Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Advertising IOS Apple

iOS 9 To Have Ad Blocking Capabilities 161

An anonymous reader writes: iOS 9 will reportedly carry ad blocking capabilities for it's Safari browser when it is released later this year. The feature wasn't rolled out with the usual fanfare one might expect, and flew under the radar. ZDNet reports: "It's not immediately clear why the new ad-blocking privacy feature was included in iOS 9, due out later this year. After all, the iPhone and iPad maker has its own advertising network -- even if its success was limited (which is putting it nicely). What's clear is that allowing ad-blockers in iOS 9 could deliver a serious blow to Google, the biggest rival to Apple in the mobile space, because advertising remains a massive portion of the search giant's income."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iOS 9 To Have Ad Blocking Capabilities

Comments Filter:
  • by MessyBlob ( 1191033 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @06:36AM (#49897123)
    This makes sense in the Apple ecosystem. It speeds up web browsing and streamlines the experience, and if ads are blocked at browser or OS level, it gives Apple a chance to create their own approved ad market. I think it's a step too far to assume that they can insert unintended content arbitrarily into a web page or existing ad slot.
    • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @06:39AM (#49897135)
      Why sell ads, when you can sell the ability to let ads be seen?
      • by Black.Shuck ( 704538 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @07:08AM (#49897207)

        Apple makes, relatively speaking, no money at all from advertising.

        Indeed, if you take its entire software ecosystem as a whole, it makes up for a mere fraction of Apple's total profit when compared to its hardware sales.

        So when we're all being very clever cynics and conspiracy theorists, perhaps we would do well to look at the motivation of a company in a holistic sense. For Apple, perhaps if they let users control ads, their overall experience of the platform improves, and they're more likely to remain loyal and keep buying hardware.

        • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @07:24AM (#49897285)
          If you can't beat them, destroy their revenue stream. It's the same reason Google released free online office software to combat Microsoft and why Android is free. It's just good business sense.
          • And one of the main reasons they developed Chrome (though the standard compliance thing was a big one too).

            You can see why Google had to shaft Apple and push Android though. Imagine the situation they would be in now if Apple dominated all mobile and they were dependent on their 'generosity' to allow advertising and services through.

            However I doubt they are doing this so they can switch off the tap to Google. It won't destroy Google or make Apple much extra money, but will absolutely spark of the thermo-nuc

            • by johanw ( 1001493 )

              The thermonuclear option would be for Apple to built an adblocker themselves instead of only providing the means for others to do it, and enable it by default.

            • by Flytrap ( 939609 )

              You can see why Google had to shaft Apple and push Android though. Imagine the situation they would be in now if Apple dominated all mobile and they were dependent on their 'generosity' to allow advertising and services through...

              To a large extent Google's mobile advertising business is already dependent on Apple's "generosity". Up to 75% of Google's mobile ad revenue is dependent on Apple's continued placement of Google as the default search engine on its iOS devices http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05... [nytimes.com] - a treasured position which Google pays Apple an estimated $2 billion a year to hold onto http://bgr.com/2015/05/27/ipho... [bgr.com]. The loss of of mobile advertising revenue from iOS platforms would knock over 13% off Googles total revenue (

              • Or this could just be the 2015 version of the pop-up blocker. The same arguments were made against pop-up blockers that are now made against ad blockers. Then Firefox and its pop-up blocker went mainstream and the feature was adopted by the rest of the browsers.

                Mozilla (back then) only had an interest in having a good user experience, and blocking pop-ups turned out to be an easy way to improve user experience. Likewise, Apple might just be looking to improve user experience. Since they have no financial in
          • If you can't beat them, destroy their revenue stream. It's the same reason Google released free online office software to combat Microsoft and why Android is free. It's just good business sense.

            That analogy is really poor - Google Apps is only free for personal use. Corporates pay for it. And Android is free because they wanted to help unify the mobile OS space, and knew that doing an open source OS was one way to do that.

