I haven't done a formal test, but I don't notice the slowdown. Technically, I can see this going either way. Blocking many ads will reduce the amount of crap that must be downloaded, which ought to speed up rendering. But it is also an extra step in the processing. I suspect for sites heavily junked up with ads you'd see a net improvement in speed, perhaps even dramatically so. Maybe a barely perceptible slowdown in the case of very clean sites.Does it slow down or drain battery in practice?
This is the case with all of the "content blockers", as opposed to the older style ad-blocking extensions (such as uBlock Origin). This is why Apple is pushing people to use the content blockers instead of ad-block extensions - content blockers cannot read or view any information about any website visited.I'm using Ka-Block now, after a long time with Ad Block. I'm really liking Ka-Block especially because its description says it "does not have permission to read or transmit content from any web pages."
Yes.I'm currently using Ublock Origin but plan to switch to something from the App Store (because assumedly Apple will completely disable non-app store extension functionality eventually). What I like about UO is that it completely removes ad spaces on pages - rather than just blocking the ad - so you've no evidence of where an ad was at all.
Does Wipr do this?
Actually on the Mac there are 2 versions - the content blocker extension from Apple's site, and the version in the App Store. The version in the App Store is the one that will be updated going forward, and it is slightly different in that it actually has an app you can launch where you can make it update the block list. The older extension did not have this, and also is not being updated going forward (but I believe it will still update blocking rules).Yes on Mac it is. On iOS you pay a small price.