PDA

View Full Version : Adblock sold to "unknown buyer"



lclev
10-03-2015, 02:53 PM
I just ran across this article (http://thehackernews.com/2015/10/adblock-extension.html). The part that concerns me is that they have inserted a provision that states they will be using an "Acceptable ads program".

I want all ads blocked - not all but those who pay adblock not to block. For me this means goodbye adblock.

Lisa

edit: I think I will give ublock a try.

vansmith
10-03-2015, 03:19 PM
Word on the street is that AdBlock was bought out by the makers of AdBlock Plus (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/02/adblock_flogged_off_to_mystery_buyer/).

lclev
10-03-2015, 03:23 PM
Still what is with the "Acceptable ads program"?? I want all ads blocked.

Lisa

Slydude
10-03-2015, 03:43 PM
Ditto. I'd rather be the one to decide which ads are "acceptable".

chscag
10-03-2015, 04:01 PM
Still what is with the "Acceptable ads program"?? I want all ads blocked.

Lisa

Someone has to pay the bills Lisa. Just like TV... if you want no ads, watch PBS all day (Big Bird). :P

cradom
10-03-2015, 05:50 PM
https://www.ublock.org/

lclev
10-03-2015, 06:49 PM
Someone has to pay the bills Lisa. Just like TV... if you want no ads, watch PBS all day (Big Bird). :P

chscag, I realize they want to make money and I am willing to kick in to help out a developer. I just don't like when I get ads saying "hey, you looked at this item at this site now here are the same thing at this site" or "you left this in your shopping cart at this site." And I am quite sure adblock's owner would have not made the change well known but, would have just stuck it far down with all the other legal language that no one really reads.

Oh, and cradom, I already installed ublock - right after I uninstalled adblock.

Lisa

vansmith
10-03-2015, 08:01 PM
Apparently uBlock Origin is much better - uBlock is a fork of the original after the developer abandoned it. The fork ultimately went south in quality which is why uBlock Origin came to be as the original developer came back and continued development.

pm-r
10-03-2015, 08:12 PM
Thanks for the post and comments.

I got the message window earlier today and took a screen shot with the intention of checking into what it was all about:

I thought Adblock was developed and run just by the husband and wife team. Hummm…???

23005

chas_m
10-03-2015, 08:24 PM
Lisa: you do realise that without ads, this site -- and every site you like -- will go dark, right?

"Acceptable ads" is generally taken to mean non-flashing, non-animated, non-sound and generally non-annoying ads ... the thing ad lockers were originally built to stop. Without ads, the Internet as we know it would LITERALLY COLLAPSE. I don't know specifically what Ad Blocker meant, but the makers of ad blockers have started to realise the VERY REAL damage they are doing, so a number of them are now allowing non-annoying ads.

Until recently, universal ad blockers were used by so small a percentage of users -- the really savvy people -- that it was barely tolerated. Now ad blockers are mainstream, and it is VERY literally killing websites.

There's a number of gaming, Mac and general tech sites I used to read that have gone under in just the last year -- the one I work for nearly did, and it's not that they weren't profitable, it was that ad revenue was shrinking so quickly with nothing viable to replace it (count the number of "premium members" here for a reality check on THAT option) that they had to shut down before they either went broke or had to reduce their staff to a level that would kill the quality.

If you have a VIABLE idea on how to replace that lost revenue, please share it. Otherwise, you're part of the problem, demanding in effect that website operators run their sites at a huge loss, and when this site goes under your universal ad blocker will have less ... And less, and less as we go on ... to block.

pm-r
10-03-2015, 11:21 PM
Hmmm…??? I wondered when the sermons would start or appear and I guess some don't realize that at least some of us are a bit more savvy and also have and use white listing where appropriate.

ExMicroSoftUser
10-04-2015, 05:23 AM
Autosport site in the UK now comes up with a banner saying that " We notice you may be using an ad-blocker. Did you know that we remove ads for AUTOSPORT+ members to offer an ad-free experience". They have also limited free viewing to 16 in a month. Should I subscribe without ads or continue viewing occasionally with ad-block, I know what I want to do.

Rod Sprague
10-04-2015, 07:29 AM
The Adblock page gives you the option to opt out of the "Acceptable Ads" program if you wish.

Rod Sprague
10-04-2015, 08:29 AM
Hmmm…??? I wondered when the sermons would start or appear and I guess some don't realize that at least some of us are a bit more savvy and also have and use white listing where appropriate.

