[rdancer]

They should have negotiated a contract with all the ad networks that have a name, and licensed an adblocker for the rest. They should aggressively support the adblock detection => annoying reminder that has been slowly gaining traction lately. "Fewer ads on million of sites" (there is ~ 1 billion sites worldwide[1]) is not a selling point. "No more ads, ever" is.

[1] http://www.internetlivestats.com/total-number-of-websites/

[ariwilson]

I don't think Google licensing an ad blocker for ad networks that won't sign a contract with them would have gone over well with, say, the Department of Justice.

[tlrobinson]

Heh, can you imagine the uproar over Google selling an adblocker that blocks competitors' ads?

I imagine the FTC/DOJ might have something to say about that too.

[manigandham]

That won't happen (and is one of the issues with Contributor) because of antitrust issues. Google already has too much power in the ad ecosystem.

[rdancer]

For example, this could work both practically and legally:

Google could lead the industry to implement a protocol, whereby third-party adblockers could implement a subscription service by which the user bids on impressions the same way as advertisers do now. If the user wins, no ads are displayed and a micropayment is deducted from their balance.

The necessity to mediate payments would provide an opportunity for adblockers to generate per-user or per-transaction revenue, which would incentivize them to support the system.

The added revenue would enable adblockers to devote sufficient time to blacklist maintenance for revenue-generating customers, further strengthening the pressure on sites that don't participate in the system, and providing added value to participating users.

I suspect this system may not work, because the auction mechanism would be vulnerable to manipulation by the advertisers, or because the price to the user would not be commesurate with the perceived benefit. But it is plausible, and would be legal.