Filed under: Software, Internet Tools
Safari Block 2 released
Having played around with both plug-ins, I think that they both have their pros and cons. While SafariAdblock seems to be a little bit better at distinguishing between ad and non-ad flash videos (SafariBlock automatically whites out some video windows that are actual content, even if they appear near an ad header), SafariBlock is much better at working with web forms and sites that need to launch an action in either another window or in some sort of pop-up.
In any event, AdBlock Plus filter support has instantly transformed my Safari experience - bringing one of my favorite Firefox features to a browser that tends to be more stable on my system. Plus, SafariBlock is free - and I'm a big fan of free.
Thanks egordin!
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Rhywun said 11:22AM on 12-15-2007
Hmph. I wonder if all his cracker tools are open-sourced now too.
Reply
Able-X said 11:38AM on 12-15-2007
correction, that should be version 0.2, not 2.0. Just FYI.
Reply
unteins said 11:39AM on 12-15-2007
I find it ironic that a site with as many ads as TUAW is pimping adblocking software :)
I wish I could get this for MobileSafari since TUAW accounts for about 75% of my data usage on the iPhone :)
Reply
Rasmus said 11:57AM on 12-15-2007
After installing safariblock 2.0, Safari 3.0 keeps crashing everytime i open the application. What can i do to revert it so i can use safari again? Please help a newbie to the mac platform.
Reply
ktx said 1:13PM on 12-15-2007
(This is how to do it on Tiger. It is likely also the same for Leopard, but I'm not sure)
1) Shut down Safari
2) Open up your home folder (the one with your username and the house icon)
3) Open "Library"
4) Open "InputManagers"
5) Drag "SafariBlock" to the Trash
The next time you open up Safari, it will be SafariBlock-less
Rasmus said 8:13AM on 12-17-2007
Thanks ktx,
Regards Rasmus,
Saxon said 12:06PM on 12-15-2007
Is it just me or is SafariBlock dramatically slowing Safari when it's rendering pages?
Reply
bondsbw said 12:31PM on 12-15-2007
Great product!
Now, here's something for someone to work on... iPhone support.
I figure that nearly half, or more than half, of the bandwidth I use in web surfing comes from ads. With EDGE speeds, it is quite annoying.
Reply
Anthony said 1:24PM on 12-15-2007
It even gets rid of the annoying ads on MacRumors, MacSurfer, and Engadget! It does slow things down a bit, but if i don't have to be annoyed by another "You've won a free iPhone" ad, I'm happy.
Reply
Steve Clifford said 5:45PM on 12-15-2007
Thanks for the heads up for this app, however i like the wallpaper, any link?
Reply
Christina Warren said 8:43PM on 12-15-2007
Sure - I got it here: http://Konstantino.deviantart.com/art/Apple-Merry-Christmas-Wide-44346436
That's the widescreen version, but a standard screen version exists too. My favorite Holiday Mac Wallpaper
Dave said 3:45PM on 12-15-2007
Would love to see someone compare SafariBlock, AdBlock and PithHelmet.
PithHelmet has generally rocked and been great solution for me but I am unsure if the new SafariBlock or AdBlock has bested it.
- Dave
Reply
Christina Warren said 5:01PM on 12-15-2007
Actually, I've got something in the works for that right now :-)
Rollins said 4:37PM on 12-15-2007
Won't work for me under Leopard. Just doesn't show up, tried both manual and automatic installation methods.
Reply
Jared Ferguson said 4:54PM on 12-16-2007
I too cannot seem to get this to work. Leopard, default install. No extra Safari plugins. Ideas?
David Chartier said 5:11PM on 12-15-2007
Y'know, I've reversed my stance on apps and plug-ins like this. While invasive pop-up ads are one thing, the majority of the web seems to agree that ads in-line on a page are reasonable, or at the least, a necessary evil. If you block ads on a site but come to read that site's content, you're effectively stealing. As a web-based writer and blogger who makes his entire living from the sites I write for, I really can't see it any other way.
I'm not saying I love advertising, that's an entirely different conversation. But there's no other way for most sites to make money—it's not like most of TUAW's or Ars Technica's readers are going to start paying a basic subscription just to read the site, are they?