I whitelist quite a number of sites because I genuinely want to see the ads and the content on some simply does not display correctly if ads are blocked. Other sites have so many pop ups it interferes with the use of the page. Like all tools it must be used with discretion. You can't tighten a screw with a hammer.

vansmith
10-04-2015, 11:25 AM
Other sites have so many pop ups it interferes with the use of the page.You might benefit from a ruthless popup blocker. Used in conjunction with an ad blocker that is properly whitelisted, a popup blocker can mitigate quite a bit of crap. Something like Privacy Badger or Ghostery is a nice addition as well. That said, a combination of these things can be troublesome. For example, I noticed that the OneNote Clipper refused to load and it took searching through the preferences for my popup blocker, ad blocker and Privacy Badger to find the part blocking OC from loading (it was Privacy Badger by the way in case someone runs into a similar issue).

pm-r
10-04-2015, 02:03 PM
I whitelist quite a number of sites because I genuinely want to see the ads and the content on some simply does not display correctly if ads are blocked. Other sites have so many pop ups it interferes with the use of the page. Like all tools it must be used with discretion. You can't tighten a screw with a hammer.


Wanna bet…??? ;) I've got a very nice manual impact driver that can tighten a screwhead right off its shaft if one isn't careful.

But I know what you mean. :Smirk:

lclev
10-04-2015, 03:26 PM
chas_m, I am aware sites make money with ads and I understand your points. I have issues when an extension says they will block all ads and then change to what they deem "acceptable" - which I interpret as profitable. Give me an option to opt out and I am good with that - but let me know, which looks like adblock is supposedly going to do.

And regardless of what I run I know I will still get ads. Some sites I have to disable adblock, ghostery and privacy badger just to use the site. And I accept that if I want to use the site I have to do that.

Keep in mind, I also live in a very rural, very slow internet service area - 1.7Mbps/768Kbps. You can only imagine how slow pages load when they are full of ads. Give me better internet speeds and maybe I will feel more inclined to feel more charitable toward "acceptable ads".

Lisa

Slydude
10-04-2015, 03:44 PM
I talked about this a bit last week during the Sunday chat. In the says after IOS 9 was released Ad/popup blockers were among the top ranked downloads. One developer pulled his and blocker from the App Store when he realized that he was not comfortable with something that blocked all pop ups/ads. In the discussion that I linked to Kirk the iTunes guide discusses the extent to which we all go to avoid advertisements be they on television or on the Internet. Like you Lisa, Kirk has a slow connection and some sites take an inordinate amount of time to load. You can find his comments in the article linked to below.

Kirk McLaren has more to say about the concept of ad blocking (http://www.mcelhearn.com/the-many-ways-i-avoid-ads/?utm_source=Kirkville+weekly+newsletter&utm_campaign=3b90067429-Kirkville_Weekly_Newsletter1_9_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3bb8b3b0bc-3b90067429-298436589). Although one user that he read as compared and blocking to robbing an Apple Store, points out that most of us go to great lengths to avoid advertisements. How many of us, for example, ignore television commercials, turn down the volume, install ad blockers and tracker blockers in our web browsers etc. There are number of other instances that he gives for ways in which we go to avoid advertising and if you want an example of why this needs to be done because his numbers for the webpage she references in the article. The load time and amount of data loaded is cut in half with the ad blockers he has installed.

chas_m
10-04-2015, 06:26 PM
I appreciate that a handful of people actually whitelist sites they want to support, and another handful of people do what Lisa and I have done and paid our favourite sites so that we can support it without ads, but as I mentioned in my post, this is a tiny, tiny percentage of conscientious users versus the masses, who will just adblock everything and howl if any ads of any sort get through, without understanding or caring why there are ads in the first place.

I'm also aware that ads having to be loaded means the site in full will be slower loading, but unless there is a technical fault we are talking perhaps a second or two in time savings. I'm a big fan of blocking animated ads, pop-up ads, auto-playing ads (and auto-playing videos that are part of site content) and trackers that I haven't explicitly approved of (that would be "all of them"). But instead of creating a discussion about acceptable approaches that work for both site owners (who deserve to get compensated for their expenses AND make a profit for bringing me content I appreciate) and users, we're having a war in which each side tries to "go nuclear." The users will eventually "win" this war by destroying nearly every interesting site on the web by refusing to allow ANY advertising whatsoever, killing all incentive for putting up a worthwhile website in the first place.

