Intel Fights for Its Future - <AUTHOR> https://mondaynote.com/intel-fights-for-its-future-6498f886992b <comment><USER2> This article makes it seem that being a major player in mobile is the only way Intel could survive. Mobile is a decelerating market, while cloud and servers, where Intel has a huge lead is an expanding market and profitable. In 2017, Intel's revenue hit an all-time high, as it did the year before, and its stock is an all time high. This is not a company "fighting for its future."

<comment><USER3> The headline is definitely sensationalist but there are threats and missed opportunities on Intel's horizon and past.

The lure of mobile is the upgrade cycle as those are much shorter. The same, short upgrade cycles were a boon for intel in the hey day of desktops/laptops.

The bigger threat the article fails to focus on is ARM. Singularity for apps has always hinged on write-once-run-everywhere. Intel hasn't been able to compete with ARM lately and it seems that ARM is moving into Intel's turf. A few months back Microsoft launched windows 10 on ARM -- that's an inflection point. Apple relatively recent iPad Pro also continues to blur the lines along with other initiatives around app continuity (Mac/iOS) or the Nintendo Switch's hardware continuity that offers a glimpse into what the same thing could look like for mobile in general.

It's not for Intel's lack of trying either. It's just that ARM got off to a good start while Intel failed to make in-roads with Atom and whatever else.

<comment><USER4> Yeah but the upgrade cycle won't stay short for long, just like it hasn't for desktops.

Give it 10 years and people will be keeping their phones until they break.

Also anyone can make an ARM CPU so the margins are thin, whereas with x86 CPUs Intel will basically only ever have one competitor - AMD. They want to find another monopoly.

<comment><USER5> Even today I see an increasing number of friends moving from 2 years cycles to 3 year cycles.

The "killer app" for smartphone refresh rates staying low are (1) battery degradation and (2) forced OS updates for app updates, which in turn slows the phone down to compel an update[1].

[1] I'm actually curious if OS updates slow down older phones these days. This was the case 5 years ago but perhaps things have changed/

<comment><USER6> I have a Nexus 5X that was 2 years old late last year. At that time I git it's last major OS upgrade. (It will continue to get security updates for another year or so.) This is as good as it gets in the Android world.

It was hobbled at the outset with 2GB RAM. At introduction performance was adequate. It has degraded since then. There are times when I exit an app and it takes several seconds before the home screen is populated. Navigation normally runs in the background but if I open a different app, it may get bumped and disappears from notifications. I listen to podcasts frequently and its background process (the part that keeps audio going if I open other apps) gets bumped.

These are not related to processor horsepower but I believe are symptoms of insufficient RAM. It could also result from additional installed applications, but I have uninstalled more than I have added and it seems not to improve.

Maybe it's time to look at third party ROMs.

<comment><USER7> I had a 5X that I recently replaced due to the common boot loop failure.

Towards the end of its life its performance had degraded to the same point you experienced. Multiple seconds for the home screen to populate, camera lag, etc. It's crazy that a cell phone with 2GB of ram is incapable of running recent versions of Android with decent performance and even crazier when I'd open up a task manager and see mandatory things like Google Play Services consuming almost 60% of the ram on the device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think this article misses the point: Intel has nothing to gain by entering the commodity smartphone processor market. The margins are slim, and therefore doesn't make good use of Intel's advantage in semiconductor fabrication.

Serial performance is important in processors, and as long as Intel is king in this area, they will have a home in server racks and workstations. I keep hearing about how cheap arrays of ARM processors will take over the world, but I'll believe the easy parallel programming unicorn has arrived when I see it. It seems more likely to me that when this is the case, a move to GPUs, FPGAs, or custom accelerator card would make more sense.

<comment><USER9> In the short run, you are correct. However, by looking at history, it seems that the high-end chip manufacturers always end up being replaced by the low- end manufacturers, as the focus on cheap, small, low-power designs end up providing various strategic advantages (and raw revenue for product development). That's how Intel replaced the various RISC manufacturers in the 90s.

Of course, the field is young enough that this has only happened two or three times, so it may just be a coincidence. Still, I like the thought of ARM chips replacing Intel in ten years, and twenty years later ARM being replaced by whoever currently makes the chips for those musical greeting cards.

<comment><USER10> Exactly -- the key thing is the historical cost structures of the high-end makers makes low-end chip making highly unattractive which was why it was easy for Paul Otellini to say no to Apple to make chips for the iPhone.

In the end, low-power chipmakers like ARM have no where else to go but up -- they can slowly move up-market and over time, enjoy the same high margins but at much lower costs relative similar to entrenched players like Intel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Years ago, during a fund-raising tour of Silicon Valley VC firms for my previous company, we also pitched Intel Capital (their in-house VC arm). Their feedback to our pitch was that our SaaS service was "too compute intensive" and therefore they passed.....

 _Intel thought we used too many CPUs?!_.....

All these years later, I'm still in disbelief. I do realize that VCs often are uncomfortable giving the _real_ reason they're passing, but "too many CPUs" was a first for me. (And my company is still around and making more than $25MM/year, thank you very much.)

<comment><USER12> Maybe the intention of the fund was to diversify - i.e., hedge their huge exposure to the CPU market by investing into totally different things, i.e., not you!

<comment><USER13> I knew a guy who was a technical advisor to Intel Capital (worked at Intel). They're not there to diversify, they use capital to advance their existing business strategy in key markets. They often take stakes in companies that Intel are partnering with on technical projects in order to gain some level of insight, control, and eventually to acquire the company if there's a strategic argument for it.

For example, a company might be developing some cool new IP that Intel is considering licensing or is licensing. Intel Capital will take a stake in the company, and then eventually might consider acquiring the company if they want to corner the technology or think it's cheaper than a long term licensing agreement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Intel has reasons to be worried. They missed several buses, trains and ships and other opportunities. Servers still appear to be secure but with threats from ARM solutions, and AMD.

Windows 7 and Windows 10 have been pretty efficient operating systems. That's great for Microsoft but not Intel. With identical system requirements, it means there's very little reason for most people to upgrade hardware. Me, a supposed high-end PC user am still running a 3rd generation Core i5 processor with no urgent need for upgrading in the near future. Graphics cards are still a once every 2-3 year upgrade for PC games.

<comment><USER15> also threats from NVIDIA in high-throughput demanding markets (machine learning, crypto mining, HPC). Essentially Intel hasn't been able establish new markets and their existing ones are being chipped away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Intel shall definitively be worried

[https://blog.cloudflare.com/arm-takes-wing/](https://blog.cloudflare.com/arm- takes-wing/)

</comment><comment><USER17> This article misses that Intel has really missed the boat when it comes to GPUs; the company that it needs to beat is NVIDIA which actually is producing a rapidly improving product.

Intel integrated GPUs have no place at all in deep learning. They are perfectly good for emulating the 2001 Gamecube and playing classics like Doom and Quake, but they have a bad enough reputation among gamers that if and when they do come out with a discrete card they will have to brand it something other than Intel.

<comment><USER18> The company they need to beat is AMD. AMD's integrated GPU's are thoroughly trouncing Intel's and are good enough for light gaming. Their weak integrated graphics hurt their core business of CPU sales.

They certainly want to compete in the discrete GPU space, but I think they should be much more scared of losing CPU market share.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The author states:

>"If the dispute is settled, Intel loses its wireless modems deal with Apple. No mobile CPUs + no modems = nothing of substance."

Aren't nearly all processors in mobile devices a SoC these days? Isn't the "wireless modem" just an LTE radio on the same SoC that has an 802.11 radio for wifi? I'm not understanding how these would be separate in a device like an iPhone.

</comment><comment><USER20> > By declining Steve Jobs' proposal to make the original iPhone CPU in 2005, > Intel missed a huge opportunity.

I'm really intrigued by stories of missed opportunities. Certain companies have all of the power then make a minor miscalculation on the future of technology. Does anyone have similar personal experiences that echo this type of missed opportunity deal?

<comment><USER21> I think this is a misinterpretation. If you are the market leader and have huge profits you can enter such a market at any time. It just costs more and more the stabler the market becomes, which in turn of course also decreases the risks and costs of development. The art is finding the sweet spot to enter, and beating the competition that's already in the market and tries to keep you out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Not a single company in the field has a 100% guaranteed future. Even Microsoft, completely dominating in the 90s, is now second fiddle to the likes of Google and has their future jeopardised by the emergence of the cloud and mobile platforms.

Having said that, Intel are going nowhere overnight.

<comment><USER21> And even Google feels a little shaky these days, not really knowing what the next big thing could be for them after search+ads. Their mobile and their cloud business are both small compared (if the data didn't change over the last 1-2 years, haven't looked it up for some time).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think at least part of this reason is driven by NSA/DoJ, just like Microsoft's Skype acquisition was.

Also, why is Krzanich still CEO? He's made terrible decision after terrible decision. Buying Broadcom now reminds me a lot of Ballmer wanting to buy Yahoo for $40 billion. In hindsight that looks like a terrible deal, doesn't it? I think if Intel buys Broadcom, this will look the same in 10 years.

Intel has strong conflicts of interest _against_ other non-x86 chip divisions, which would be Broadcom, I'm sure it's the same with Altera, too. In a few years they'll regret buying FPGAs, too.

The "synergy" is a lie.

</comment><comment><USER24> Speaking of Intel failing to innovate, has anyone seen Intel's 10nm process? Canon Lake was supposed to be out in 2016 and it has now been pushed back to mid-2018. There was a super brief update about it at CES [1]. Makes one wonder if the future is not arriving on-time as previously expected.

