Then you charge a reasonable price. You don't put a 'free' sticker on it with an unknowable 'ad revenue' cost in the background.
One might argue that the customer should know the price they pay in advertising data-scraping before logging in, these days, but we still convict people of fraud for taking advantage.
Television has been paying for programming through ads for decades now. Do you think that's not a 'real' business model? A good business model is one that makes someone 7 figures a year for cloning solitaire. It might not be the most enjoyable gaming experience, but if purity of solitaire is what you want, then there are plenty of paid alternatives.
A massive difference here is that TV ads don't come with ubiquitous invasions of privacy every time you see them, nor do they have a small but constant risk of malware infecting your TV.
> Channel 4 earlier this week unveiled a new video on demand advertising package allowing brands to directly address viewers - in practise this meant first adopters 20th Century Fox, Foster' and Ronseal, could grab the attention of by literally calling out their names in their creative.
> nor do they have a small but constant risk of malware infecting your TV.
The same goes for anything that you install / access on your devices, yet we aren't talking about removing theses capacities and I sure hope so that you won't argue that.
That just means you'll go out of business then and the users will end up using a Chinese/Russian/other country (knockoff) instead with the same ads snuck in there. It costs a lot less to develop software in certain other countries.
Justification doesn't exist in a vacuum, what you're justifying matters just as much, and showing ads from Microsoft is pretty low on the scale of evil things apps do for monetization.
One might argue that the customer should know the price they pay in advertising data-scraping before logging in, these days, but we still convict people of fraud for taking advantage.
Advertising revenue is fraud.