See, I'm Not the Only One Complaining About Ad Blocking

Ars Technica's Ken Fisher has a thoughtful piece on how ad blocking is killing high quality web sites.

If you read a site and care about its well being, then you should not block ads (or you subscribe to sites like Ars that offer ads-free versions of the site). If a site has advertising you don't agree with, don't go there. I think it is far better to vote with page views than to show up and consume resources without giving anything in return.

Fisher offers concise and truthful responses to some of the common defenses for blocking ads. For example,

Invariably someone always pops into a discussion like this and brings up some analogy with television advertising, radio, or somesuch. It is not in any way the same; advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results. […] On the Internet everything is 100% trackable and is billed and sold as such. Comparing a website to TiVo is comparing apples to asparagus. And anyway, my point still stands: if you like this site you shouldn't block ads. (Emphasis is mine.)

It will be interesting to see how readers respond. More food for thought for those who were dubious about my own musings on the subject here or on OFB.

[HT: John Gruber]

Le Morte de Flash: Gone in a Flash

I am tired of Adobe Flash. Since I have been trying to transition a substantial portion of my work to a laptop, I have become more painfully aware of how inefficient this bloated plugin is (and I was already quite aware!). Never mind the slow performance, when battery life drops in half because of a window open in the background that has Flash in it, something is really wrong.

So, I am seeing how I like the web with Click for Flash installed in Safari. Eduardo got me thinking about using a flash blocker when he mentioned the Firefox-oriented FlashBlock in his blog post on web ads.

When the big brouhaha over the iPad's lack of flash started, that made me think even more seriously about Flash and ask a question: would I miss Flash if it were gone? Since I bought my first iPhone two and a half years ago, I have done a lot of web surfing on it and I have never really missed Flash when doing so. In preparing OFB Labs reviews I have also spent a lot of time with other smartphones such as the Motorola Droid and have found I can do everything I normally want to do on the web and never really even think about the lack of Flash.

Really, the only thing I use Flash for is viewing the occasional YouTube video. Now that YouTube is implementing HTML5-based video (which is doubly great since H.264 is hardware accelerated on modern Macs), there is virtually no Flash content out there that I use on an even semi-regular basis. So, why bother with it loading all the time?

I can hear folks saying, “Tim, aren't you being inconsistent with your stance on ad blocking?” The answer is “no.” Click to Flash blocks all Flash on the pages I view — it is not set up to distinguish between ads and normal content. To the extent this is true, using Click to Flash is similar to choices such as not to install Flash at all or choosing to use a text-based web browser.

Similarly, I have always argued blocking popups is appropriate because it is not my duty to provide the ability for sites to jump out of their box (doubly so to hide something beneath my browser as they do with pop-unders). I have blocked popups for years. Likewise, while I choose to use a graphical browser, I have no qualms with those who think using a text-only browser to avoid all graphics is a good idea.

Key principle: I do not believe I have to provide software to allow people to sell me stuff; I can choose to disable any part of my browser I feel like. But, when I disable it, it should not be in a way that intelligently disables it only for ads, but for all uses of the content method the ads use. If I don't want animated GIF ads, I should disable all animated GIFs. If I don't want popup ads, I should disable all unrequested popups. If I don't want Flash ads, I should disable Flash wholesale.

If I continued to have the system download non-advertising related Flash, that would be a different story. After all, I would be using up the web site's bandwidth without at least viewing the stuff they use to subsidize that bandwidth. Bandwidth is very expensive. In agreeing to quid pro quo concerning web viewing, it is no different than how if I want a subsidized price on a phone, I do not try to get out of having a two year contract.

I digress. I am Flash free now. I like it so far — my browsing experience is running faster and I am hopefully doing my part to send a clear message to other web developers: drop the proprietary plugins and use HTML5. The momentum is already there with the HTML5-friendly Mobile Safari/WebKit has engine becoming the lingua franca of mobile web browsing.

Who knows? Maybe by Mac OS X 10.7, Flash will not even come pre-installed on desktop systems. If that happens, I can't say I would be the least bit sad.

Alas, Poor Flash

Engadget reports,

Now Adobe has issued a statement apparently confirming what we've already heard: Windows Mobile 7 will not support Flash.

I am hoping this is Microsoft jumping on the same bandwagon as Apple and pushing forward with HTML5 as an alternative to Flash. Rumors have already suggested that Windows Phone 7 will have a more iPhone-like web browsing experience; if Redmond can get its web standards support closer to Safari/WebKit, the idea of leaving Flash out to dry would make a lot of sense. HTML5 over Flash results in better performance for the end user and more direct control over development for Microsoft. Everybody wins.

Gruber has already speculated (accurately, I believe) that control of development direction is a major component of Apple's refusal to support Flash on its mobile platform.

Google Launches Buzz

News.com reports,

“It has become a core belief of ours that organizing the social information on the Web is a Google-scale problem,” said Todd Jackson, Gmail product manager, demonstrating Google Buzz at the company's headquarters a day before Tuesday's event. An astounding amount of social-media content is produced every day, across Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, and personal blogs, and Google's faith that it could one day index and organize the entire Internet has been shaken by this explosion in Web content.

The second social initiative with that name, the third major social push by Google. Pencil me in as intrigued but “dubious.”

Tabula Rasa

OK, everyone has their predictions filed for the Apple Tablet, iPad or whatever. Oh, and the Verizon iPhone, too, which I am increasingly convinced will be announced, if not actually launched, tomorrow. Let's say that all happens at high noon tomorrow. Then what? I'm glad you asked.

My Predictions

Content, Content, Content.