There are some agencies, like The Deck, which serve ads to sites without offering any animated ads. Tiny sites run by one or two people who don't intend to make their living off the sites can probably get by with referral links (though there comes a point when they are inevitably compromising their honesty to "endorse" products that they know will generate income). There are, perhaps, solutions to this problem using conventional advertising formats (if you use the site for an hour, you have to watch or listen to an ad or two, that sort of thing) as well. But if you're demanding that all ads, of any kind, be blocked continuously -- and that's precisely what 98 percent of adblocker users are demanding -- you are killing the very websites you claim to like/need/love/rely on. Sure, you might find a substitute forum still running after this one goes out of business ... there's a lot of choice out there ... but that range of choice will get slimmer and slimmer, and the quality of the offerings will get worse and worse, unless there is some reason to expend the time and effort to make a quality site.

I encourage anyone reading this to think more about (or perhaps for the first time) about how sites you enjoy, like this one, sustain themselves or come to exist. We here at Mac-Forums are quite lucky, we can pay an EXTREMELY modest yearly fee to drop the ads and yet still support the site, or we can whitelist this site in our adblockers, or buy products with referral links from the sites, to help support it. Lots of options, but the truth of the matter is that if you're reading this site with adblockers on and not otherwise support it ... it will close up at some point. As will most other sites that depend on ad income to be able to even afford the hosting. Simple as that.

vansmith
10-04-2015, 07:55 PM
There's a different dimension to this ethical debate that has largely been glossed over: the means by which ads are generated and served to users. The quantity and presence of ads aside, what is equally distressing is the means through which the content of the ads themselves are generated. Given that more and more ads are generated through context and/or through tracking, I think an argument in favour of the end user can and should be made about blocking this type of content. In this regard, I think the ethics of letting ads survive user efforts to block them fails to adequately critique the means through which those very ads are generated. Do I care that ads exist? No - I get the economic argument for their existence. Do I care how they are determined and delivered? Absolutely.

Think of it this way - I was with someone the other day who was looking at shoes online. Moments later, an ad was visible on her Facebook account for the very store and product that she was just looking at. This, in my eyes, is deserving of thoroughly ruthless blocking. This type of advertising is not only invasive but increasingly pervasive. While this might not justify ad blockers themselves, it does validate (in my eyes at least) other tools which serve to block the means through which ads learn what to show the end user. Until I can be assured that ads are delivered "neutrally" (in that they are no longer generated based on guesses themselves generated through observations of my browsing), I will continue to take the "nuclear option."

chas_m
10-04-2015, 11:03 PM
Think of it this way - I was with someone the other day who was looking at shoes online. Moments later, an ad was visible on her Facebook account for the very store and product that she was just looking at. This, in my eyes, is deserving of thoroughly ruthless blocking.

Understanding that I am not defending all ads, I can't help but be curious why you think that needs blocking. Surely an ad based on what she was looking for is exactly what the Google and Facebook model of ads were created to do -- try and serve ads that are geared to the user's interest and thus are more likely to be clicked on? That they do this isn't exactly secret.

Again, I'm not big on tracking and other types of user profiling that results in this sort of thing, but if one is going to have ads -- surely ads that align with the interests of the users are better than "neutral" ads that are likely to be ineffective? Personally, I prefer the idea that if you're on a site concerned with a specific interest, that the ads are delivered based on the site's focus rather than from data-mining ... but that doesn't work for general-interest sites, so how else are they to serve ads that might actually appeal to the user?

Just to be clear: I'm not challenging, I'm asking.

lclev
10-04-2015, 11:22 PM
I never meant to start a fire storm with this topic. My issues revolve around:

1. Ads that load and start playing sound (takes up band width and can be a pain if you are trying to play another video on the page.)
2. Tons of animated ads that once again take time load on my slow connection - and yes I block flash but that does not get them all.
3. Ads that tell me I "left something in my shopping cart at my previous site". That is how I comparison shop and I did not need reminding.
4. So many ads that it practically dwarfs the site and you can hardly find what you are looking for or reading about.
5. Inappropriate content ads - and I know this is subjective - but I don't want to see things that "objectify" a person - and that is all I will say about that.

I do understand the need to advertise and realize it is necessary but some have gotten so elaborate in their efforts to grab my attention that they suck up what little bandwidth I have.