[1] [https://www.anandtech.com/show/12271/intel-mentions-10nm- bri...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/12271/intel-mentions-10nm-briefly)

<comment><USER25> 10nm is facing acute yield issues, rumoured to be because of the use of cobalt.

<comment><USER24> I am surprised at the under-reporting of this issue. We are literally on the brink of a serious chip technology stagnation which could cause a dead stop to moore's law and very few people are concerned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> When I graduated from UW in the late 90s, Intel was the place to work for most CE and many CS majors (as well as tons of EEs). Those glory days are long gone it seems.

</comment><comment><USER21> Often the solution is a stalemate until a profitable opportunity arises. So, no surprises here.

Interesting to see that such a giant can really start shaking so badly by losing one of its sources of profit. I think even if the whole desktop market dies Intel will still make more money than most companies. Sure, maybe they need to shrink 80%, but 20% is far from a small company.

</comment><comment><USER27> Both deals [Intel, broadcom] , [Qualcomm, broadcom] are unlikely to pass regulatory muster. Further, as many have noted, Intel doesn't have a seat at the mobile table.

It just wants to thwart a [Qualcomm, Broadcom] combine that's likely to aim at Intel's jugular - the cloud/server market

<comment><USER28> I hope any merger or purchase of Broadcom is thoroughly investigated, considering how much of the datacenter market and even consumer networking is reliant on them there's a lot of ways the entire industry could get messed up by the purchasing company.

Between switch ASIC's like the Trident II, RAID controllers and SAS HBA's, 802.11 chips, DOCSIS modem chips, optics, etc. they are almost everywhere even if you don't see them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> There are always missed opportunities in any business. Intel did not capture the mobile market, so what? There is no evidence that ARM-based servers from Qualcomm, or anyone else for that matter, will somehow make a dent in Intel's leadership in that space in the short to mid term. Not to mention that Intel has significantly diversified its product line and will continue to do so.

There is not a world where there will be one processor manufacturer. We will see multiple manufacturers on multiple architectures for as long as things continue to progress.

Intel may have a short-term existential threat, but that threat is minimal.

<comment><USER30> I think you missed the point. It's fine to disagree, but your comments indicate that you don't understand or appreciate the magnitude of Intel's hubris and the inevitable blunder that followed. Intel literally invented the microprocessor. The fact that they let this opportunity slip through their fingers is astonishing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Has Intel experienced some kind of strategic brain drain in the past 5 years? I remember a professor telling me in the late 90's about how RISC wasn't going to dominate the future, because Intel had a roadmap going well into the 2000's specifying how they were going to stay ahead. Now, it looks like AMD has the strategic upper hand.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucMQermB9wQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucMQermB9wQ)

</comment><comment><USER32> Why can't Intel acquire Qualcomm instead of Broadcom?

<comment><USER33> it likely would never pass with the regulatory agencies I suppose

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> A key point missed in this discussion is that Intel needs high volume through its fabs to pay for their high capital investment requirements.

If it doesn't have the consumer CPU volumes (notebook, desktop, mobile) then production costs for server chips will be much higher, and it won't have those nice margins.

</comment><comment><USER35> Intel also taking its eye off the ball as far as desktop and laptop CPUs go. CoffeeLake should be renamed CoffeeBreak given the years it's been delayed!

Perfect storm if AMD continue to pile on pressure and ARM licensees start making inroads into servers.

<comment><USER36> The big problem is that Intel's 10 nm is very late, rumor says having to do with their decision to move to using cobalt more aggressively than other other fabs. Intel's traditional advantage in their silicon process is substantially eroded which is making things much easier for their competition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> They are also showing signs of fatigue in the data center space which carries high margins. The underhanded I/O game they are playing is both alienating customers and providing a big opportunity for AMD, IBM, and Arm.

<comment><USER38> >The underhanded I/O game they are playing

Can you please elaborate on this?

<comment><USER39> They are extremely stingy on the PCIe lane counts to limit the usefulness of GPU coprocessors. They've also pretty much ignored PCIe v4.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Barely insightful. The rumor of Intel buying Broadcomm, ... is most likely being perpetuated by Broadcomm itself

<comment><USER30> Gassée has his own reality distortion field, of course. His punditry is entirely focused on closed-source, proprietary technology and the big corporations that own it. He never writes about RISC-V or Linux, perhaps because they aren't generating big sums of cash and therefore aren't worthy of his attention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This thread is funny because no one really knows what Broadcom does.</comment>


ArchiveBox: Open-source self-hosted web archive - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox <comment><USER2> I actually talked to the author of ArchiveBox about 1-2 weeks ago. Nice guy and it's good that he's also friendly with the Internet Archive.

ArchiveBox uses WARC as it's backing store:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_ARChive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_ARChive)

which is nice because it's standardized.

We were discussing integrating Polar web archives along with ArchiveBox and maybe having some sort of standard to automatically submit these WARCs to the Internet Archive as part of your normal browsing activity.

Polar has a similar web capture feature but it's not WARC

[https://getpolarized.io/](https://getpolarized.io/)

(yet)...

WARC is probably the easiest standard for Polar to adopt. Right now we use HTML encoded in JSON objects.

When the user captures a web page we save all resources and store them in a PHZ file which you can keep as your own personal web archive.

What I'd like to eventually do is update our extension to auto-capture web pages so you could use Polar's cloud storage feature to basically store every page you've ever visited.

It really wouldn't be that much money per year. I did the math and it's about $50 per year to store your entire web history.

If I can get Polar over to WARC that would mean that tools like ArchiveBox and Polar could interop but we could do things like automatically send your documents you browse to the Internet Archive.

There's one huge problem though. What do we do about cookies and private data. I'm really not sure what to do there. It might be possible to strip this data for certain sites (news) without any risk of violating the users privacy.

<comment><USER3> Why don't they store everything as plain documents in a zip file and keep metadata in a json? Seems more future proof/easier for users to manipulate than WARC

<comment><USER4> Have you looked at the WARC format? It's ridiculously simple, basically concatenated raw HTTP requests and responses, with some extra HTTP metadata headers mixed in (a la extra JSON metadata keys). You can open it with a text editor. Very simple and efficient to manipulate, and very efficient to iterate over or generate.

[https://iipc.github.io/warc- specifications/specifications/wa...](https://iipc.github.io/warc- specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/#file-and-record-model)

Arguably the biggest problem is that it isn't complex enough: there is no index of contents built-in (the standard .csv-like index format of URL/timestamp/hash/offset is called CDX).

There aren't a ton of tools in the web archiving space in general, but almost all of the ones that do exist work with WARC. Existing tools (for interchange) include bulk indexing (for search, graph analysis, etc) and "replay" via web interface or browser-like application. Apart from specific centralized web archiving services that use WARC, there are several large public datasets, like Common Crawl, that are released in WARC format.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, the fact that I have to convert them after is just an unnecessary extra step for me, so I'll stick to wget and httrack for my archives. Once I mirror them I can just copy the files anywhere and browse them on any browser/device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have spent the last hours reading up on everything-WARC that I could find but I still haven't been able to answer my main question: why only as external crawlers?

There does not seem to be a tool to actually capture a warc directly in your own browser session. webrecorder ([http://webrecorder.io/](http://webrecorder.io/)) is the only example I could find that comes close in terms of user experience but it still requires a third party and different browsing habits

\- are there browser extensions that can save a warc while you browse?

\- are there API limitations that require external browser control? something browser extensions can't be used for?

\- or is it simply a question of use case. And crawlers are more popular (for archiving) than locally recorded browser history (for search/analytics)?

edit:

I have now found [https://github.com/machawk1/warcreate](https://github.com/machawk1/warcreate), related discussions in issues #111 and #112 are quite interesting. Looks like there are some serious limitations for browser extensions. I will look deeper into how webrecorder works and how this could be combined

<comment><USER6> When I initially coded up WARCreate, the webRequest API was still experimental. I believe there are more mature APIs that can be used from the extension context but some require DevTools to be visually open, which is not a common usage pattern of a typical web user.

Per the ticket, we have worked on a few other JavaScript-driven web preservation project like [https://github.com/N0taN3rd/node- warc](https://github.com/N0taN3rd/node-warc) and [https://github.com/N0taN3rd/Squidwarc](https://github.com/N0taN3rd/Squidwarc), among others.

Web archiving from a browser extension is difficult but can be improved. I don't know of any other approaches at trying to do this via a browser extension beyond submitting a URI to an archive.

<comment><USER7> Woah both these tools are awesome, thanks for sharing them!

I'm adding links to both from [https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/wiki/Web- Archiving-Comm...](https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/wiki/Web-Archiving- Community)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This looks awesome. Is there an easy way to transfer my current chrome session / cookies to the archivebox chromium instance? Would love to my subscription websites (eg nytimes) to register my logged-in state and allow the capturing instance full logged-in access.

EDIT: Nevermind, should have RTFM - see CHROME_USER_DATA_DIR in [https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/wiki/Configuration](https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/wiki/Configuration).

This looks really, really awesome.

</comment><comment><USER9> This sounds like a very good idea, but I'm having trouble making it work. For example, let's say I want to save a great website which will probably disappear soon ([https://launchaco.com](https://launchaco.com)). I run `echo [https://launchaco.com](https://launchaco.com) | ./archive` and then...? The generated index.html doesn't load css and js files. Or is this more for static content?

Is there some tool that would allow one to make a copy of a modern SPA? Is that even possible?

EDIT: I'm sad to see launchaco.com go, it would be a perfect tool for a project I'm working on. I don't mind paying, but I gather this is not possible anymore, and anyway, it might take some time for me to have everything ready...

<comment><USER10> > The generated index.html doesn't load css and js files. Or is this more for > static content?