Reading is one of the most logical activities to use a 10” tablet for and I think it is almost certain that the rumors are true that Apple is targeting this against e-Readers such as the Kindle. Apple may think the dedicated e-Reader is a market not worth getting into, but a multi-function device that is a really good e-Reader? That sounds like something that would bring a smile to his Steveiness. I am guessing they will use some sort of hybrid screen that has an e-ink like mode, if not something that offers a true e-ink experience. I expect book, newspaper and magazine content delivered through the iTunes Store to compete with the Kindle and Nook stores.

I think that also means “indie” content will be available, more like the App Store than the iTunes Music Store. For that matter, more like the Kindle store than your local Borders. Text books may come, but I am dubious that Apple will make more inroads on this than Amazon, at least initially. Later? Sure, but if textbook publishers won't jump onto an already popular platform (Kindle), I think they'll need to at least have time to see the iSlate live before coming around… even for Apple.

Nevertheless, the device will not use the e-ink we know and love, because there is no way Apple is going to pass up support for other types of multimedia that need a fast refreshing, vibrant color screen. I'd be surprised if the tablet won't play all the sorts of media that the iPhone and iPod can. Let's up the ante a bit: I bet iTunes LP and iTunes Extras content will run on the tablet, too. Remember: the justification for buying this over an iPhone has to have something to do with the device being more like a computer than an iPod. If it is merely an iPod touch writ large, it will likely have a hard time selling for much more than a high end iPhone.

I think Apple is going to announce a subscription TV service sometime, but I don't think it will be Wednesday and I think it may have more to do with relaunching the Apple TV into a more competitive device than anything else. Will the tablet use that content? Sure, I'd expect it will. But, I don't think it will be the primary focus. A TV service will need to be fed into, well, TVs. If Apple's cable killer isn't primarily linked to the primary focus of the Wednesday event, I'm going to say it won't be announced unless it comes in the form of a “One More Thing…” at the end.

Details

Yes, it will have a built-in camera and some sort of docking mechanism. But, let's offer a wildcard alternative: fully wireless sync with your current Mac ecosystem. Perhaps this would be extended to some iPhones and iPod touches too — say just the 3GS. I expect Apple to play up sync in general in the future. As iTunes goes, so goes Apple's overall strategy. The introduction of “Home Sync” quietly last year is something I believe will be the harbinger of bigger plans, with Apple returning to sync in a big way this year after pretty much letting its previous strides rust and be forgotten (think of the big push on sync services in Mac OS X Tiger back in 2005 and those features integration with the service then known as .Mac and now christened MobileMe). I'd guess this may come later in the year though — perhaps with Apple's answer to the Windows Home Server that could, in part, be a P2P synchronization storage device?

A tactile keyboard? No. Steve wouldn't allow such an “abomination.” I'd guess they will allow an external keyboard of some sort, however, realizing people aren't going to use it in lieu of a computer without the option of a tactile keyboard. Neither will the tablet support Flash, out of the box, anyway. John Gruber offers a good explanation of why. I think there is a chance Apple might be more open to plugins on this device than the iPhone, but I would be shocked if Flash is included with it ala Mac OS X.

As to Bing on the iPhone, I'd wager that is within the realm of possibility, but probably not tomorrow. I'd say the same with T-Mobile support. An iTunes web app also seems dubious, since it would almost certainly be based on Lala's code, which would be nearly impossible in the short timeframe since the Lala acquisition. Look for that later this year, however.

Touch screen iMacs or MacBooks? Nah. Unless there is a really good way to make reaching across one's desk to touch a screen helpful, I can't see Apple jumping on that train just now.

I think Apple will announce new iLife and iWork suites that will integrate with the tablet, however, and iPhone OS 4.0 will be previewed and shown to have taken in some of the new things that are being launched initially in the tablet, perhaps including a version of “iWork touch.”

Feel free to post your answers below. We will see how accurate I am on Wednesday afternoon.

Writing and Typing Speed Comparison

This is a rather ingenious comparison of major methods of outputting text: pen-and-paper, normal QWERTY keyboard, and several different mobile input methods.

HT: John Gruber.

Happy New Year

Hope everyone had a great New Year's Day. I'm finishing it off right now by finally trying out Haiku's alpha release inside Parallels Desktop.

Merry Seventh Day of Christmas!

The DROID Has Landed

In my initial testing, it looks really promising.

iDon't Know

Verizon is, without a question, making some really strong decisions in recent times — not the least being the decision to go to LTE for its 4G network (a truly impressive technology). I also think the choice to move away from its long time ties to BREW phones, by putting a lot of its emphasis on Blackberry, Windows and now Android phones is brilliant and clearly the wave of the future.

I'm still not so sure of this campaign. While I don't advocate Dan Hesse's answer as a good way to compete, I think it is pretty bold to put a phone up as doing what the iPhone cannot do.

The trouble is that for as limited as the iPhone is in things such as multitasking, it is doubly ahead in ways most users actually care about: a huge ecosystem of first rate, beautiful, touch oriented apps; desktop class web browsing on a small screen; integration with the iTunes/iPod digital hub, etc.

It's significant that, for example, Apple clearly sees its consumer-level iPhone OS competitors more as Sony and Nintendo than Microsoft or Blackberry. Apple is also trying to play the enterprise card, but in this case, the consumer offers a far more lucrative market.

I think those iPhone advantages can be overcome for many users, and phones like the impressive HTC Imagio that I'm presently reviewing make a very good value/functionality argument for certain market segments. However, in sheer average user functionality, the iPhone has managed to rocket from out of nowhere to become the device to beat in mindshare and, in some segments, marketshare.

If I were Verizon I'd probably stick with the network tact and bide my time until the inevitable iPhone LTE shows up on their network.