, if you don't want to see ads in apps, then DON'T USE AD-SUPPORTED APPS.

The problem is some apps don't have alternatives. I'd love to know how much an app developer actually makes on a user by putting ads in when someone doesn't click on them. Is there a per impression payment?

If developers could say "we make an average of $2 per download" and had an iap for $2, I'd pay it. If I use an app more than afew times, I'd be happy to pay to remove the ads, if they had the option.

 

[JackieInCo]

I'm going to continue to block ads no matter the platform, if what you produce has value I'll pay so if you think your app is valuable put a price on it.

Same here.

I have all the usual major news apps and well, there just aren't alternative apps for those so I will continue to use those.

One of my local news apps has begun advertising ad removal for $.99 per month which is pretty ridiculous. Offer one price and I would pay. I refuse to pay app subscriptions as well as IAP, one price and be done with it.

 

[Tech198]

I can see Apple doing the right thing and not approving ad blocking for third parties... Otherwise there would be the same issues as it is on Mac. Ads usually would be per-impression... If they weren't developers wouldn't make anything, and the payout Apple mentioned at WWDC keynotes would be stretching the truth "just a little"

If VPN ad blockers were in, and allowed, just think what else u could do once u get a foot in the door..

We can't have that on a secure platform.

 

[goaliemn]

I

If VPN ad blockers were in, and allowed, just think what else u could do once u get a foot in the door..

We can't have that on a secure platform.

People seem to be confusing a vpn certificate with a root one. VPN only impacts network. I don't believe there is anything else they have access to

 

[jameskatt]

Obviously, apps that get a root certificate and can interact with 3rd party apps are going to be a security risk. Apple no doubt found malware disguised as an iOS app trying to do so. This is why Apple shut down this venue.

What Adblocker has to do is become a REAL VPN company. Then they can do the Ad blocking from their servers, not from the iPhone. This should satisfy Apple's requirements since it no longer poses a direct safety risk to the iPhone.

 

[jw2002]

Obviously, apps that get a root certificate

This has been REFUTED again, again, and again here. This is not how the ad blockers are working. Cut it out.

 

[BittenAnkles]

Maybe this is elitist and out of touch, but if in-app ads bother you so much, consider paying for the app. The overwhelming majority of apps with ads have an ad-free version for less than a few dollars. If that option isn't available, consider a different app.

 

[goaliemn]

Maybe this is elitist and out of touch, but if in-app ads bother you so much, consider paying for the app. The overwhelming majority of apps with ads have an ad-free version for less than a few dollars. If that option isn't available, consider a different app.

Yes, but as I had pointed out afew posts ago, some don't have that option. Facebook messenger is a huge one. They sell the heck out of your data and are starting to use even more ads. And some there aren't viable alternative available. What really irks me is the news apps that use fake click bait stories as ads. And most of them don't offer a pay option

 

[Hippocrates]

Maybe this is elitist and out of touch, but if in-app ads bother you so much, consider paying for the app. The overwhelming majority of apps with ads have an ad-free version for less than a few dollars. If that option isn't available, consider a different app.

In the example of Flipboard (that has no ad-free version), clicking on a snippet of an article will sometimes launch its in-app browser. The ad/tracker in Safari is blocked but not in its in-app browser. This is a case where system-wide ad-blocker is tremendously useful.

 

[639051]

Told it FB Messenger devs a few times, they didn't listen ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The problem is not the in-app ads. There're browsers with no content blockers support, there're browsers embedded into apps like FB or twitter, there are dozens of trackers inside of all apps including the paid apps. We did a small research recently and found third-party trackers inside of a lot of banking apps, which is simply outrageous.

There's the issue, FB

All joking aside .. FB is awful and I understand they will refuse to remove it.