Why doesn't it do that? I thought that was the point of using Chrome as a headless browser to load all the dynamic elements into a final DOM so they could then be captured & serialized out: "ArchiveBox works by rendering the pages in a headless browser, then saving all the requests and fully loaded pages in multiple redundant common formats (HTML, PDF, PNG, WARC) that will last long after the original content dissapears off the internet."

<comment><USER7> It does that, it's possible it just broke on the page he tried. It doesn't work perfectly on 100% of pages which is why it saves as PDF, screenshot, and other methods as a fallback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This looks very nice

As an aside,

       wget -r -k -np

works surprisingly well for my offline needs.

For permanent access I defer to archive.is

<comment><USER12> Consider [https://github.com/ArchiveTeam/grab- site](https://github.com/ArchiveTeam/grab-site) (ArchiveTeam/grab-site) in the future. There is a difference between fetching/mirroring content and recording the http header request and responses when retrieving all objects for a site.

I believe there is even a docker container for a quick pull and run.

<comment><USER13> When I want to archive a site, don't I _want_ the content, not just the headers? How do I save the content?

<comment><USER12> When archiving, you want the request and response headers _and_ the content. Grab-site does that (any tool really that'll write WARC files). Sorry if my comment was ambiguous in that regard.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_ARChive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_ARChive)

[https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd0002...](https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000236.shtml)

If you wanted to write WARC files out with wget, you'd use the options specified in [https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Wget_with_WARC_o...](https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Wget_with_WARC_output)

<comment><USER14> Depends on what you want to use your archive for. If it's just for opening it locally in a web browser, mirroring the content is enough.

<comment><USER12> Yes, _but_ if the effort to go the WARC route is minimal above mirroring, might as well do it. You never know if you'll need data you didn't grab.

<comment><USER7> We intend to store both the WARC of the headless broswer render and the wget clone. (I'm the creator @pirate on Github). The idea is to archive anything in many redundant formats (HTML clone, WARC, PDF, etc) and for people to run this on a deduplicated filesystem like ZFS/BTRFS or disable specific methods if they care about saving space.

You can track the progress on implementing WARC saving for all archived resources here: [https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/issues/130](https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/issues/130)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was poking through the documentation - how does ArchiveBox generate the WARC file? I see the web page is archived in HTML, PNG and PDF using Chrome, but I don't think Chrome natively has the ability to create WARC files, does it?

<comment><USER16> Semes like the --warc-file= argument for wget [https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/blob/a74d8410f4c3f2f08f...](https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/blob/a74d8410f4c3f2f08f75f223c15f8615be85744f/archivebox/archive_methods.py#L208)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> That is great. I am currently archiving my pocket archive. I some times ago considered using my own wallabag instance, but too much work and maintenance. ArchiveBox worked directly locally.

Unfortunately, it seems, for some sites, it is archiving the GDPR warning or bot captcha instead of the content. For example, tumblr only gets me "Before you continue, an update from us" with an 'accept' button that does nothing; for Fastcompany the pdf output is overcast with a half page popup on each page; ouest-france gives me a "I am not a Robot" captcha...

Probably those issues are linked to the fact I do not use chromium though it is installed. When I understand how to archive the masked content, I intend to look at each screenshot to detect problems and re-archive them.

<comment><USER17> Urgh. I had not thought about some ill effects:

1\. It used no ad-blocking. Hence the bot is happy to download all trackers and advertisements! Also trackers know my pocket bookmarks now...

2\. Websites are ugly. In a 1440x2000 screenshot of a national geographic article, the top 1440x1500 pixels consist of black with just a grey round progress in the middle and the word "ADVERTISEMENT" at the top.

3\. Websites are wasteful. Many warc archives clock in at 30 to 50 MB. Without downloading media, a single (article) webpage is 30MB!

4\. While consulting the archive, my adblocker allows everything since the initial page is on file protocol. It seems archivebox does not rewrite the URLs in its html output (as wget's convert-links option would do). So trackers and ads galore when opening output.html and even archive/<timestamp>/index.html which automaticaly load the other files.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can archived content be put on a public permalink? IPFS.

</comment><comment><USER19> That's looks pretty nice! I have currently Wallabag running on a server (using it with a browser plugin to save pages) and it works pretty well. While Wallabag is strictly for websites as far as I understand, this seems to support more data (like bookmarks, history, etc.), which is great and I will certainly give it a try, luckily import from Wallabag is supported too.

</comment><comment><USER20> This is great. I was just lamenting the lack of a nice tool like this, and I'm looking forward to seeing this develop.

</comment><comment><USER21> If this were running on a self-hosted server, could it be invoked from an iOS shortcut on phone/tablet?

<comment><USER22> Potentially, yes.

There is an open issue on GitHub to add an API. Once that feature is implemented, adding a web page where links can be submitted for archival becomes trivial.

<comment><USER23> ArchiveBox UI coming soon _

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So this is a direct pinboard comp?

Would be Nice to save enitre pages without paying extra

</comment><comment><USER25> Has anyone heard any news on Mozilla open sourcing Pocket? There are pieces that have been released but ultimately I would like to self host a Pocket archive similar to Wallabag

<comment><USER12> > Has anyone heard any news on Mozilla open sourcing Pocket?

All of Pocket? It's fairly straightforward to extract your Pocket data through their API (their export functionality leaves much to be desired unfortunately).

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This sounds terrific! Thank you for building it!

<comment><USER7> You're welcome <3

Let me know if you have any questions! (I'm @pirate on Github)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> what about SPA sites that javascript renders the html, if this can archive SPA site that will be great.

<comment><USER7> The short answer is that it can (usually) archive SPAs sucessfully. The long answer is that the wget archive method will download the JS, and in theory it should execute in the archived version just like it does on the normal site, but in practice it doesn't always work 100%. Luckily that's why ArchiveBox also saves a Chrome-rendered version of the page as a PDF, Screenshot, and DOM dump, so you should be able to archive most javascript-heavy content without too many problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Great idea, but automated installer might not be ready for prime time.

Automated install did not detect existing Python 3.6 on OSX, created quite the mess...

Also, defaults to using google chrome vs. chromium when both are installed.

<comment><USER7> Yup, I totally agree (I'm the creator @pirate on Github).

I personally don't like automated setup scripts, which is one of the reasons I spent a bunch of time on our Manual Install docs: [https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/wiki/Install](https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/wiki/Install)

Pip, apt, & homebrew packages are the install methods we're moving towards currently. I just caved to user demand in the short-term and added a helper script about a year ago as a crutch until we finished releasing the real packages.

Stay tuned for updates on that progress here: [https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/issues/120](https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/issues/120)

</comment></comment><comment> C-Consciousness All browsers should aggressively cache everything they get and bypass all "anti-cache" inanities. There are addons that modify response headers but this is all just filthycasulness, everything is hostile to the user--just as it should be. If people do not get exsanguinated violently enough they feel really antsy. All data is to be immediately uploaded to Tor+IPFS. The browser is meant to "play coy" and act as though it did respect the headers in online mode, but shift to offline and it loads the entire history fully. This would work well with Tor Browser. Same thing should apply for all videos of course. To use such tools would break the anonymity set of people, which is why after each TBB close the entire cache2 folder should be exported to a file that can then be imported offline-only. A simple way to do this would be to simply copy the entire tor-browser directory and then reopen it in work-offline. The problem is the anti-cache websites are then lost, so just like JavaScript, refuse to use websites that use anti-cache mechanisms. The user is not supposed to feel like everything can get annihilated at any time: this level of hostility towards her will not go unpunished. Generally whoever takes anything down harms the Noosphere and should be viewed as an enemy of Posthumanism. Steaks on the table by choice and consent--treat them cruelly and without mercy. The Sibyl System will show no mercy on those who have ever forced users to enable JavaScript or prevented IA from archiving their pages.</comment>


San Francisco's 4th of July - <AUTHOR> http://onepercentbreadsticks.com/san-franciscos-4th-of-july

<comment><USER2> I had a ton of fun the last time I was in that general area. I'm not sure if I was technically in San Francisco, but I was by the Berkeley Marina. The buses were packed with young people dressed up and excited for fireworks. My geography of the area is a little blurry, so maybe the marina is too far away to be considered real San Francisco, but to an outsider the sprawl made it feel like I never left it.</comment>


Skip the MBA if Entrepreneur is Your Lifestyle - <AUTHOR> http://www.caycon.com/blog/2011/07/skip-the-mba-if-entrepreneur-is-your-lifestyle/ <comment><USER2> Interesting post, but mixes 2 really interesting topics up. I would have loved to learn more about that 2 different thinking styles mentioned.</comment>


Kids' Apps Are Crammed With Ads - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/style/kids-study-apps-advertising.html <comment><USER3> Father of two little guys of 7 & 5 here. Personal story below.

There's no tablets at home, no games on parent's smartphones. They have access to technology thought. But we are a "NO ADS ALLOWED HERE" kind of home :)

Netflix is freely accessible on the only TV we have, during "opening hours", so that they can choose actively their program and not be exposed to TV ads (the TV has only access to Netflix).

They can switch on a Raspberry with an emulator where they can play some games from the 80/90'. But they have to enter one command on the little Bluetooth keyboard (and they do!).

And finally they can sit at the home's PC, start windows, ask parents to open their session and launch complex games such as Age Of Empire.

No internet access, only books for now.

When they happen to be exposed to TV ads at grand-parents home, for ex, you can really see what kind of behavior ads are ingraining in little brains: "I want this!", "Why is this so short?", "Why don't they tell the price?". That's always an opportunity for me to educate them to what's actually happening before their eyes: "look guys, this is a company (some people at work) that's working to expose their products (toys) to your eyes, hoping that you will ask your parents to spend money to buy it. They're smart, but we are smarter!".