            With this strategy Apple are trying to destroy the revenue stream not only of Google,

            • by Anonymous Coward

              And that's a bad thing? The ad market just needs to die:

              1: It is a bubble.
              2: Ads on desktop machines have been proven to be a source for malware.
              3: Ads propagate data through a lot of unknown sites.
              4: It is an ever hungry beast. First text ads, then Flash ads, then whole screen ads, then 60 second commercials before a web page, then 60 second commercials with a paragraph of text... when will it end?

              Internet sites existed before the ad market. They can exist and get revenue just fine with text ads or

              • by mrbcs ( 737902 )
                I use a hosts file on my computer to block ads and I use Adblock on my iPad.

                I use a PVR or DVR on my TV. I hate ads. They don't work. I wasted a few thousand dollars a couple years ago on radio ads to realize that people have tuned out all ads.

                I pay for satelite radio to avoid ads there.

                Find another revenue stream. Ads are history. Only the ad execs and the hopeful still want them to work.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by zieroh ( 307208 )

              Android is free because they wanted to help unify the mobile OS space

              And by "unify", you mean "fragment to the point of being completely dysfunctional". If this is Google's idea of an improvement, they must be some sadistic fucking bastards.

        • by nsre ( 1880644 )

          Are you considering app store revenues as part of the Apple software ecosystem? I would think those profits would be pretty substantial, even when compared against hardware sales.

          • by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @09:37AM (#49898001) Homepage

            Apple does $231.5b in revenue. Paid apps revenue is $5.37b. So a couple percent. Advertising BTW is much smaller at $94.5m

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              If those numbers are correct it is really an endorsement of Apple and their strategies. They sell things people want to buy. How dare they?!! Advertising is pure filth and the lowest rung on the business ladder. Google, Facebook and their ilk are parasites. Apple seems to stand a little above the mire.
              • by jbolden ( 176878 )

                Advertising 1926-2014 hangs around 1 to 1.4% of GDP, with a few exceptional years. Moreover advertising spending lags the media, people trust older media more so even as television replaced radio, radio advertising revenues stayed high well into the early 1960s. Similarly with Internet and old media.

                Information technologies spending is around 5-8% or about 5x as large as advertising. Also fairly stable.

      • by vivaoporto ( 1064484 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @09:59AM (#49898171)
        That's not what's in play here. Here is the same story [slashdot.org] with more sources, more technical information and without the Google vs. Apple flamebait angle:

        Adblocking is coming to the iPhone with iOS 9

        The next version of Safari will let users block ads on iPhones and iPads.

        With the roll-out of iOS 9, Apple is giving app developers an easy way to create mobile ad blockers for Safari on iPhones and iPads. The new "Content Blocking" [apple.com] feature allows developers to pass a JSON file with a set of rules for images, popups, cookies, resources and other elements in Safari.

        Sources like The Next Web [thenextweb.com] point out that such a feature would allow ad blocking and privacy apps "to exist on iOS for the first time since launch".

        On the other hand the Marketing Land [marketingland.com] warns that this move "could chip away at Google's and other ad networks' mobile ad revenue from iOS devices", NiemanLab [niemanlab.org] calls it "a blow for mobile advertising" and Cult of Mac [cultofmac.com] asks if that is a good thing and proposes as an answer:

        Is that a good thing? Well, maybe for the average user, for a period of time. But when you block ads on the web, you prevent content providers from earning any revenue from them. If we all did that, our favorite sites would have to find other sources of revenue, or stop supplying content altogether.

        I have no idea why, in a technical and privacy oriented forum as ours, the focus of the accepted submission was not on the fact that this is an "Adblocker app enabler" move instead of a "Google killer move".

        • Because the submitters like to be sensationalist and the editors are not really editors and haven't a clue about anything. Next. Obligatory: New here?
    • I think it's a step too far to assume that they can insert unintended content arbitrarily into a web page or existing ad slot.

      They certainly can. Perhaps you meant will?.

    • by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @07:58AM (#49897449)
      Why sell ads, when you can make bazillions from selling phones, and you might sell even more if web sites come ad free?

      As for hurting Google, that's a strategy that Google loves to employ themselves, so that's likely a very welcome side effect.
    • by Chas ( 5144 )

      Hell, it only makes sense in pretty much the entire mobile industry.
      Ads, on a transfer-limited device (like phones) are, essentially, theft of resources.

