Don't worry about it. We all get a little frustrated at times, especially after making a purchase and we notice something wrong right away.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The iOS 9 Content Blocker thread
- Thread starter thatJohann
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Let me add sth offtopic: most of the iOS adblockers are more or less great.... they ve made safari to load faster. But uBlock on Mac is on a league of its on.... its even better than Ghostery which i ve been testing it the last 3 days. Oh boy oh boy.... it literary transformed safari to the next level of speediness!!! Jokes on you for those still using the paleolithic Adb and Adb plus 
I heard back from AdMop's Sebastian Vieira shortly after asking my question with the following explanation. He assured me AdMop does not use iCloud Drive for storing information:
"We use have the list of rules stored in iCloud as static assets. We are just downloading them though in the future we plan to add the functionality of creating your own rules.
It looks like for downloading the rules even if we do not touch at the moment your iCloud Drive, it is necessary to have iCloud Drive enabled.
We are studying not using iCloud for that in a future version just because of that problem..."
It may depend on where you are. The ad network may intentionally not serve German ad banners to users with a non-German IP address.
Do you mean uBlock Origin?Let me add sth offtopic: most of the iOS adblockers are more or less great.... they ve made safari to load faster. But uBlock on Mac is on a league of its on.... its even better than Ghostery which i ve been testing it the last 3 days. Oh boy oh boy.... it literary transformed safari to the next level of speediness!!! Jokes on you for those still using the paleolithic Adb and Adb plus
I have also reached out to the developers of Blacklist. They are waiting Apple's view of their app. Hopefully, I can do a mini-review of their app this week.
Hmmmmmm
Whats going on with Ublock Ublock origin...? Read below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock
I cant find Origin for Safari...
Whats going on with Ublock Ublock origin...? Read below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock
I cant find Origin for Safari...
It would be good to take that talk to another thread. You will end up derailing the thread even more if you continue.
My refund for Peace came through. Thanks Apple. My first refund. Purchased Purify. Just as fast as Peace.
Peace out!
Peace out!
I unchecked Purify under content blockers, reloaded it and the banner was there. Re-checked Purify, reloaded and gone.
AdMop developer here... We have the rules hosted on iCloud. About iCloud drive, that is a strange thing. We do not write on your drive, since we do not let you edit rules or have your own set of rules (yet). We are looking into hosting the rules somewhere else than iCloud.
In short response: aside from downloading the newest rules, we do not use iCloud for anything else.
Thanks for trying our app!
In short response: aside from downloading the newest rules, we do not use iCloud for anything else.
Thanks for trying our app!
This whole debacle shouldn't even be a debacle. The majority of people (which is a very small minority of users) don't block ads with the intention of harming a publisher. They do it because the current way they are done is intrusive and hurts the browsing experience. Let's face it: ads have gotten out of control and many sites have gone ad nuts with so many different services that you can't even browse without something covering the screen, manipulating the content or making you wait 30 seconds.
Web advertising simply needs to evolve and less people would block.
Let me give you an example: when DVR was first introduced and then when it took off many tv shows were later canceled. Why? Because tv shows aren't made for you to watch them, they are made for you to watch the commercials. When you had a way to skip or remove commercials entirely the primary source of income died and the show was canceled since it was no longer financially lucrative. It didn't many how high of a rating it had. Many canceled simply because they couldn't profit from advertising and that advertising may have even funded the heavier hitting tv shows who had high costing actors.
But, then commercials (on some networks more than others) evolved. What did they do? They simply wrote the ad into the episode. This is when you started seeing more prominent logos on products being used instead of things being generic brands and some shows even added quick one liners to highlight a product as it tied into the episode. I remember watching an episode of Bones where one of the characters had just bought a new car and they briefly expressed their joy of the car. It was done tastefully even though you can tell it was an obvious ad. However, this type of "commercial evolving" was actually better than a standard commercials since they were able to tie real products into the episodes which made them more lifelike and less like a tv show.