I'm very inclined to think that toddlers should not have access to tablets, moreover to mainstream games on Android/Iphone. My personnal guess is that It's not preparing them to mastering technology, it's preparing them to be _addicted_ to technology.

<comment><USER4> > _That 's always an opportunity for me to educate them to what's actually > happening before their eyes: "look guys, this is a company (some people at > work) that's working to expose their products (toys) to your eyes, hoping > that you will ask your parents to spend money to buy it. They're smart, but > we are smarter!"._

You're stopping short of telling them about what is my real reason I hate ads. I wonder if the kids ever asked you _why_ companies are doing it?

The reason I hate ads is because it's a legitimized way of abuse, of hurting other people. I'm gonna be a father at some point, and I dread the day I have to explain to my kid that modern civilization is in this weird state, where it's "friendly" in the sense that you don't generally have to fear strangers, but it's also overrun by malicious actors trying to suck your money and happiness dry. Our civilization pays lip service to being cooperative, yet so much of it is still adversarial.

<comment><USER5> I've got to say, you're using a pretty wild definition of the word "abuse", as well as "hurting other people". How in the world does an ad hurt you?

The closest I can I think of is that there are some mobile games that use their ads as bludgeons to force you to buy their "remove all ads" in-app purchase, which, if I enjoy the game, I'm usually more than happy to buy, even if I resent a little being bullied. You could possibly stretch this to meet the definition of "abuse".

I don't like ads, but it's a pretty big stretch to say that it is abuse. Are you talking about ads on the web or on television or in app in particular, or are you talking about print ads or billboards or radio ads as well?

Certainly there are services which are borderline scams (and occasionally real scams) like multi-level marketing or snake oil goop, or games that arguably are designed to trick you into spending money on in-app purchases, but the fact that those services use ads does not taint ads, any more than the fact that people that work there use pencils mean that pencils are abuse.

<comment><USER6> > I've got to say, you're using a pretty wild definition of the word "abuse", > as well as "hurting other people". How in the world does an ad hurt you?

So, I realize this is a minority opinion, but this is close to how I feel, especially with respect to exposing my children to advertising.

Advertising is almost always an attempt to emotionally manipulate people by lying to them. There are some exceptions, like a catalog that lists objective descriptions and prices. But virtually everything else falls under that description.

Humans have the capability of reason, even though they're emotional naturally. Children, by definition, are still learning to use reason and logic and building effective habits. To expose children to a world of very smart adults trying to undermine their ability to reason or make good choices really is an act of aggression against children.

Abuse is probably too strong, but it's definitely an aggression.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure it is a minority opinion, I just think it's so ingrained in us at this point we don't stop and notice. Perhaps it's having a kid, but I've recently been thinking on a regular basis that at some point in the future people will look back on the Advertising Age and wonder why anyone put up with what is essentially lying to encourage you to do something you probably don't need to.

I get why advertising exists and I think it probably did and can fill a need in a limited way but the incentives are all wrong. Ideally advertising would be a way of leading all buyers of mousetraps to the best mousetrap. Instead it is a way for the lesser mousetrap manufacturers/ the lazy/ the actively evil to foist inferior products on people via emotional appeals. We have homes filled to the brim wth crap we don't need because advertising suggests this next product will remove that existential dread or feeling of emptiness or impostor syndrome from your life.

<comment><USER8> > essentially lying to encourage you to do something you probably don't need > to.

That's the best case scenario. More often than not, advertisers are actively malicious.

By that, I mean they are attempting to manipulate people into taking actions that are actively damaging to their health/finances/etc in order to enrich the advertisers. The fact that this is so accepted by society that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent doing it each year is absolutely repulsive.

<comment><USER9> Even the news/media industry is complicit in advertising. How can you tell the advertising bias in news articles etc? It's a tough problem to solve...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm so glad this topic has come up. I have a young child with some apple devices. Apple has a feature where the child can request permission to download an app, I can approve or not. This is great... but it would be awesome if I could approve with "ads off", I don't mind taking the $$ hit on install. What infuriates me is finding out 3 days later that my kid is either being distracted non stop to an unplayable level with ads or trading eyeball time to watch in app videos in exchange for some monetary system to be used in game play.

What I can't stand, when it comes to kids, is when I have to become an expert at X to be able to trust that something is a safe environment for a child. I have to actually check the game, play it, figure out its incentive protocol and then buy the ads away. Some games sell the ads away but still have incentives to purposefully sell your time watching a video to get more points / currency.

Here is what I want. I want a way to trial a game without ads. If I like the game I'll buy it for $1-$20 just like I would in a physical store. Then it's my game no ads or weird economic models. If the game maker "needs" recurring money to provide the game play then eat me signup for a subscription like I would on Netflix. I want a straightforward way to own the game or at least use it like I own it (SaaS like)

<comment><USER11> Yep, the app store really, really needs a section for games that are ad-free and that don't have any consumable in-app-purchases.

Angry Birds was a really nice game, and I'd love to let my kids play it, but it just isn't playable any more. It's so full of crap. Ads, in-app-purchases, loads of shit. I'd easily pay 10€ to get back the original version of Angry Birds that I bought in 2010 or so, but that version is gone for good.

There are some games that aren't full of crap. Monument Valley, Alto's Adventure, Pinout, Blyss, Canabalt, Glider, Paw Patrol, Duplo Trains are some ad-free games that I can recommend.

I'd love to have some kind of curated list of ad-free games. The games that Apple promotes / features in the store are usually less obnoxious, but I'm not sure if there's a way to search for them.

Since Apple has removed the affiliate payments for apps, I don't think there's an easily monetisable way to build a recommendation website for ad-free games, but it may be possible to build it as a volunteer effort?

<comment><USER12> Perhaps we need to consider if something is wrong about this culture of constant upgrades.

Not just phone apps, but other applications too. Upgrades are actually hostile to the end user. There's nothing to counter the incentives of companies to keep sneaking in more ways to squeeze money out of their users.

Interestingly thinking back, I remember when I first discovered Chrome's aggressive autoupdate and I felt disquieted. Now I have a better sense that it's fundamentally not to the benefit of the end user. Actually there's some benefits for web developers, which tricks them into becoming part of this culture, and heavily pushing for these newer browsers with their built-in autoupdates now.

<comment><USER13> Problem is, most software upgrades are all-or-nothing. You can't just take the good (security fixes, better performance, etc.) and leave the bad (reduced functionality, new worse UI, more ads). It's in my view a major unsolved problem in software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Unlike the better parents in this thread, I sometimes let my toddler play an Android game. I can tell you with certainty that _every_ ad in a toddler game is click fraud. He never wants to click the ad. He wants to play the game, but hits the wrong button.

In my book, the fact that Google allows clickable ads in toddler games makes them complicit in ad fraud. And hey, why wouldn't they? It's not like it's "real fraud" right? Right?

(I'm not entirely kidding, I don't understand why other forms of fraud are punishable with prison time but ad fraud is totally a-ok)

<comment><USER15> >(I'm not entirely kidding, I don't understand why other forms of fraud are punishable with prison time but ad fraud is totally a-ok).

It's very simple: no actual fraud in a legal sense has been committed. The person clicking the ad certainly hasn't signed any contract with the ad publisher, so how could they possibly be committing fraud by clicking the ad? The creator of the application showing the ads does not sign a contract guaranteeing to the advertiser that every click is legitimate (how could they possibly enforce, or even measure that), so it's not fraud on their part either.

<comment><USER16> I'm pretty sure toddlers don't have the capacity to commit fraud because no reasonable person would rely on a toddler's representation of material facts to make a decision that could result in injury to themselves.

<comment><USER17> I think the alleged fraud is on the part of the ad vendor that placed the hard-to-click, tap three times while it makes a synchronous network request, 25% opacity, 10x10px close/skip button on the ad in a game targeted to toddlers, not the toddler.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's almost impossible to find good educational apps that aren't full of ads, dark UX patterns, in-app purchases, etc etc.

I remember an abundance of educational programs back in the pre-Internet days. Simple Alphabet/Number matching games, click-to-colour-in games, shape identification games, etc. Most came on disks on magazines, or given away free at meetups and events. I expected educational stuff to explode with the internet and smart phones, but instead.. ugh.

We really do need a new category in both app stores. Software for kids that you buy, and then that's it. No ads, no in-app purchases, no trickery or bullshit. It should be curated by an educator and have strict rules. They make more than enough off the app store profits to cover an educator who finds, tests, and adds apps each day to this category and slowly fill it with quality educational apps we can trust with our kids.

They won't though, because they don't actually care. The more they can train kids to be ok with ads and IAP the more profit they'll make later. It's a form of brainwashing.

<comment><USER19> Question: If we sell an education math app that is a free download but limits the numbers (say 1 to 5) but has an in-app purchase to get the full range, is that acceptable?

<comment><USER18> If buying it then means the transaction between us is over, and I get a fully working app with no ads, no popups asking to buy extra "coins" or anything, and my kid can play that app with no other interruptions or anything I need to be wary of, then yeah that sounds fine. Just sounds like a free trial/demo to me which is fair.

<comment><USER19> > If buying it then means the transaction between us is over

It should be, but iOS sometimes requires code upgrades which makes me wonder how long a person supports a version of a program on iOS. The whole length of support versus new version is problematic. I would assume version fixes for a number of years. Should be ok for an educational program since the useful lifetime is limited by the nature of the lesson.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Google Play "discloses whether an app has advertising or in-app purchases

Yea but I can't search for apps without ads or in-app purchase, can I scumbags? I have to scroll through the algorithmically sorted list and click into each app page because you are evil people that sold your souls for that six figure salary and free cafeteria food.