  • websites forced for two ad networks then, apples and googles.

    and wait for the lawsuits to ensue.

    though, it might finally lead to ads being delivered from the same host as the rest of the content on the page - that would be some well needed sanity(and removal of javascript from the adverts for the security implications that approach has).

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      > though, it might finally lead to ads being delivered from the same host as the rest of the content on the page

      This cannot be done. much of graphical and especially streaming content is from more robust "content delivery networks", such as Akamai, that host much larger proxies closer to the web browser's "final mile". Even modest icon or graphical content on a web page will overwhelm many corporate core web servers without these third-party hosted proxies, and it's especially true for ad content. Slashd

      • But if they tried to host the advertising content all on the same systems, I'm quite certain it would collapse the servers if not the firewalls themselves.

        A plan with no drawbacks!

        • Exactly. If websites hosted their own advertisements, they would make sure they didn't hog all the bandwidth. I don't object to all ads, but the vast majority of them are downright terrible. A simple non-moving banner can get the point across and not detract too much from my experience on the page. I think that companies placing the advertisements would actually pay more if there was some kind of standard for advertisement quality. Nobody wants to pay a lot of money to have their product pushed along get

          • If websites hosted their own advertisements, they'd have more reason to stop them from carrying malware. Maybe the New York Times wouldn't have infected people's computers.

      • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

        I don't see how that would be a drawback. bandwidth is still bandwidth anyhow, so more amazon bills for having ads on your web pages - presumably you would try to get higher ad revenue from the ad broker company to offset that.

        slashdot mobile is basically unusable on _1ghz_ android phones now, due to how the ads are served and what they do. it used to be that you could read slashdot on a phone with 3.6mbytes of free ram after boot!(nokia 3650).

      • by jbolden ( 176878 )

        Or you move content sites as well to the CDNs. No reason that can't happen. Then each CDN has a range of ad content they support.

      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        So what you're saying is that if ads had to be hosted on the same server as the content, ads would have to be approximately the same size as the content or smaller? Perish the thought!

      • by zieroh ( 307208 )

        This cannot be done. much of graphical and especially streaming content is from more robust "content delivery networks", such as Akamai, that host much larger proxies closer to the web browser's "final mile". Even modest icon or graphical content on a web page will overwhelm many corporate core web servers without these third-party hosted proxies

        I call bullshit. Distributing content via an edge network is trivial these days, as trivial as flipping a switch in AWS.

  • by garyok ( 218493 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @06:56AM (#49897179)
    The ad-blocking better include those bloody irritating ads that switch you out of the browser with no warning to the App Store for Clash of Clans, or some other flavour of freemium shiteware the kids are degrading themselves with these days.
    • So far I have not seen this in android. Does it happen in android too?
  • by WankerWeasel ( 875277 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @07:01AM (#49897191)
    iOS drives 75% of Google's mobile revenue meaning this could really hurt them depending on how much is blocked. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05... [nytimes.com]
    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      An external company estimated that they make 75% of their mobile ad revenue from iOS. They don't actually know, it's just a guess.

      In the mean time, the Play store did $10bn of app sales. iOS is still doing better, but it's not like Google is starved for cash or not making anything out of Android. And in any case, their primary goal is to make sure there is a good, open mobile OS that isn't a walled garden.

      Pro-Apple articles love to make out that Android is failing and Apple is winning hard. 50% of all compu

      • Wow, comes through clear that you're a huge Google fanboy. We get it, you think Android is awesome and anything Apple sucks. That wasn't the point at all. Google themselves have published states showing that iOS users account for the majority of their mobile revenue. Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn all see higher CTRs (and spends) from iOS users. The point was that losing iOS revenue is big. The average iOS user results in more than $6 in revenue per year for Google while the average Android user results in le
  • by Anonymous Coward

    While this has been widely represented as Apple providing an add blocker in iOS 9, all that has actually happened is that they've created an API by which thirdparties can add ad-blocking extensions to Safari, and included a placeholder extension for that properties page.

