Web integrity DRM will make sure the ads are actually delivered to your display device. You may need to have this NN ad blocker in your smart glasses and paint over the ads there.
The user will refuse to use such a device. Just like Chrome can't block ad-blockers despite massive financial incentives, because there would be massive user uproar.
Your average user doesn't try to copy movies, which is why DRM is accepted in Netflix.
We are already there with Android, almost. Can't root it or my bank and work apps stop working. My bank's app once warned me of some app installed on my device which can be "harmful". Won't take long before they deny me access until I uninstall the "harmful" apps.
Nobody I know wants to root their phone. Me neither.
Again, same market pressure, a useful actually used feature will never be removed because people will not buy the device.
Most people don't care about replaceable batteries, headphone jacks or rooting.
In fact not allowing rooting is net benefit for the vast majority because it prevents spyware being installed on the device by a controlling partner, ...
That's not truly how it works except in some very narrow, literal, sense.
The reality is that people in the developed world need to carry smart phones. It's expected in order to be a functioning member of society. My kid's school has an app that does messaging and notifications, my kid's after-school group has a different app that does likewise, etc. A few weeks ago, I was expected to "sign" a waiver for an activity by clicking a link in an email... while I was AT THE PLACE IN QUESTION. Since I didn't happen to bring a laptop to this activity, I pulled out my smart phone to do it.
So, when my phone breaks, I have no choice but to buy another one. It doesn't have to be a new model, of course. But, if they all collectively move toward removing features that I'd prefer to have (like removable batteries) or start adding things that I DON'T want, I'm still going to buy it because I more-or-less have to.
So, it's not that people don't care or actually prefer the way things are going. It's that they feel like they have no choice.
Again, I understand that they/we LITERALLY have a choice. We're not going to die if we don't buy a smart phone. But, it's not as simple as "they bought the thing, so they must approve of all of it."
> You are not forced by the evil companies, you are forced by market pressure from the majority of consumers.
It can be both.
If Apple decided to do something moderately annoying to their phones without considering any user/customer feedback, it wouldn't drastically affect sales.
There's a limit, of course. If they're too hostile, too quickly, then people will buy Android phones instead. But, if it's just a little bit worse for the end user, customers will keep buying iPhones.
Why? Because of vendor lock-in. Why do you think companies have been trying to lock us in to their product ecosystems since the dawn of market economics? It's certainly not to make it EASIER for their customers to "vote with their wallets."
For example, I'd be willing to bet good money that Microsoft didn't start putting ads and shit into Windows 10 or whatever because it really thought that Windows users would just LOVE that. I also bet they didn't decide to re-enable settings during updates that users disabled because the majority of Windows users wanted to have to periodically reapply settings changes that they made...
> Not even Apple was able to resist consumer pressure, they famously yielded and made a big screen phone.
I don't know the internals of what goes on at Apple, but both the small size and the "no-stylus" convictions seemed to be due to Steve Jobs. And I'll note that both, the bigger size phones and the iPad stylus came out at least a couple years after he died. So, it's not obvious to me that Apple would have yielded on those with Jobs at the helm.
Ok, but this mentality means you are buying into a narrative of a platform which is locked down not directly for your benefit or when it matters to you, but instead as an indirect side effect of building a platform catered to developers of apps like the banking app who then have complete control to make the call on when this matters and what they consider to be invalid... and so I just need to make sure that you understand, in the context of this thread on ad blocking, that by expressing this opinion, you are also, in practice, saying you think people blocking ads shouldn't be allowed (whether the mechanism is that developers move content from the web into apps you must install or the web fully supports the same level of drm as the app platform).
My position is freedom. To create locked-down devices. Or open ones. And freedom for consumers to buy which kind they want. You are taking a position that you know what's best for consumers. That's quite presumptuous.
For most consumers a locked device is in their interest because it protects them from malware and data loss.