<comment><USER21> I don't install new apps often, but the last time I was looking for something the yalp store (Open source google play wrapper) could filter out things with ads or in app purchases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have zero tolerance for advertisements. We don't have "free to air" tv, nor use any services otherwise delivering advertisements. I'm more than happy to pay for content, eg; Netflix. I also actively purchase content via iTunes (movies, music). Apps, however, and that overall ecosystem are near dead to me.

I don't accept anything with "in-app purchases", and even struggle now to find the "Pay once and own" category - though I so don't use my devices in ways this impacts me. I'm sure there's apps that deliver this experience (in app purchases) in what I believe is an ethical manner - and it sucks to rule them all out because of a bad bunch.

I don't have constructive feedback on how to improve this, either. My experience in this whole space has resulted in my rather locked down environment. And I'm extremely happy with it.

I'm also happy to provide further information to others, should they wish to deliver what I believe is a safer environment for myself and my family.

<comment><USER23> You probably know this, but in case you don't: A lot of apps that have "In-App Purchases" will have one that unlocks the ad-free version of the same app. Instead of the publisher listing two separate versions of their app in the store, they list just the one and handle the crap-free process using IAP instead.

BUT... then there are those apps that promise to remove the ads for $1.99 or whatever, but _still_ have an ads-for-loot scheme. That's infuriating.

<comment><USER24> Yup, not to mention other in-app purchases for vanity items, xp boosters, etc. AAA games have those too nowadays (notably Assassin's Creed Odyssey, which has actively been designed to have a poor, plodding experience unless you pay extra for boosters - just like most mobile games).

<comment><USER25> Those transactions have been in AC games for years. What happened with Odyssey is they made an absolute slog of a game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This might be unpopular opinion, but whatever happened with paper and crayons? Or Legos? I can understand how it can be tempting to have few quiet hours after work, giving your young ones tablet of phone to watch this specially crafted media to attract their attention (and show them ads as it turns out), but I don't believe it's healthy for young organism to stare blankly on screen 10 inches from face with worse possible head position (almost always bent forward). My friend said once, that she's so grateful for technology advancement, that she doesn't know how she would manage to change diapers without tablet.

<comment><USER27> Why do you say "stare blankly"? My young organism stares anything but blankly at the iPad screen when he's allowed to use it.

I think you're painting phone/tablet usage in a very negative light here, as if parents are only using them as a pacifier to occupy their kids so they can have some quiet time of their own. Sure some people do that, but that's the least charitable interpretation I think.

<comment><USER28> Saying that "some people" do it is a big understatement. The majority of parents do that in my personal experience.

Don't think I live in a bubble on that front, but perhaps there are researches on this that can prove me wrong.

<comment><USER27> Well I was hoping for something stronger than your personal anecdotes to back this assertion up.

In any case, crayons and tablets are not mutually exclusive choices. You can in fact use both, and other things as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Beware the generation who are raised by phone addicts. Attachment and rearing requires active involvement — even from a distance.

When your toddler looks back at you to check that they're okay, to see if they're still safe, you'd better meet their gaze. Look up from your phones and watch, else your toddler will stop looking back.

I'm a medical student on psychiatry rotation, and this stuff scares me big time.

<comment><USER30> This is nonsense. Our ancestors only survived because they could be doing all kinds of stuff (you know, stuff that was necessary to survive) while the kids were playing around and keeping themselves busy. Children are more capable than we give them credit for. It's about making your interactions meaningful _when_ you have them, not staring at them all the time. This is the kind of mindset that makes children grow up to be anxiety-ridden young adults. The studies show that _emotional trauma_ (i.e. NOT "dad was looking at his phone when I bumped my head and wasn't staring directly at me", but _actual_ trauma) causes problems in adolescence and adulthood. But most parenting within the normal range just does not matter. At all. Take a look at The Nurture Assumption, or read a primer: [https://slate.com/human- interest/2018/03/parenting-doesnt-ma...](https://slate.com/human- interest/2018/03/parenting-doesnt-matter-that-muchas-long-as-you-dont-do- anything-super-weird.html)

<comment><USER29> I'm talking about toddlers, who definitely do need and seek reassurance as they explore the boundaries of their expanding world. As kids develop they need less and more distant supervision, but it is still important. Childhood neglect is demonstrably associated with borderline personality disorder, for example.

Interaction is good for children, and it's not the same as helicoptering. It's far better for a kid to talk to their parent than for the kid to play Angry Birds on the iPad while their parent sits on Facebook. I'm not suggesting a bit of parental phone time is going to mess your kids up for life, but I won't be surprised if the era of personal screens for everybody produces some fun personality traits now and then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> andrew-dc Father of two boys, and kinda lapsed gamer. Wanted to introduce boys to some fun games we can play together. I cannot express how maddening the entire casino/micro-transaction transformation of all games has ruined everything for kids. I would happily buy a game out-right if it disabled all up-sells, and transactional BS. Even frikkin Minecraft launches with a bazillion pay upgrades now, and that's after you already bought it.

I play a few carefully selected Steam titles with the boys in a limited fashion, because they are actually games, and not clever schemes to monetize everything.

Even so, my oldest (who's 6) hasn't even ever seen Fortnight - and yet he still asks me about it. (I guess he hears about it from friends.) That's how good their marketing and monetization strategy works... It's sickening.

<comment><USER31> As someone who used to develop games I would love to work on non-ad games, but the way the appstore works, you have to get on the top ten to make money (first page of google effect), which you can only do if you charge .99 (in the paid category) or free and then fill it with ads and shit. It takes a lot of advertisments elsewhere to get on the top ten apps in the appstore, which means if you don't fill your app with crap you can't afford to get the app up high enough that you break even.

The best thing apple could do would be to randomize the list of which apps are shown when the user just searches, perhaps even weighted by reviews.

<comment> andrew-dc Oh yeah, I get that the stores and industry are a major problem here. Devs who don't play the store ranking game, end up losing. I resent that very much. I'm not certain what would be a decent solution for this problem, cause even if games were rated by users on "quality" \- then the shift would be to game that quality system, by rewarding players to rank things higher quality, etc. Just a bummer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> There is a bigger problem here and that is a lot of parents either ignore or simply don't see the problem. Friends think I'm weird because I carefully curate apps for my 3yo son and have banned youtube. This problem also exists on iOS but I don't think it's as bad as described in this article. I've realised quite a while ago that Google really doesn't give a shit about your kids being confronted with inappropriate content.

<comment><USER33> My wife and I both have Andoid phones. Whenever we get a new device removing YouTube is the first thing we do. We have a small list of paid puzzle games we install. And for the limited video time the kids get PBS Video which is great. We don't let the kids watch Netflix or any other video apps because their "kids" programming is absolute garbage if not openly hostile toward children.

You're not weird.

<comment> move-on-by I just installed PBS Video on my iPhone and opened up my pi-hole to see what types of DNS requests it was making. Among regular PBS domains are:

* ssl.google-analytics.com (tracking)

* pagead2.googlesyndication.com (a google ad domain)

* pubads.g.doubleclick.net (another google ad domain)

* sb.scorecardresearch.com (tracking)

* imasdk.googleapis.com (The Google IMA SDK for ads within a video)

* localization.services.pbs.org (perhaps this one is benign)

From their Privacy Policy [1]:

> We also may share aggregated or anonymized information with third parties, > including to help us develop content and services that we hope you or your > child will find of interest or to help these third parties develop their own > products and service offerings.

The above paragraph with the associated list of domains being used above screams targeting to me

> We may allow third parties to place and read their own cookies, web beacons, > and similar technologies to collect information through the Services.

So they let 3rd parties do whatever they want. The full privacy policy is followed with an example use case of how its helpful and useful, but just like Facebook's privacy policy the examples are misdirection.

[1] [https://pbskids.org/privacy/](https://pbskids.org/privacy/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think we are very lucky here in the UK, the BBC have a channel called "CBeebies" aimed at 0-6yo whith all the videos available through a dedicated app, plus a huge range of games. Absolutely no ads and most have an educational message.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/grownups/article-cbeebies- app...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/grownups/article-cbeebies-apps)

My 4yo is allowed to use an iPad but it only has the BBC apps on it. No YouTube, Sky, or any other ad supported apps. The BBC has made it possible for us to give her something and not need us to moderate what she is downloading or playing (although we do limit time on it strongly).

<comment> move-on-by I installed CBeebies on my iPhone and looked at the pi-hole to see what type of DNS requests it was making when the app was opened (I haven't clicked on a single thing in the app)

* graph.facebook.com

* analytics.localytics.com

* api.branch.io (analytics & ads)

* app-measurement.com (analytics, maybe ads too?)

* ssl.google-analytics.com

* settings.crashlytics.com (perhaps benign)

So right off the bat Facebook and Google are both siphoning off data from the use of this app among other 3rd parties. Did you know that?

<comment><USER35> I think that (although honourable) you're off topic here. We're discussing the prevelance of ads baked into apps that are designed specifically for children.

The ethical ramifications of third party data are important but the cbeebies apps do a great job of providing engaging, add free content.