    • by johanw ( 1001493 )

      Yes, and indeed ONLY to Safari. iAds in apps are not affected.

      I prefer the rooted Android solution where ads are blocked in the hosts file. They are blocked then for ALL apps, not only the browser (and disabeling the Google add service with Lucky Patcher kills the remaining few).

      • Yes, and indeed ONLY to Safari. iAds in apps are not affected.

        I prefer the rooted Android solution where ads are blocked in the hosts file. They are blocked then for ALL apps, not only the browser (and disabeling the Google add service with Lucky Patcher kills the remaining few).

        Are you really complaining that you won't be able to block ads in those crappy free apps that sustain themselves by injecting ads into the GUI and sometimes also by stealing your personal data? I've been asked to 'fix' Android phones on a number of occasions and that includes installing the user's favorite apps and games. To it's credit Android conscientiously lists everything the app wants access to when an app is installed. Personal details, contacts list, media/photos and browsing history are standard re

        • by johanw ( 1001493 )

          > Are you really complaining that you won't be able to block ads in those crappy free apps

          No because on my Android I AM able to block them. First, there is a hosts file with ad server blocking. Second, most apps that require no internet permission are blocked in my firewall. If it does need internet I can block the Google ads services activity with Lucky Patcher, or have it patch the app itself to remove ads. Xprivacy can block some calls that threaten my privacy and allow ads to be personalized. Very fe

          • So what's user's process from seeing an ad on a page to getting that into the hosts file such that you won't see that group of ads again?

            Step by step?

        • To it's credit Android conscientiously lists everything the app wants access to when an app is installed. Personal details, contacts list, media/photos and browsing history are standard requests with apps that have obvious reasons to access these things.

          On the other hand, that means app developers are free to request these things, and if you don't agree that an app reads your contacts list, your only choice is not to use it. On the App Store on the other hand, the app will be rejected if it requests personal data without a good reason.

          • Also, if the app does something potentially suspicious on an iPhone, iOS will notify you and ask permission. This means that you can get some use out of apps that ask for permissions you don't want to grant, and when you are asked about permissions you actually have some context.

      • I prefer the rooted Android solution where ads are blocked in the hosts file.

        HOSTS! FTW!

  • Antitrust (Score:1, Troll)

    by mjm1231 ( 751545 )

    There have been antitrust allegations [npr.org] around Apple's new streaming music service. This seems to me to be just another way to prevent the competition from actually competing.

    People used to scream holy hell when MS did this kind of shit, but Apple is just as bad and in many cases much worse. I guess they saw that Microsoft got off with a little wrist slap so why not use borderline illegal (or blatantly illegal, once in a while) anticompetitive tactics.

    • There have been antitrust allegations around Apple's new streaming music service. This seems to me to be just another way to prevent the competition from actually competing.

      People used to scream holy hell when MS did this kind of shit, but Apple is just as bad and in many cases much worse. I guess they saw that Microsoft got off with a little wrist slap so why not use borderline illegal (or blatantly illegal, once in a while) anticompetitive tactics.

      Here is a paragraph from the article that you quote, to put this into perspective: But Castle says he will be surprised if this goes anywhere. Apple, he notes, has a lot of competition in the streaming music space: Spotify, YouTube, GooglePlay, Amazon. "There are inquiries all the time" he says. "They ask a few questions. You send a response and that's it."

      In other words: There's lots of smoke without a fire.

    • People used to scream bloody hell when Microsoft did it, because Microsoft had monopolies. To run a normal business, people had to have Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. Try anything different, and they'd likely have subtle (or not so-subtle) incompatibilities that they'd have to deal with.

      Apple never had a monopoly in desktop or laptop computers. Back in the dinky market before the IBM PC, they were probably the best-selling brand, but they had a lot of competition. For a while, Apple had an a

  • so obviously they won't be able to match Apple's move and provide built-in ad blocking for Chrome or Android.

    An interesting FU from Apple to Google.

    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      Google don't need to provide any more than Apple have done. The *capability* to do so.

      In fact, they already do that, it's just not made a huge fuss about because - why would you unless you DIDN'T have it? Google don't make their own ad-blocker the same as Apple don't make their own ad-blocker, but now they are just providing the function to allow such things.