The Internet is still using old methods of advertising. Pop up ads, timed videos, tracers, things that open and push content out of your viewing site without your acknowledgement and just many more annoying things.
Why couldn't the Internet do something like tv has done: include the ad directly in the content, but not as a giant video or picture. Why couldn't a written article simple have a written ad?
Example:
Story line: mac rumors becomes the first to site to have non evil ads
By line: this story sponsored by State Farm. Are you in Good Hands?
Story here.
It's less annoying, you'd see it and since it's ultimately text it doesn't detract much from the browsing experience. The ad part can even be a link.
Sites could have links like that in strategic places on their content.
Or, for direct profit you can even just use something like a share button but for ads that says " if you like this article click here to support us" that perhaps opens a second window with the ad.
What do you think?
Don't blame the users for wanting to block annoying content. Evolve the content and users won't care to block it.
Web advertising simply needs to evolve and less people would block.
Let me give you an example: when DVR was first introduced and then when it took off many tv shows were later canceled. Why? Because tv shows aren't made for you to watch them, they are made for you to watch the commercials. When you had a way to skip or remove commercials entirely the primary source of income died and the show was canceled since it was no longer financially lucrative. It didn't many how high of a rating it had. Many canceled simply because they couldn't profit from advertising and that advertising may have even funded the heavier hitting tv shows who had high costing actors.
But, then commercials (on some networks more than others) evolved. What did they do? They simply wrote the ad into the episode. This is when you started seeing more prominent logos on products being used instead of things being generic brands and some shows even added quick one liners to highlight a product as it tied into the episode. I remember watching an episode of Bones where one of the characters had just bought a new car and they briefly expressed their joy of the car. It was done tastefully even though you can tell it was an obvious ad. However, this type of "commercial evolving" was actually better than a standard commercials since they were able to tie real products into the episodes which made them more lifelike and less like a tv show.
The Internet is still using old methods of advertising. Pop up ads, timed videos, tracers, things that open and push content out of your viewing site without your acknowledgement and just many more annoying things.
Why couldn't the Internet do something like tv has done: include the ad directly in the content, but not as a giant video or picture. Why couldn't a written article simple have a written ad?
Example:
Story line: mac rumors becomes the first to site to have non evil ads
By line: this story sponsored by State Farm. Are you in Good Hands?
Story here.
It's less annoying, you'd see it and since it's ultimately text it doesn't detract much from the browsing experience. The ad part can even be a link.
Sites could have links like that in strategic places on their content.
Or, for direct profit you can even just use something like a share button but for ads that says " if you like this article click here to support us" that perhaps opens a second window with the ad.
What do you think?
Don't blame the users for wanting to block annoying content. Evolve the content and users won't care to block it.
what do you guys think about this??
https://brooksreview.net/2015/09/content-blocker-test/
i think this is not legit. in my tests, purify is sooo much faster than any other.
https://brooksreview.net/2015/09/content-blocker-test/
i think this is not legit. in my tests, purify is sooo much faster than any other.
Last edited:
Looks like he spent quite some time on this and used a good benchmarking methodology. But I think there is a lot of variability due to factors other than the blocker (e.g. it's strange that DNT makes such dramatic differences).
Switched from Crystal to Purify. Feels a bit faster. Crystal is turned off and i wait a few weeks for a new try
Found this one on Reddit. Free.
AdFence: Content Blocker by Aurelio Carlos Prado Silva
https://appsto.re/us/SESS9.i
AdFence: Content Blocker by Aurelio Carlos Prado Silva
https://appsto.re/us/SESS9.i
Well I'm using Crystal. It's cheap and works quite well.
I'm going to wait until all the dust settles on all these diff blockers and wait for reviews and stuff.
Then I'll go with whatever is best at that time.
I'm going to wait until all the dust settles on all these diff blockers and wait for reviews and stuff.
Then I'll go with whatever is best at that time.