<comment> OpenBSD-reich I think he's right on and should continue giving this comment section the facts about what even these apparently "clean" apps are doing. Data tracking is the edge of the sword opposite to advertising and should be treated on equal terms!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Ads are the reason I don't both with phone and tablet games anymore. If I want to game on the go I take the Switch with me. Same for my son (5yo). I also don't let him watch YouTube on my phone or tablet, only the computer where the ads are perfectly blocked thanks to uBlock Origin. I run Pi-hole but it is not perfect on mobile devices. I was very tempted at getting YouTube Premium but at £11.99 a month I feel it is too much. I would have gone for it if it were £6 or 7 but something about £12 makes me question how much value it is really giving me. Pricing psychology is strange like that. Not to mention YT Premium only removes the YouTube ads not all the sponsored content that is a part of the video. That is becoming a bigger issue imho but not part of this discussion.

It sucks though in some ways as there are some great mobile games but they are _ruined_ with adverts often with no way to remove them. Some games have an ad- free version for a few quid but most don't. Clearly they can make much more spamming ads every other death than they can with a one off payment of a £3-5.

</comment><comment><USER37> Last weekend I gave my almost 4 yo daughter my iPhone with Cut the rope on it as I remembered it was fun... oh my... after few minutes had to turn it off and came back to painting unicorns and playing with dolls - the amount of crap they put there nowadays is ridiculous, you can't do anything, you're constantly bombarded with popups I, myself, couldn't figure out how to close, some of them you have to wait 30 seconds to close, absolute garbage, can't even explain how the game works with different shit poping up all the time. I guess you have to write a game yourself for kids today.

</comment><comment><USER38> Instead of giving kids an iPad / Android device, what about giving them a lightweight Linux laptop / tablet so they can play games and watch YouTube with an ad blocker?

The complaints are the same every time this issue comes up: "I wish I could pay to turn off the ads."

This isn't going to happen. Take control of your computer and get rid of the ads yourself.

<comment><USER39> Linux just doesn't have the polish that an iPad does. There are very few, if any, games, and it's not really a good fit for younger children.

<comment><USER40> The computer most of us had as a kid was a hell of a lot less polished than a modern Linux system.

<comment><USER39> You can give a two year old an iPad and they can figure it out. I doubt you were using a computer at that age. There is an age at which it's possible to introduce Linux computers, it it might quite young, but I think it's quite later than the average age that one can grasp how to use an iPad.

<comment><USER41> Two year olds should NOT have iPads or any such devices, period.

<comment><USER39> Disagree. It's entirely possible to introduce children to iPads as an introductory device. Should you give them unrestricted access to the internet and App Store? Probably not. But load up a couple of high-quality apps, and you can make it a very good tool for learning.

<comment><USER41> I didn't oppose introducing iPads per se. I opposed it at a certain AGE. Introduction should happen later for all sorts of reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> As the comments on this post make clear, there are a lot of HN readers who go to great lengths to reduce or even eliminate screen time for their kids. Just this week, the NY Times wrote a piece about how parents who work in tech are most wary of the impact screen time has on their children[1].

Even more broadly, the same gap was found between high-income families and low-income families. Poorer children spend ~2.5 more hours in front of a screen per day than rich children[2].

I am seriously concerned about this emerging "digital divide", which is ironically an inversion of what everyone expected. What does it say about the kind of things we are building, when the people who work closest with tech are most afraid of it, and take the greatest lengths to keep it away from their kids?

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/phones-children- sil...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/phones-children-silicon- valley.html) [2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/digital-divide- scre...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/digital-divide-screens- schools.html)

<comment><USER43> On a macro scale, I am absolutely horrified at what this will spell for our democracy. Conditioning the majority of kids via ads to achieve certain political goals and groom certain mindsets is absolutely on the table here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> We've recently released an app on iOS that has ads and is aimed at a younger audience. We have an option to remove the ads and it comes with an added ability to put a childlock on in app messaging. Later when we add a store into the app we will add features to lock it further because we want to do right by our customers who we hope include parents of kids.

What I didn't expect was the slump in sales we make from ad removal offerings. We make more money from the ads than from purchases of ad removal. I see a lot of folks say "I'll pay for a no ads experience" but the reality is most folks will continue to use the app with the ads even when the option to remove them exists.

Adding code to handle ad removal is another feature which takes time to develop and keep up to date as APIs and system versions change. Sadly, it may not be lucrative enough for most developers to put that effort in to provide the option.

<comment><USER45> > _We make more money from the ads than from purchases of ad removal._

Yes, you'll make more money doing the bad thing which people are complaining about. This will always be true. If you could make more money the other way, you would do it, and people would have nothing to complain about. _Therefore_ , the fact that you can make more money is not a valid reason to keep doing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Bought the kids Amazon Kindle Fire's a while back. Would occasionally use one of them and every time I would launch Silk (the browser) an adult ad/website would load complete with graphic nudity. A new ad would load each day when launching Silk.

Thankfully she never saw them (she doesn't' use or even know what "Silk" is) but I was forced to randomly uninstall games until I found the culprit. I would shame them here but I forgot which game it was.

We also have a Chromebook, with a game rated "10 and up" \- this game also loads adult ads - no nudity but plenty suggestive. I complained via Twitter - crickets.

Kids are not so used to ads, they instinctively hunt for the "X" button whenever anything (ad or not) overlays on top of their content.

<comment><USER47> The problem is the parents not reporting the infraction.

At least WRT google play app store, they can be brutal toward apps with ads with wrong content criteria, see the link discussing your situation

[https://play.google.com/about/monetization- ads/ads/inappropr...](https://play.google.com/about/monetization- ads/ads/inappropriate/)

with a side dish of

[https://play.google.com/about/monetization- ads/ads/interferi...](https://play.google.com/about/monetization- ads/ads/interfering/)

Presumably whatever the amazon devices use for an app store (google play, I donno) has similar draconian policies to enforce IF the problem is ever reported.

Unfortunately I've had to set up ads from the developer side and the Google UI is not bad, but nothing's perfect, so in a world of a million apps its entirely possible the dev accidentally screwed up age criteria rather than was willfully antagonistic; but if parents don't report the problem to the dev or appstore there is little hope of improvement either way.

If you can get the attention of Google's automated AI eye of sauron in policy enforcement, I assure you they are remorseless, draconian, and merciless. The difficult part is getting their attention.

My kids have learned from youtube how to side load cracked and modified apps such as minecraft on their devices downloaded from mysterious and unsavory websites, which promptly messes everything on the system up, such that its possible the app dev and Google have nothing to do with your situation.

<comment><USER46> > The problem is the parents not reporting the infraction.

Does complaining via Twitter count? Because I did, and typically I get a response because "public shaming" seems to be the best way to get support these days. I also complained about the Chromebook/Android game ad and got ... crickets.

Unfortunately, taking many minutes or a few hours from my day to report the issue to Amazon or Google doesn't seem like a valuable use of my time - <USER2> guess that's the problem :(

It should be two clicks/presses to report an ad violation, especially on a device sold specifically to kids (Kindle Fire).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Just a thought but maybe if parents were willing to spend enough money for developers to make a living then they wouldn't need to resort to ads and IAP to make a living.

Often bring this up when I see people angry over how much their child spent in a random freemium app and the anger and vitriol they spew back at you is nuts, because they want their kids entertained for free with no catch.

High quality entertainment exists for kids out there, Nintendo Switch, Toca Boca tablet apps, etc. But yeah it actually costs dollars.

<comment><USER46> I pay for Netflix (no ads) and YouTube premium which also removes ads. I also pay for basic cable (loads of ads).

However, Google still finds a way to show me and my kids ads.

This is the problem. Even when I'm willing to (and do) pay to remove ads, the addiction and greed shown by content creators and delivery services is too powerful. They always find exceptions.

<comment><USER49> Each individual app developer is making this particular decision, not Google. If you think apps should be free, this is what happens. Pay for your apps, and you shouldn't be subjected to advertisements. This is why I've historically refused to go back to Hulu (you don't get to double dip AND keep me as a customer).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Father of 10 years old. Technology is everywhere. Pixels, Gaming laptops, Youtube. I think my son have not seen an ad in a long time. TV is replaced with Youtube (mainly kind of stupid local streamers), all Chromes (phone, laptop, tv) are equipped with ad blockers. The time spend on these devices is not limited at all.

The trick is my son spends a lot of time on all kind of outside activities. Like playing with friends, language courses, math courses. When at home, I purposely try to find activities outside tech - like just chatting, lego before, currently doing random house projects. Also he is wikipedia expert - name a unknown topic and he is on wikipedia reading about it.

At the end he has like 2,3 hours free a day. He can do whatever he want - mainly playing games with his friends, when he is not installing all kinds of software he finds on internet.

So to sum it up - nothing is forbidden, time on devices looks healthy to me. I see some of his friends spending quite a lot time online though.

As for the ads, this streamer was advertising a stupid PC mouse. We bought it knowing it will be a disaster. His monthly budget was spend on it, it sucked and now he knows firsthand about the ads and as a bonus - he doubts the streamer and online content in general.

<comment><USER51> If your kid watches gamers playing Minecraft etc. on Youtube he probably is getting product placement ad's.

<comment><USER52> That's extremely hard to avoid... even on HN!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Airplane mode is the safest option for when our 3yo kiddo play games on the iPad. Unless the app is paid for, it most likely will be full of sketchy ways to make the kids press on ads.

<comment><USER54> This. It works and it is the only way I can run apps in my oldish tablet. If it's connected while running many apps it slows down to a crowl.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> In Europe, TV advertising to children is in often heavily regulated (sometimes even to zero). In addition, in many countries you have the option of the public broadcaster with no ads.

It seems like a matter of time until app stores get regulated in the same way.

Anyone know if the BBC et.al. have any good kids games?