      This just allows ad-blocking plugins on iOS, basically. Chrome's had plugins on iOS for ages: Safari's had plugins too. But neither were able to h

    • I'm surprised that it's taken this long. I've thought that MS and Apple should have been incorporating aggressive anti-tracking and ad blocking capabilities into IE and Safari for a few years, because neither company makes much money from ads, both could easily spin it as a user-centric decision, and it would hurt Google a lot.
  • by jomuyo ( 1082721 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @07:21AM (#49897261)
    After reading the linked ZDNet article, looks like Apple is only allowing extensions in Safari to block content with in the browser. Thus allowing things like Ghostery and NoScript to be possible or more affective in iOS 9. Bottom line, if you want ad-blocking in iOS 9 you will have to wait for the proper ad-blocking extension to be available, or write one yourself.
    • After reading the linked ZDNet article, looks like Apple is only allowing extensions in Safari to block content with in the browser. Thus allowing things like Ghostery and NoScript to be possible or more affective in iOS 9. Bottom line, if you want ad-blocking in iOS 9 you will have to wait for the proper ad-blocking extension to be available, or write one yourself.

      So i wonder if that means this will be a framework that's available to developers for their own browsers?

  • I love the planitif bleating of the millionaires and billionaires who will complain that this is going to kill them and their "free" business models. The simple reality is that if I were offered a great micro payment system I would be happy to pay for quality websites. Not much but enough that the truly great websites would make money.

    The crap SEO whores and whatnot of the type that have 50%+ advertising and sell my data wouldn't get a cent.

    I will turn this feature on in a second and never look back.
    • by jbolden ( 176878 )

      There are all sorts of sites out there that sell individual articles like Forrestor? How many have you bought this year?

      • The key problem is that I don't generally trust online payment systems. As a class I don't trust them to get it right, and I don't trust them to protect my data. Thus I would love a single system where I can trust it and then be able to dole money out from it in ways that I completely control.

        In theory I just described paypal but the problem there is that they aren't really conducive to micropayments. They love their macro fees thought.

        So the wall between me and anything like forrestor would be that ev
        • by jbolden ( 176878 )

          If an article that saves you a day's work up front isn't worth $200-2000 much less $2 then you are just too a customer that is too hard to sell to. They make more money from advertising to you then selling you content. The market you are asking for can't exist, it just isn't profitable enough.

          The app market mainly exists because:

          a) There are small numbers of people paying a lot (either in the commercial space or addicts for in app purchases)
          b) There are large numbers of people willing to pay some. But

          • The article cost problem is much like the computer book problem that I had in the days that I bought computer books. Nearly all computer books suck. Thus for every 20 computer books I bought maybe 1 really did it for me.

            Thus I would much prefer sifting through stackoverflow at a small but steady burn instead of the probable rip off at a higher price. So while any given article might save me a pile of money most would be a waste of money.

            Netflix is also a betterish model to compare to. Their cost to pro
            • by jbolden ( 176878 )

              That's a subscription model not a lowish per article model. With a few exceptions like Wall Street Journal (and even theirs is starting to fail) most sites don't have content uniquely good enough to keep subscribers. As you get more specialized it works. Certainly that model works but the cost per user is high not low.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Ad blocking is a right. If I buy a device, I should be allowed to control the I/O -- including disallowing any ads. Advertising, sadly, has become the de facto "business model" for the WWW. I work in IT and have for three decades. Almost no one clicks on ads. They make money because of impressions. The page paints and they get credit for the ad having been seen. Some ads follow clicks to pay, some don't. I don't see any of them and never will again. I block everything.

    Finally, Apple.

    • by emho24 ( 2531820 )

      Ad blocking is a right. If I buy a device, I should be allowed to control the I/O -- including disallowing any ads

      I wish this opinion was more widely adopted, and expanded to my television set.

