The reason I run an adblocker
Thursday, June 2. 2016
Advertisement blocking is kind of hot topic in today's Internet. Pages with this type of content are becoming more popular:
Hell yeah I block every bit of JavaScript, IFrame and cookie that I don't like of.
The flipside of the issue is that monetization becomes a lot more difficult when no ads are being displayed. New York Times has a quite fresh article about that: Rise of Ad-Blocking Software Threatens Online Revenue. There is nothing new in that, Forbes wrote about the same issue an year ago: Is using ad-blocking software morally wrong? The debate continues. That article says:
"Some critics argue — as I did in a recent post — that the bigger problem is the advertising model that many media outlets are based on, and the fact that it requires them to rely on invasive tracking software, annoying popups and other low-quality advertising. In a sense, ad blockers are sending a message to these publications, telling them to come up with a better experience (and yes, I agree that we at Fortune could probably do a better job of that too)."
Back to reality. Let's make a practical measurement about those annoying ads. The example is from Wired, one of those who run extensive adblock detection and blocker blocking. Here is page load performance without any blocking:
When AdBlock Plus is enabled:
The number of requests goes down from 38 to 32 and total page load time from 5 seconds to 3 seconds. I'd say that's quite an improvement! And all I have to do is NOT to load their stupid and poorly implemented advertisements. You can argue, that it's just a meanigless timing, the end time measured doesn't have any meaning and the page is actually visible and browseable about the same time. Maybe, maybe not. It's my computer, my bandwidth and I choose not to waste it into their crap.
Another example: One of the most popular websites in Finland, Iltalehti:
I have three measurements from that: one without blocking, one with only Adblock Plus enabled and finally the mode I normally run at, with NoScript and Adblock Plus. The number of requests made is high, above 100 but it is way too inconclusive. There are way too many dynamic requests being made to get a meaningful figure. The important thing is the page load times, they go down from 10 to 9,5 to 7 seconds. It is a very good indication of how much unnecessary crap a single page loads.
The obvious thing which nobody says aloud is that it is possible to improve page's performance, but nobody cares. There is something fundamentally wrong if a single page loads 100 additional pieces of data. If I'd create a website with that much dynamic loading, I'd probably be fired. But in the nation's most popular website, that's ok. Strange.
Let's look at another example: The same page, but this time on a low-end laptop running Windows 10 and one of the worst browsers there is, Microsoft Edge:
There is no adblocker available for that piece of crap. The page load time is around 45 seconds. On any reasonable browser that would be a fraction of that, not 10 seconds, but still much much faster than that. That poorly optimized turtle-of-a-browser would most definitely benefit from running a lot less bad tracking code and needless blinking ads.
As everything else, also blocking these unwated ads goes mobile, see 2016 Mobile Adblocking Report for details. It doesn't take any rocket surgery to figure out why is that. For example me playing my favorite mobile game:
Pretty much every game has those. The worst thing about those is, that they consume a lot of resources on your mobile. This is the article about the 2012 study: Free apps eat up your phone battery just sending ads and a summary of the scientific study made in Purdue University: Free apps drain smartphone energy on 'advertising modules'. The outcome is:
The free Angry Birds app was shown to consume about 75 percent of its power running "advertisement modules" in the software code and only about 25 percent for actually playing the game. The modules perform marketing functions such as sharing user information and downloading ads.
How do you comment that? You're just running advertisements, not the game.
Btw. I subscribed Wired for $1 USD / week and keep running my adblockers. Their material is good, it's definitely worth that money. I applaud them just because they are inventing such things like that.