Now if you can figure out how to get me fiber optic cable???? :) :* ;D

Lisa

Slydude
10-05-2015, 12:16 AM
My sentiments exactly Lisa. Let's put aside objectification issues for a moment, since there might be quite a bit of disagreement on how far an ad can go before reaching that point. It's the auto starting audio/video that bothers me. Couple that with the fact that some sites have so many badly placed social media links and the site becomes unbearable. In worse case scenarios the content I want is dwarfed ads/Facebook links etc.

@Chas_m I understand why targeted ads are better in some ways than others but there is a downside. From time to time I help friends out by researching gear they know very little about. Sometimes it's things I need / might buy but often it is for things I own or won't be buying soon. Next thing I know I'm inundated with ads/emails for things I have no intention of buying any time soon.

Rod Sprague
10-05-2015, 01:14 AM
So would it be fair to say it may be better to block trackers?
I already use Ghostery and I am constantly fine tuning it to prevent instances of the examples already mentioned. I don't like finding an ad of Facebook for a product I just viewed on a web page via an email link. That just feels like I have someone looking over my shoulder, creepy. Of course I know that we are all being watched in a way but I don't need it thrown in my face in the form of ads.
So to go back to Lisa's topic, what are "Acceptable" ads? I'm willing to wait an see.

Rod Sprague
10-05-2015, 02:51 AM
And by the way there are iOS versions of AdBlock in the App Store plus a number of other makes currently available.
My expectations are that they will greatly reduce the number of free versions of apps whose only means of motivating people to buy the full version are pop up ads. I am quite happy with the free full feature versions of some apps and if I have to close a few ads that's fine because I don't use them that often. If my only choice was to buy I would probably have less apps.

chas_m
10-05-2015, 03:35 AM
So to go back to Lisa's topic, what are "Acceptable" ads? I'm willing to wait an see.

As I noted in one of my previous posts, broadly speaking "acceptable" ads are non-animated, non-autoplaying, mostly text-based ads of the sort The Deck serves up.

Perhaps this article would clarify: http://digiday.com/publishers/low-tech-ad-network-deck-ad-blocking-definitely-paying-everyone-elses-sins/

McBie
10-05-2015, 01:28 PM
Without having a discussion on " acceptable " and " non acceptable " ads, I will be having extra attention on the behaviour of LittleSnitch !
My 2 cents.
People want to know what you look at, not what you are not looking at.

Cheers ... McBie

Lifeisabeach
10-05-2015, 02:07 PM
chas_m, I am aware sites make money with ads and I understand your points. I have issues when an extension says they will block all ads and then change to what they deem "acceptable" - which I interpret as profitable. Give me an option to opt out and I am good with that - but let me know, which looks like adblock is supposedly going to do.

There is an opt-out option. It says so right there in that huge screencap that pm-r provided.

I ended up switching to uBlock myself as soon as the word hit that AdBlock was sold. There was a lot of speculation about who that was, but having read horror stories of developers selling extensions that they developed to companies that only wanted to exploit their popularity by delivering ads, I jumped ship immediately. I would have gone with uBlock Origin, but it's not available for Safari. Although.... now that I think about it... the open source BlockParty can be compiled for desktop Safari as well as for iOS. I wonder how they compare.

vansmith
10-05-2015, 03:33 PM
Understanding that I am not defending all ads, I can't help but be curious why you think that needs blocking. Surely an ad based on what she was looking for is exactly what the Google and Facebook model of ads were created to do -- try and serve ads that are geared to the user's interest and thus are more likely to be clicked on? That they do this isn't exactly secret.

Again, I'm not big on tracking and other types of user profiling that results in this sort of thing, but if one is going to have ads -- surely ads that align with the interests of the users are better than "neutral" ads that are likely to be ineffective? Personally, I prefer the idea that if you're on a site concerned with a specific interest, that the ads are delivered based on the site's focus rather than from data-mining ... but that doesn't work for general-interest sites, so how else are they to serve ads that might actually appeal to the user?

Just to be clear: I'm not challenging, I'm asking.Because I don't want people tracking my browsing habits as I crawl the web. I don't really care if it's relevant - I don't need to be told what's relevant and I sure don't want that derived from my personal browsing.