  • Not clear? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Friday June 12, 2015 @08:27AM (#49897617) Homepage

    It's not immediately clear why the new ad-blocking privacy feature was included in iOS 9

    Well there's a pretty obvious reason why, and I don't see any reason to discount it. It's a feature that users will like, and Apple is in the business of trying to make devices that people like. Even more specifically, Apple's general approach to making "devices that people like" tends to be to try to take the hassle out of using the product, as much as is possible. Ads are a big hassle.

    It seems like a pretty obvious answer, so much so that I don't see a reason to go hunting for another one without some kind of additional information that there's some other reason.

  • More Paywalls (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Merk42 ( 1906718 ) on Friday June 12, 2015 @08:34AM (#49897661)
    If it gets really popular, how long until sites remove ads altogether and instead switch to paywalls?
    • The downside to paywalls is that it restricts access.

      The upside to paywalls is that it means that comments sections aren't full of bullshit and trolling.

      I might be willing to pay for paywalls on second thought.

      • I've seen sites where reading is free but you have to pay to comment.
        The downside was that so few people paid that there wasn't a vibrant discussion.

  • I understand why people want to block pop-up and pop-under ads. I have those blocked too (and I don't think you even need to block those since not many people use them anymore.) But I don't understand why people want to block regular banner ads. Coming up with content then hosting it on a website isn't free. If advertisers want to pay for it because they think displaying an easy to ignore banner at the bottom of the page makes me more likely to buy their crap then all the better. It is better than having to

    • by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

      I don't understand why people want to block regular banner ads... I think John Oliver gave a really good summary of the problem with sponsored content AKA native advertising:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      He answered your question in the video. Content is something people want to have, but don't want to pay for.

    • But I don't understand why people want to block regular banner ads. Coming up with content then hosting it on a website isn't free.

      Because of drive-by downloads.

      Last year the ad network of a non-trivial Norwegian site was hacked, and they started serving malware which targeted Java. If the user hadn't updated Java fairly recently, they'd get infected without any user interaction.

      The malware was designed specifically to target the largest bank in Norway. This bank required Java for their login procedure (they no longer do, took them long enough).

      So, if the user visited this site with a vulnerable Java runtime, and then logged in to this

    • If banner ads were still static, or even animated, gif images, I wouldn't block them. But many "regular banner ads" these days come with some pretty obnoxious javascript, stupid HTML5 tricks, and sometimes even flash (still). That sort of resource-hogging, battery-draining, vulnerability-inducing, malware-spreading nastiness needs to die, whether it's in a pop up/under, an interstitial, or "just" a banner.

      So yah, I block them and don't blame anyone else for doing so. I do whitelist some sites I want to s

  • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

    I already do adblocking on all my android devices. Until they start paying for my cellphone bandwidth, ad's dont appear on my devices.

  • Are they that much anti Microsoft that they actively block Active Directory.
  • There is a real problem with mobile browsing right now. Many websites employ fullscreen adverts with an [x] button which is tricky to hit properly with the fingers. There is also the problem of redirects, whereby the browser is hijacked and redirected via an advertising system to a URL which opens an AppStore link (usually one of these freemium games). It's all really annoying and not at all a pleasant experience.

    Now, if someone can make a blocker which gets rid of those pesky EU cookie warnings which appea

  • I'd like it to be consistent throughout.

  • "What's clear is that allowing ad-blockers in iOS 9 could deliver a serious blow to Google, the biggest rival to Apple in the mobile space, because advertising remains a massive portion of the search giant's income."

    These people keep saying this, and yet Apple is still considered an also-also-ALSO ran in two of the world's potentially largest markets: China and India. In these markets, Android and other OSes (and the mobile manufacturers behind them) rule the roost and Apple barely makes a dent (and isn't t

    • iOS is a large enough ecosystem to survive indefinitely, with stores and app developers and everything. There's room for more than one in the mobile area. MS Windows might be big enough, although the release of MS Office for iOS and Android suggests that Microsoft doesn't think so.

      The problem with China and India is that people aren't going to make much money there, not for some time. This may hurt Apple in a couple of decades, but not in the short or medium run.

  • Yeah, I'm a bit late to comment, but haven't found any mention in the threads. There are existing adblockers for iOS that work fine, and they work not just for browsing, but for other apps as well, pretty useful!

Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.

Working...