<comment><USER34> Yes, I have a 4yo and we only allow the BBC apps and videos, all ad free and mostly have an educational direction: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/grownups/article-cbeebies- app...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/grownups/article-cbeebies-apps)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> My kid is around 3yo now and likes My Little Pony, so I decided to see what's on the Android market. I've found out some app, genuine, from Hasbro. I got it for some time now and in the course of last few months number of ads showed during game play jumped up dramatically. From starting the game, for first two minutes I have counted 6-8 ads, each one including not only at least 30 sec video but also some stub of application after that lasting also around 30 seconds, unless manually disabled. Thing is that close buttons are cramped somewhere in the corner, small and they don't appear right from the start. It doesn't seem to be this concrete application problem. Rather some decision has been made by Google advertisement platform, it seems. It's so annoying that I am not even going to consider purchasing the product, as I would in other circumstances.

This, paradoxically, have had a great influence on our lives - no more playing games.

</comment><comment><USER57> I've spent a lot of time finding apps I trust enough to leave my kids mostly unsupervised with. For me it's mostly boiled down to finding trustworthy app publishers, I listed some here a while ago: [https://medium.com/@jacksonpauls/apps-for-preschool- kids-304...](https://medium.com/@jacksonpauls/apps-for-preschool- kids-304473a4f6db)

</comment><comment><USER58> My kids grew up when all these things started coming about. My biggest regret is introducing my oldest to computer games because it distracted him away from me cause I ran my business out of my home and he always wanted to be with me. It has affected him in a negative way that I still see today as he turned 30.

</comment><comment><USER59> I downloaded 6TB of wholesome kid's content for my kids when they started to want to watch screens. Animal documentaries, Mister Rogers, Sesame Street, etc. The TV in our house can only access this content until they go to bed.

When we fly I replicate some of it to the iPad and take it along.

<comment><USER60> I'm curious as to whether that 6TB of content was paid for (or public domain).

<comment><USER59> It was not paid for and it was not public domain. I do try to support the main producers of this content where I can (buying BBC Blu-Rays even though I have them already downloaded), but am not super strict about it. I do pirate.

<comment> OpenBSD-reich >I do pirate.

Y-har matey, good to see a shipmate aboard! In the age of advertising often times the 'legit' sources where one can buy content still show ads or handcuff your free use of it. BitTorrent (over Tor)/I2PSnark/IPFS/Freenet/etc will probably remain the best way to obtain digital consumables. Big (and small) media still doesn't understand that being anti-user is a Bad Thing(tm).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I'm surprised no one has released an ad blocking router yet. Just plug it in and it has default dns rules in place to block all domains serving ads. Like a pihole but built into the router. It could broadcast a separate network that doesn't block ads in case the ad blocking broke something you needed to use. If I had any experience in manufacturing i'd be all over this.

</comment><comment><USER62> My bank (Chase) is now trying to sell me cars on the iOS app login screen and on the balance page. Third party ads. In my checking account app.

Nothing is safe.

<comment><USER63> Third party apps would assume the third party is serving the ad right? I'd assume they are actually first party, meaning Chase is serving it.

<comment><USER64> I wouldn't assume that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> We've had a pretty popular kids coding app in the App Store for about 6 years now (Kodable). We've never remotely considered having ads and never will, and from the article it sounds like this heavily skews towards the ad-heavy Google Play store.

From my experience most of the big name kids app developers do not put ads in their apps (almost never on iOS), although I can understand why developers do.

Whether you like it or not, they work. There are two things that are always going to be true about this - kids are going to download lots of free apps (because it is easier than asking parents to pay), and they are going to accidentally tap on ads. The developer doesn't care if the user will actually purchase the product being advertised, all they care about is the click. That's just the way PPC advertising incentivizes developers. The only way around this is strictly limiting advertising for games targeting children. That has to come from the App Store moderators (Google, Apple, etc).

</comment><comment><USER66> Get a router that supports dnsmasq, you can block most of ads, although it's easy to evade, you can't really control the kids when they are able to do that.

That way you can also get rid of the hundreds of companies eager to know what you did on the internet.

I have a hosts file that consists of 15000+ lines of blocked domains, accreddited to the inability of wildcards of Windows.

<comment><USER67> Perhaps check out pi-hole.net.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I bought for my kids Amazon Fire tablets and had to realise there are no games which were suitable for them. Each one of them had some sort of ads, even the completely free ones on their Underground market.

And Amazon is also a big offender. They have ad popups even on their kids interface.

The only way to counter this is to go offline after you downloaded the game, but still there are some which wouldn't even start without an internet connection.

In Google's and Amazon's place I would uphold the app creators to certain standards when it comes to kids games and apps. Like not putting ads in their apps, or if even if I allow it, then forcing them to make it easily closable and not making them with 10x10 pixel big X marks.

In the end all the games out there on the app store are either complete rubbish, or just money grabbing schemes. There are rare exceptions, but good luck finding them.

</comment><comment><USER69> "Free" is the ultimate pricing tool. No one can argue or make anything cheaper than free and those with audiences and ad revenue (Google, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram) already have the eyeballs to make free worth it. Smaller developers, studios, companies, can hardly compete with these apps because free always trumps paying, even if it's only $0.01.

The willingness of people to open their wallet and vote with their wallet is the direct cause of this mess. I have to be truly honest here and say I am guilty of this as well. Paying for a game? Good luck unless I truly know it's going to be great (Overwatch, for example). Let me try it out for free, and fund it with cosmetic micro-transactions.

<comment><USER70> I'm not sure I understand your point about big vs small companies. The article states:

"In Olaf's Adventures, published by Disney, clicking on a glowing cake that is not marked as an ad takes the player to a store;

Disney is not hurting for money, so why are they employing similarly devious tactics? The problem is obviously not just with "smaller developers, studios and companies".

<comment><USER69> Smaller and more frequent micro-transactions have been the norm rather than the exceptions. Micro-transaction and lootboxs, this is the world we live in. If we want to change it we have to vote with our wallets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> My strategy as a parent: cultivate healthy hobbies with your kid. I taught chess to my daughter when she was 5. We play it together all the time, not only standard chess but also all kinds of variants (she invented a few fun variants herself). She goes to chess club every week and tournaments every couple of months. The iPad is loaded with dozens of chess apps, nothing else. Chess, together with other activities like art and sports take up most of her leisure time. There is no room left for the ads infested games and videos. We never have to tell her not to play or watch those. And she's having a great time anyway.

</comment><comment><USER72> YouTube videos too. I was at my friend's place and they were showing some cartoon to their kid.

After the cartoon was over came a 10 minute ad that does not look like an ad. It's just a woman and 2 kids playing with toys. Ofc the toys being the focus.

It's so dirty!

</comment><comment><USER73> There's so much hand-wringing about this of late, but it has ever been so, at least for the past sixty years. Ever since the advent of television, children's programming has been laced with breakfast cereal and toy ads. The era I grew up with in during the late 80s, early 90s, was all about merchandising, to the point that it's almost impossible to remember what started out as a cartoon and then became a toy line versus the other way round.

Somehow, "This time it is different!" But that seems incredibly myopic given any understanding of history.

<comment><USER74> Those ads were policed properly, unlike some of the sexual / gambling / alcohol / otherwise unsuitable content I've seen advertised in kids' apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I remember playing boatloads of old-school Flash games in the mid-2000s. Never saw a single ad in-game. When Jobs wrote his "On Flash" open letter, I thought at the time he was pushing for a mobile-friendly equivalent of what Flash offered. It was years later I realized he was really only pushing to keep the walled garden "app store" the dominant distribution model for interactive mobile content, with Apple taking a cut of every dollar spent.

I really hope HTML5 games sitting on simple websites go back to being a thing.

<comment><USER76> My recollection was those sites were stuffed to the gills with banner ads... how else would those free to play flash game sites make money?

<comment><USER75> You're right, they must have been showing ads of some sort. I simply don't remember any; perhaps they weren't that egregious or so numerous that I would recall it ~13 years later. I know I didn't have any adblockers installed on my PC until at least 2010, so I must have seen them if there were any.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> So is the New York Times app, and I'm paying for it. Not much longer though - they've now got autoplaying video.

<comment><USER78> Good luck trying to cancel. They're pretty clingy... Expect to get spammed with "please come offers" every single day.

<comment><USER79> Raise a dispute/chargeback with your card issuer. The only way to make them stop this bullshit is to hit them where it hurts and increase their dispute percentage to dangerous levels where their acquirer bank threatens to drop them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> "Dad when are you going to remortgage the house?"

"What? You're five years old, how do you know about mortgages"

"Well.. I was just thinking... Interest rates have never been lower"

</comment><comment><USER81> Anyone uk based, iplayer is a good option. Although speaking as a father of a 2 yr old you're in trouble if their favourite program gets removed. So black market backup required.

Slightly off topic, but how does everyone deal with these issues for older kids. I would like when they get to the age of asking for a playstation X to just not plug it in to the internet, so I don't have to worry about it. But I'm not sure offline capable consoles are going to exist by then.

<comment><USER74> The solution my wife and I came up with was to just not have kids. It's depressing to admit, but we're genuinely that disillusioned with the state of the world (we're in our mid-30s FWIW).

<comment><USER48> Seems drastic maybe try going off the grid and into the countryside for a bit. Honestly the world isn't anywhere near as bad as a lot of the media and the social media hivemind will lead you to believe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> As someone working in advertising, I wonder how many of these apps and advertisers are in violation of COPPA. We have so much annoying code scrubbing so much information from users we suspect or discover to be children.

We really don't want to advertise to children, they're absolutely awful for any meaningful non-impression metric for the advertiser. But there are definitely ad networks that are more than happy to turn a blind eye to serving ads to children.

<comment><USER83> > We really don't want to advertise to children, they're absolutely awful for > any meaningful non-impression metric for the advertiser.

