News Google reportedly adding its own ad-block to Chrome

This is, hypothetically, not a bad idea. The problem is, of course, that an advertising company developing an ad-blocker is a fundamental conflict of interest.
Basically the same problem AdBlock Plus had. The whitelist was a good idea, and one I heartily endorsed(and used myself). But asking companies to pay for a spot on the whitelist was a TERRIBLE idea, one which
immediately sows distrust and suspicion even if the entire thing is handled in a fair and impartial manner.


Now, to be fair, whitelisting Google ads is probably reasonable. They have historically been rather good about being inoffensive. But it is very tempting for Google to hold others to different standards than they hold themselves, and bundling their biased adblocker into their popular browser is a powerful combination. Especially if it makes it into their Android browser, where limited screen space, a proliferation of full-screen ads, and limited battery life makes it an even more desirable feature... one that Google has intentionally prevented anyone else from implementing.

 

Not to mention Google occasionally changes their mind about what is and isn't obtrusive. While a competitor may be complying today to Googles' standards, they might not be tomorrow because Google suddenly decided that's not how they do ads anymore.

 

I am literally incredulous.

As someone who works in the digital advertising industry, of whom Google and Facebook already have a stranglehold on, this would pretty much kill all other competition.

Over the last year the industry has come together to combat Google, who's Ad Server which is used by most publishers (websites) and gives a first look to Google for every bid request (impression/user turning up on a page), and created a product called Header Bidding which is a far more open form of deciding who wins the bid. Not only are google doing their best to now kill that (with Dynamic Allocation through DFP) but they are now basically attempting to wipe out all competitors with a built in ad blocker.

Make no mistake, this isn't about preventing 'bad ads' (pop ups, autoplay videos etc) - my company, and almost all of our competitors in the West (and many in the East) don't even work with publishers who support that kind of inventory. This is about Google leveraging their position as a browser developer, to mop up the tiny % of advertising revenue they don't already own, leaving no competition in their wake.

Let me guess, the next step is selling their solution that gets around the block?

 

I'm surprised this is legal TBH. I mean usually google ads are pretty decent and unobtrusive (bar some of the YouTube ones) but it seems shady to just block all competitors.

I would have figured if they wanted to develop an Adblock, it would have to include their ads too? Otherwise it seems like straight up anti-competitive behaviour.

 

My heart weeps for Ad Networks. No, wait, the other thing. An ad network inevitable boils down to "put a hole in your webpage where we can insert arbitrary elements including scripting", which is just a bad idea in principle. Native (i.e. from the same host as the rest of the page) image-only ads are the way to go. The barrier is moving from a 'pay per click' model that requires tracking and targeting, to a 'pay per site' model that targets userbases in aggregate. Great for specific-purpose sites like Bit-tech, not so good for "I have a random webpage, I want adverts because it's free money!".

 

Legal action over anti-competitive nature of it in 3...2...

 

Smart move...

And, thanks, but no thanks. If it doesn't disable the intrusive and annoying ads on YouTube, which most likely it won't, I will not use it. I recently opened a YT link on someone else's computer... not cool.

 

Whilst I wouldn't call youtube's ones intrusive, they rank up there as bloody annoying for me. Having to wait 30 seconds to watch a video only 20 seconds long?? Yeah no thanks, luckily they're sorted out by existing blockers.

 

Genuine question: Can it be classed as anti-competative as users aren't forced to use Chrome?

 

I'd reckon the problem is more with treating their goliath of an ad network different from all the david ad networks rather than how many people use Chrome.

Plus the timing of it is also suspicious at best, in recent weeks there has been tons of controversy over where google places ads and several large companies have threatened to move away from google over it and now google suddenly resorts to this to harm competing ad networks?

 

I take it you've never used 'tube for listening to an ambient album, only to have it interrupted frequently by a 8 minute long ad for Brazilian hop-hop. Nothing quite kills your calm like having to rush the computer to stop the YO!YO!YO!

I think they added scripting that knows when you aren't at the computer and deliberately picks something speaker-breaking.

 

Jeez, I'm out of touch. I had no idea Chrome had well passed 50% browser usage share in the EU. Combine that with 50%+ market share in all online advertising I think they could well have Microsoft-esque anti competitive behaviour issues in the EU at least, that is if regulators are so minded.

 

so it's an ad-block that doesn't block ads ?

 

It's an adblock made by an ad company that blocks competitor's ads...

Or, for fear of libelling one of the biggest companies in the world:
It is an adblock that blocks intrusive ads that damage user experience while not undermining the fundamental financial model at allows most web content to exist. It will be conveniently built into one of the most popularly used browsers.

YMMV