So would it be fair to say it may be better to block trackers?Depends on your issue with ads. If you don't like ads at all, an adblocker is the way to go. If you just don't like being tracked, then something like Privacy Badger or Ghostery will do the job.

pm-r
10-05-2015, 04:47 PM
… … ...
Depends on your issue with ads. If you don't like ads at all, an adblocker is the way to go. If you just don't like being tracked, then something like Privacy Badger or Ghostery will do the job.

Hmmm…??? I usually use AdBlock and Ghosterly but it strikes me as odd the number of emails I get offering me deals on a lot of the products I was recently searching for. Seems a bit odd.

Anyway, at times it can be helpful and I get offered choices I had missed. ;)

Now, I'd be really thankful if someone could tell me how to stop the stupid repeating video ads that appear on some sites like BBC News that repeat with every new video story one goes to. They got so annoying I hardly even bother with such sites any more so their ads are lost on me anyway.

pigoo3
10-05-2015, 06:00 PM
Like almost anything in life…it's about balance. What exactly is the right balance for something is always a tug of war. Of the websites I frequently visit…I can definitely identify some sites that are going overboard with the ads. Especially when these sites have:

- an overwhelming amount of "page real-estate" devoted to advertising (I'm talking what seems to be 75% or more of the page is advertisements)
- flashing, scrolling, and repeating banners
- auto-run videos
- pop-ups
- misleading clickable buttons that instead of navigating the visitor to desirable content…lead to additional unwanted advertising content
- etc.

* Nick

Slydude
10-05-2015, 06:34 PM
My sentiments exactly Nick. I wonder if the folks at MacWorld.com are listening.

chas_m
10-05-2015, 06:59 PM
Because I don't want people tracking my browsing habits as I crawl the web.

If you just don't like being tracked, then something like Privacy Badger or Ghostery will do the job.

I concur with this, but I feel like you're overlooking something you've spent a lot of time defending here in the past. Maybe you've changed your mind on some things. In any event, I agree with you.

Rod Sprague
10-05-2015, 10:16 PM
I'm not willing to abandon what I have in place just yet as a knee jerk reaction. I will continue to tweak Ghostery and I have Whitelisted The Deck domain in AdBlock. I'm not about to jump ship just yet I will just see what happens.

lclev
10-05-2015, 10:28 PM
chas_m, I would love for ads to adopt the philosophy that The Deck is using. Quote: "Ultimately, The Deck’s goal is to serve all sides of the advertising equation equally well. Advertisers get a quality advertising environment, publishers get consistent revenue, and readers get ads that don’t interrupt them or follow them across the Web. Some ads might even be a bit helpful."

I love it! The minimalistic approach would be nice. I will try whitelisting The Deck and see how it goes.

This mess all started with the advent of the ability to build this deluge of more and more flashy, attention grabbing ads to get us to click. This created the demand for blockers. Not only to cut out the annoyance factor but how many times have we advised people to add one of these blocking programs because of a malicious code loaded that came from a supposed ad?

I think the answer could be something like The Deck. Offer clean, minimalistic ads that allow sites to generate revenue. But it will be hard to convince the marketing people. So much of the ads are all about the glitz, predicting, tracking, and reeling in the buyer - what ever it takes to sell the product.

Lisa

pm-r
10-05-2015, 10:58 PM
I'm not willing to abandon what I have in place just yet as a knee jerk reaction. I will continue to tweak Ghostery and I have Whitelisted The Deck domain in AdBlock. I'm not about to jump ship just yet I will just see what happens.

I just did some checking into Ghostery and how it supposedly works and now my head is spinning and confused, especially compared to how I thought and understood it was working.

And just now after navigating to their site from the option in my menu, I read:
"This Ghostery service is available to you free because we make money from the companies that run the sites you visit. Opting into this program is your choice, but if you choose to opt in, this is how it works:
1. As you visit a site, Ghostery reveals the trackers on that site and we collect that data.
2. Ghostery sells that data about the trackers to companies who run the sites, enabling them to make their sites more secure and load faster.
Do you want to help make the internet faster and safer?

No thanks

Yes! Opt me in"

Call me confused!!

Maybe I need some tweaking advice from Rod…??? ;)

lclev
10-05-2015, 11:20 PM
I have read what you are referring to. It is eloquently phrasing for yes, we are monitoring what trackers you encounter and that we are blocking, and yes, we are selling that data to make money. It doesn't bother me so I leave it checked but if it bothers you just disable Ghostrank.