Yeah, that's the reason not to advertise to children!

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Heh, I grew up with PC games (mostly pirated, though I still have my legit DVD copy of NFS Most Wanted) —

and I just realized that I _was_ mildly exposed to in-game ads back then — in the form of product placement! (or rather brand placement?)

e.g. Cingular and Burger King (NFS Underground 2), Motorola (Tony Hawk's Underground 2)… but Cingular was a US thing, and Burger King didn't exist in my country back then either, so these ads were hilariously irrelevant to me.

<comment><USER85> > and I just realized that I was mildly exposed to in-game ads back then — in > the form of product placement! (or rather brand placement?)

Well of course, ever since OutRun there is blatant product placement in most racing games: car brands

There is a reason your DVD copy of Most Wanted has a BMW M3 on the cover

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> For all those of you who are worried, and want to help work on solutions to the harms that come with our modern technology, I invite you to join the Humane Tech Community at our community forum [0].

We are still a relatively small community, having just repositioned ourselves as a separate subsidiary of The Center for Humane Technology [1]. We will start a number of crowdsourced community-driven projects - all in the public domain - to help _Re-align Technology To Humanity 's Best Interests Again_.

Just created our first Awareness Campaigns project and will soon launch our community website. Our forum has lotsa information about tech harms and their solutions. But we are just at the start, and need as much help as we can get.

[0] [https://community.humanetech.com](https://community.humanetech.com)

[1] [https://humanetech.com](https://humanetech.com)

</comment><comment><USER87> What's almost just as bad is that networks such as Google also abuse advertisers by counting random clicks from kids. All ads on mobile should _require_ a 2-click action, and it shouldn't be easy to click twice by mistake either. Like the second button should appear in another location of the screen or something.

</comment><comment><USER88> I've been buying AdGuard for 2 years: completely removes all ads from browsers and every single app.

Bought it for a family devices.

</comment><comment> move-on-by This is one of many reasons I do not feel the least bit bad about having a Pi- Hole [1] on my network to block ads and trackers [2]. The companies behind this are predatory. The advertisement and analytic platforms they use are complicit. I have an obligation to shield my family from their manipulative and malicious intentions. The option to just avoid these types of apps/websites is a farce. The platforms have infiltrated our lives at every level - analytics are always being collected. My own ISP has the right to spy on me and my family and sell our activities to be used against us in the form of advertisements.

[1] [https://pi-hole.net](https://pi-hole.net)

[2] [https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts)

</comment><comment><USER89> I have no children, but I have seen a child in a loop of ads on a tablet. She was so fustrated, and no way to help her but to explain how the world works to a 4y old. The whole play store is deceiving, and no way for children to learn except trough frustration.

</comment><comment><USER90> I can see why, babies are going to accidently click ads making more money for the developer.

</comment><comment><USER91> This reminds me of a thought experiment I was entertaining with a friend.

Imagine a program within your city, that would allow citizens to travel by public transit for free. All they would need to do is wear a pancho of sorts, completely covered with advertising. Although practical, this experience would be humiliating, annoying, and would probably be extremely beneficial for those who truly need it, and might be an eyesore for the rest of us.

Should we support our friends in need, and encourage something like this? Or is selling ourself (and others) to marketing and advertising going to hurt us in the long run? If so, then what is a fair price for keeping ads away?

<comment><USER92> > Although practical, this experience would be humiliating, annoying, and > would probably be extremely beneficial for those who truly need it, and > might be an eyesore for the rest of us.

i don't think it's inherently humiliating to wear an advertisement. plenty of people _pay_ to do this today (eg baseball hats and branded clothing). now if the advertising is tasteful/stylish enough that people actually want to wear it, probably no one will pay you to do it. perhaps a middle ground exists where people can get paid to wear moderately tasteful ads. for example, the livery of a formula one car is a bit garish, but they do seem to make some effort to make the colors work together.

<comment><USER91> I think that forcing other subjects on the bus to view your advertisement would be insulting and an eyesore for them, thus being humiliating for you. I don't think a single logo would suffice though, I'm thinking of a very large and obnoxious advertisement, with many brands and logos. Essentially, endless ads that are stitched together. I couldn't imagine this being comparable to a Nike t-shirt.

<comment><USER92> sure, it makes sense to go to the extreme "worst page on the internet" case for the purpose of your thought experiment. i'm just saying something like [0] might be enough ads to be worth money to someone, while not being completely ugly. i wouldn't wear something like that myself in public, but i wouldn't be too offended to stand near someone wearing it.

[0] [https://image.redbull.com/rbcom/010/2012-11-08/1331578705540...](https://image.redbull.com/rbcom/010/2012-11-08/1331578705540_1/0001/1/3000/1/wings- for-life-race-suits.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> As a parent , I simply request search functionality in the App Store and Play Store to search for apps with no ads , and no in-app purchases.

Happy to pay an up front fee for well designed , strategy based games and apps for limited use by my kids.

</comment><comment><USER94> I run ads - I really, really don't want to advertise to kids so I have an exclusion list of hundreds of kids-oriented apps and youtube channels where Google insists on placing my ads; I believe this is because parents own the phones and log into things and Google thinks it's within the 25-64 demo I chose.

It's exceptionally annoying, because kids click on ads CONSTANTLY - that makes Google more likely to show the ads there and has me paying for absolutely useless clicks over and over.

<comment><USER95> [https://adnauseam.io/](https://adnauseam.io/)

This is my favorite after adblock.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> Thats what you get with free games. Why do you think they are free?

<comment><USER97> The problem here is that

* There's no paid quality content that you can use instead.

* Even if there is, you can't find it. Googe Play will shove pages after pages of "popular" useless toxic crap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> And now Apple removed the ability to see in app purchases, so you can't even see if you can remove the ads with a paid upgrade.

</comment><comment><USER99> You don't need root to block ads on Android. To hell with the marketing industry:

[https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.jak_linux.dns66/](https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.jak_linux.dns66/)

If you're on iOS its FUBAR though.

</comment><comment><USER100> I wonder why people pay to show those adds there. This must be a lot of very low quality ad clickthroughs.

</comment><comment><USER101> I feel like whoever wrote this doesn't have kids or just now started paying attention to what they are doing on their devices. Also, this seems like it would be really obvious; people want money. Kids love to just click everything so there is a ton of revenue there.

</comment><comment><USER102> I am going to take a different position, my kids are now trained to not even see the ads. The search for the hidden x to close the ad is fully automatic.

</comment><comment><USER103> I remember being 11 years old with dial up internet and getting to play RuneScape for 30 minutes every now and then. I always wanted to play more

</comment><comment><USER104> Developers have to make a living, that's what happens with the race to the bottom pricing in app stores

</comment><comment><USER105> At least kids can still use thier Apps, unlike me at NYTimes.com

</comment><comment><USER106> The US should ban all advertisement to children.

</comment><comment><USER107> Upon entering the page, I am greeted with a page that looks like this:

Top third of page: "Please disable your ad blocker" Next third: "Kids' Apps Are Crammed With Ads" Final third: "Review our Cookie Policy"

Yeah, it's a wild west out there, alright.

<comment><USER108> > Final third: "Review our Cookie Policy"

Technically that's a good thing.

<comment><USER107> Nah.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> iOS tablet + pi-hole - anything youtube = good kids tablet.

</comment><comment><USER110> I didn't see this anywhere:

[https://www.ted.com/talks/james_bridle_the_nightmare_videos_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/james_bridle_the_nightmare_videos_of_childrens_youtube_and_what_s_wrong_with_the_internet_today/transcript?language=en)

TL;DR - algorithms are not unbiased, in fact the bias of the writers is baked into them. See this HN post for similar observations: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18184697](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18184697)</comment>


An Interior Designer on Consulting Fees - <AUTHOR> http://colourmehappyblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/design-lessons-from-elizabeth-stevenson.html

<comment><USER2> Sorry, this article _is_ kind of interesting for it's view of another industry, but as a long-time consultant I didn't see any particularly useful tips/advice. The anecdotes are fun, but they don't really tell you how to handle some of the common concerns that come up around fees.

With respect to price objections, for example, the advice seems to be "refer to their own business practices, and don't show them the wholesale price." That's not going to take you very far. The comment that "making money is not a dirty word" is valid, but doesn't tell you how to talk to your client. Better advice would be:

* Explain to the client how you arrived at your cost estimate or fee - often they just want to know that it wasn't made up out of thin air. If you tell them it represents 6 weeks of design, code, test, and deployment support, they will understand better.

* Clients are often comparing your price to what they think it would cost them if they were using an employee. But they don't have that employee (or an employee with the necessary knowledge/skills). Explain to them that it there is a cost to having your resources/skills "on tap" for when they need it.

* Always be prepared to lose a job to preserve your fees. Once you give a "discount" it will be hard to get back to full price. If you think your price is fair, be prepared to suggest that they talk to some other consultants. You should have a good idea of whether your rates are high or low compared to the competition. I have even gone so far as to suggest other companies that a client could talk to, referring to them as "the cheap option" and "the expensive option."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> She's in a totally different industry, but the things interior designer Maria Killam talk about transfer neatly to software consulting. She also talks about handling price objections and presents a very good value sell.</comment>


Never Lose a Part Again, with the Ultimate Component Storage System - <AUTHOR> https://www.hackster.io/news/never-lose-a-part-again-with-the-ultimate-component-storage-system-00987cde6744 <comment><USER2> I know, it's flashy and a conversation piece but won't be easier just to name the drawers by rows and files? I.e search for NE 555= 3 pieces, drawer B-5. I used to have CDs organized like that.</comment>