Google
 

Aardvark Daily

New Zealand's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 23rd year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.

Content copyright © 1995 - 2017 to Bruce Simpson (aka Aardvark), the logo was kindly created for Aardvark Daily by the folks at aardvark.co.uk



Please visit the sponsor!
Please visit the sponsor!

Google browser to block ads?

21 April 2017

I read something interesting today which claims that Google is working on providing an ad-blocking capability to its Chrome web-browser.

On the face of it you might think WTF?

Here is a BBC report on the matter.

Since Google earns the vast majority of its revenues from advertising, why on earth would they want to shoot themselves in the foot by allowing Chrome users to block those ads?

At the same time, AdBlock must be more than a little concerned because this is a company which has built its fortunes on providing ad blocking capabilities to a range of browsers by way of plug-ins and similar technology. If Google makes this an intrinsic feature of one of the world's most popular browsers, AdBlock's profits could take a severe hit.

But is all that it appears to be?

Well I'm picking that this is potentially a very, very smart move on the part of Google -- but one that could backfire horribly.

You see, although they are probably the single largest player, Google is not the only advertising network in town. There are many other smaller networks out there, as well as countless websites that handle their own ads. It's these smaller networks and unaffiliated sites that tend to produce the most annoying advertising "noise" on the web so Google probably figures that any ad-blocking would affect them the most.

Google claims that its blocking would be designed to filter out the "bad" ads and improve a user's overall browsing experience. I assume they mean that the company's own small banners and text ads do not have an adverse effect nearly as great as those awful interstitials and auto-playing video solicitations. This would mean that the ad-blocking could be shipped such that it effectively gives a huge whack to non-Google ads whilst allowing the company's own network to slip through unmolested.

This ad-blocking isn't completely new to Chrome, it (like many other browsers) does have some basic anti-ad functionality such as the ability to block unsolicited pop-up windows. However, the proposed changes take this to a whole new level by (it would seem) allowing blocking on the basis of other ad characteristics.

One of the ad types identified as being most irritating are the prestituals. These are ads that appear as an unavoidable overlay before the content you're actually trying to reach. Often you an still see the dimmed or blurred content behind these ads but they require you to wait for a timeout or click on the (often hard to find) "close" button before you can proceed. It is this type of ad that the changes to Chrome would apparently seek to block.

Which raises a very interesting situation that Google will have to be incredibly careful about...

Most of YouTube's advertising appears in the form of prestitial (pre-roll) ads that run before a video on the site. Surely, if Google is going to allow users to block the prestitial advertising served up by other sites and networks, they must also allow that blocking to work on YouTube.

If not then they will almost certainly fall foul of regulators (especially in the EU) who will come down on them like a tonne of bricks for unfairly leveraging their position in the market to commercial advantage. This would not be the first time that Google copped a massive fine for stepping out of line in this way.

So tread carefully Google. This move could be very well accepted and hugely beneficial -- or, if you're too greedy, it could bite you on the arse.

Now, one only has to recall just how Google's greed has screwed YouTube in so many other ways (as mentioned in a recent column here) to realise that they're probably going to let money-lust get the better of them again in this case.

[Stingray theme]Stand by for action.... court action![/Stingray theme]

Please visit the sponsor!
Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say in the Aardvark Forums.

PERMALINK to this column


Rank This Aardvark Page

 

Change Font

Sci-Tech headlines

 


Features:

Beware The Alternative Energy Scammers

The Great "Run Your Car On Water" Scam

 

The Missile Man The Missile Man book

Recent Columns

Couldn't organise a...
I spend a lot of time editing video; I have to, it's my job...

Holy Smoke, the advance of technology
For many years I used a Panasonic SD camcorder that was their "top of the line" consumer-grade machine...

Prepare for the end of ownership
For many, many generations, people have been told to work hard if they want to own nice things, like cars, houses, boats and such...

A taste of victory for the little guy
There has already been some discussion about this in the Aardvark forums but I think it's worth giving the subject of todays' column a somewhat wider airing...

Fibre: tastes okay but sounds crappy
So now I have UFB fiber-based broadband...

Money trumps safety every time
Hypocrisy makes me cross, very cross...

MP3, it's dead Jim!
I recall when MP3 changed the world...

WannaCry, who is really responsible?
As we've seen over the weekend, a new piece of ransomware has struck thousands of computers around the world, some of them being used in critical applications such as the healthcare industry...

How stupid are people?
Australia is a funny place...

No, no, GoPro
I think that most people reading this column will be aware of the GoPro series of action cameras...

Microsoft Deja Vu
You don't have to cast your mind back far to recall the era when every day that passed would bring news of a new zero-day exploit...