Lisa

Rod Sprague
10-05-2015, 11:55 PM
Gives the old saying, "Oh what a tangled Web we weave when first we practice to deceive." a whole new meaning. I do have Ghost Rank enabled but I will give it a little more thought. It has occurred to me that I could just turn it all off (AdBlock, Ghostery etc) just to remind myself of how it is today with no blocking at all. Then reactivate and start all over armed with what I now know.

vansmith
10-06-2015, 10:56 AM
I concur with this, but I feel like you're overlooking something you've spent a lot of time defending here in the past. Maybe you've changed your mind on some things. In any event, I agree with you.I've never been a proponent of targeted advertising. I presume that you're referring to my defence of Google products which is not the same.


I just did some checking into Ghostery and how it supposedly works and now my head is spinning and confused, especially compared to how I thought and understood it was working.

And just now after navigating to their site from the option in my menu, I read:
"This Ghostery service is available to you free because we make money from the companies that run the sites you visit. Opting into this program is your choice, but if you choose to opt in, this is how it works:
1. As you visit a site, Ghostery reveals the trackers on that site and we collect that data.
2. Ghostery sells that data about the trackers to companies who run the sites, enabling them to make their sites more secure and load faster.
Do you want to help make the internet faster and safer?

No thanks

Yes! Opt me in"

Call me confused!!

Maybe I need some tweaking advice from Rod…??? ;)This is why I recommend Privacy Badger which does basically the same thing but is run by the EFF.

pm-r
10-06-2015, 01:22 PM
I've never been a proponent of targeted advertising. I presume that you're referring to my defence of Google products which is not the same.

This is why I recommend Privacy Badger which does basically the same thing but is run by the EFF.


I gather that would be the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), but maybe for some balance we should just let the National Security Agency (NSA) and/or Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) etc. control what we don't want.

Sorry, bad joke!! :Angry-Tongue:

Lifeisabeach
10-06-2015, 01:59 PM
Amazing. We have advertisers making a living by showing ads and "tracking" me. Then you have developers of ad-blockers that make a living by first blocking ads, then extorting revenue from advertisers to not block ads. Oh, and they also make money by blocking advertisers from "tracking" me while doing the same in their place. This is just crazy. I do believe I'll be looking into Privacy Badger in place of Ghostery (EDIT: bah... incompatible with Safari). I refuse to be someone else's product.

chas_m
10-06-2015, 04:46 PM
I've never been a proponent of targeted advertising. I presume that you're referring to my defence of Google products which is not the same.

But Google is the progenitor of targeted advertising -- it is the whole of their business model, and where 96 percent of their income comes from. I don't think you can really separate any given Google product from that, so I find your position a bit dissonant. Google would simply not exist without targeted advertising -- it is their raison d'etre -- and I find myself in the somewhat-amusing position of having to defend their business model (though I don't support continued tracking) as being preferable to completely unrelated ads served randomly that have nothing to do with anything I'm interested in.

I'm not pro-targeted ads because they are based on things like search histories or tracking, both of which I'm against and which also aren't very accurate in actually determining my interests (like you, I do a lot of searches to help people with questions here that I wouldn't normally do otherwise, so search engines might get a very distorted picture of my actual interests). But if I'm on a website devoted to, let's say, Japanese printmaking -- I'd much prefer the ads be catering to that audience than if I got endless "make $$ at home" crap. I'm sure you see what I'm saying here.

vansmith
10-06-2015, 05:47 PM
But Google is the progenitor of targeted advertising -- it is the whole of their business model, and where 96 percent of their income comes from. I don't think you can really separate any given Google product from that, so I find your position a bit dissonant.A fair critique but then I'll flip this back to you - Apple has "pioneered" the exceptional profit margin in computing and it would be worth considering that you can't separate the release of any Apple product from that imperative (and I only mention this as you have a tendency to imply that Apple isn't always in it for the money).

It is also possible to support particular elements of one thing and not others. I like Google's products and don't particularly like targeted advertising so I avoid those aspects of their business as best I can (if I were shown ads randomly while browsing with Chrome, I'd jump ship or if I couldn't use GMail over IMAP, I'd probably look elsewhere). The same goes for other companies - you simply remove yourself from having to engage, as best you can, with those things that you don't like. Take Apple as another example. Extra storage for iCloud above and beyond the paltry 5GB that comes with the free plan is annoyingly low so I avoid engaging with that part of Apple's offerings.