Reply
Andrew said 6:27PM on 12-15-2007
I agree with you to an extent...in-line ads tend to not bother me. What bothers me is when those ads are Flash based (like that Intel ad at the top of this site), flash different colors and play sound effects. That's when plugins like this matter to me.
Rhywun said 8:49PM on 12-15-2007
Ugh, I'm so sick of this debate. Internet users are under no greater obligation to read your ads than television viewers. You don't see people chained to their TV's with their heads in a vise grip pointing at the screen in order to receive ads. Likewise, you're never going to stop people from disabling ads on web pages. Ever.
Christina Warren said 9:11PM on 12-15-2007
Even though this is how I make my living too, I can't honestly agree that using an ad-blocker, for any site (even if it happens to have a direct negative effect on my paycheck) can be equated for stealing -- I just can't. The fact of the matter is, I don't mind most types of advertisement - in fact, when ads or banners are tastefully done, I can even enjoy them (I love good print advertising and like lots of commercials too - if they are creative and innovative anyway), but on lots of sites - even sites that offer subscriptions, the ads can get out of control and really take away from the experience. I don't enable ad-blockers on every page. If the page doesn't bother me -- I'll let it go - but there are some sites that I visit frequently that are just insane with the popups, the flash, the music, and no, I won't feel bad or apologize for removing those ads. I subscribe to 3 Nielsen Media print/online publications (2, I only get online access -- Billboard is the same price regardless, so I get the weekly issue too), Ad Week, Variety and Billboard - I pay in the $700 range for these subscriptions each year. I also pay $100 a year to access AdAge/Creativity-Only (formerly AdCritic.com) -- although I don't disable ads on Ad Week and Ad Age (as it's kind of the point of the publications), Billboard likes to go crazy with gross ads and while most of Variety's are sensible, I find the need to block some of them from time to time too. These are trade publications I pay quite a bit of money (considering I'm a full-time student) to subscribe to - so while some sites like Salon will get rid of ads for a fee -- not all will, and that still doesn't address the issue: if an ad isn't making the surfing experience WORSE (popups, music, voices, flashing lights, error codes because the flash movie is too slow in Safari, etc.), most people wouldn't ever install an ad-blocker. But any site that starts to make it harder for me to find content will result in one of two things happening: I will either stop visiting the site or I will start blockingat least some of the ads.
And while this isn't an issue (yet) for Mac users, on a Windows-based computer, if I'm not in full control of the environment (meaning I haven't installed/configured the security system for malware and firewalls and anti-virus) I won't not have some sort of ad-blocking protection, because they are simply getting too good at putting malware and trojans and really, really nasty stuff inside ads - stuff that isn't always instantly detected - stuff that doesn't prompt for an install or ask for Active-X permission - stuff that uses Flash.
I'll agree that the "ethical" line for using ad-blocking software when you are an active member of a site and get lots of "value" from the content/community is blurry at best -- and I do think advertising is absolutely necessary for all media -- not just the web, but television, print journalism, magazines -- unless you want to charge for everything, advertising is here to stay - and I don't oppose that (I'm a double-major in marketing, hence the reason I subscribe to the two biggest Ad trade publications), but the ads shouldn't make the content experience worse.
Simon Arch said 3:38AM on 12-16-2007
"While invasive pop-up ads are one thing, the majority of the web seems to agree that ads in-line on a page are reasonable, or at the least, a necessary evil"
I may be an extreme example, but I'm very sensitive to motion and I can't filter moving ads out of my vision like some people can. My wife isn't troubled by flash ads, but if I see one out of the corner of my eye on her screen it will drive me nuts until it goes off-screen. Hell, browsing here on a freshly installed system tonight (I haven't got Firefox set up yet) I was assaulted by an ad which appeared to be an actual COMMERCIAL. Not just a simple banner, but a full-blown commercial. Tell me that's reasonable, please. I'd like to hear your justification for that.
I'm all about web sites being able to make money, but I'm also about respect for the readers, and putting full-motion flash ads all over your site is disrespectful. And really, what's the point of having content if it has to compete for your readers' attention with full-motion ads?
And I'm not even going to dignify your accusations of "theft" with a response.