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

Censorship or education? - which way to go
There's been a lot of talk on the Net and elsewhere about the thorny issue of hate speech...

Where will the ads go?
Yesterday I mentioned Byte magazine in my daily column and invited people to browse through the history of microcomputing by way of its archived pages...

A trip down (very expensive) memory lane
Last night I took a couple of hours (well three hours actually) out of my normally busy evening to watch some TV...

A million eyes for China
Drones are big and in the world of drone manufacturing, China is the clear global leader...

Where is our $7K ECEV?
If you've got the money, you can pick up a pretty tidy used-car in NZ for under $10K...

Goodbye Kim
Today I am going to pick up where I left off last week, with more on the battle between the world's two most two badly coiffured leaders (or is that "covfefed"?)...

Stupidium and the big bang theory
No, I'm not talking about the TV series or the origin of the universe...

An interesting case study in "duh!"
Recently the NoPetya attack crippled computer systems around the world...

Why old-school is still important
We've got so many fantastic new technologies that have come from the advancement of electronics and computers that sometimes it's hard to imagine living without these bits of hi-techery...

SkyTV in its death throes
I've already written about the lunacy which is the management of SkyTV but today, in the wake of a recent event, I must again focus my beady eyes on the future of this broadcaster...

Four decades later...
I started playing around with computers about 40 years ago -- back in 1977...