Apparently Marco Arment made an ad-blocking app for iOS called Peace, then after 2 days decided that he didn't want to be in the ad blocking business for ethical reasons and so pulled the app. He explains his reasoning here:
In this update, Apple has made the (apparently unprecedented) decision to proactively refund all purchases of the app, rather than requiring users to request refunds individually.
There really needs to be some way to pin these "necessary context for understanding the post" comments to the top of the thread. (Other than just upvoting, which as of right now hasn't yet achieved that.)
Afaik, upvoting will only work for a while -- I believe the sorting algorithm uses time as a factor, to allow newer comments to bubble up above higher-rated ones.
Translation: "Ad blocking is turning out to be way more popular than we expected, and it's making some rich friends of mine very scared."
Even I'm surprised at how popular ad blocking is becoming. I would not have expected the general public to be willing to actually pay money to block ads.
Of course, when you have ads that try to take over my browser (Android), won't go away when you hit the "go away" button (iOS), or ads that suddenly play loud audio (both), I guess it's no surprise that even the general public now regards online ads as a nuisance to be blocked.
I have to admit, I have uninstalled quite a few apps recently because of offensively-intrusive advertising.
I don't branch out onto websites that aren't already known quantity destinations for me (especially on mobile, but increasingly on desktop/laptop as well) because the race to the bottom of the web advertising model has basically ruined everything.
It isn't even the ads themselves (easily blocked, of course) that cause the problem, but the horrible user-hostile layouts that are clearly designed to maximize page views (and thus ad impressions).
What should be a one page essay is like 20 fucking goddamn pages of bullshit (rage getting to me just thinking about it). Ain't nobody got time for that.
This is, I think, basically the web version of how desktop shareware authors destroyed their own market with the downward spiral of including increasingly annoying "installer add-ons".
PS. I will note here prior to claims of blocking being the problem that I never ran an ad blocker personally (other than for testing) until 2014, and only started then because "the web" as a whole basically forced my hand by making the idea of using the web without one completely unbearable.
While it was extensions for browsers etc, it was one thing. But now Apple (take note) has built it into their most talked about product.
And given how the media production and apple products are intertwined, suddenly the media people sit up, take notes, and start talking/writing about it.
That doesn't sound like the Streisand effect. The Streisand effect would apply if ad networks actively suppressed information about ad blocking technology, sending DMCA takedown requests and threatening providers who host this type of software, which creates such a media buzz that people start picking it up, more because of the suppression than if the ad networks had just ignored it in the first place.
> The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet [wiki]
The streisand effect is about censorship, not about propaganda. If the current coverage is negative, it's a smear campaign at best. Censorship would be refusing to publish any articles on ad blocking entirely and somehow trying to get the apps taken down from the app store.
Wow. That's a real example of putting money where the mouth is.
I always felt that he is an opinionated, stand up guy but this move actually proves that he means what he says and he was sincere about his feelings on ad blockers [1]. Much respect.
And yet so many people with aforementioned gobs don't. Stand-up guy is stand-up.
The Apple side of this is intriguing. I guess this is pocket change to them, but did they do this after reading about his thoughts and decision? Or was it simply cost-effective to batch return the money vs. reviewing and processing an unknown number of individual requests?
Alternate explanation : he's still employed by yahoo, has millions in unvested shared (it's still less than 4 years), and got threatened with termination.
Just an alternative theory. He may have simply chosen the more money option.
Doesn't make it any less true to the point that's a trivial observation: people with more money can more easily afford to give some of it where "their mouth is".
Nevertheless, just because it's "easier" doesn't mean that it's actually done - there are plenty of arsehole rich folks who could spread their money around more. A rich person being nice is still a person being nice.
Sure, but a rich person is also a person that is rich.
Their calculus in determining a potentially "ethical" decision is much different than, say, a developer struggling in the former eastern bloc.
People rarely ever operate in a vacuum, and a person is subconsciously influenced by a variety of factors, of which financial status is one. In this particular instance, it would be a bit disingenuous to assume that Marco made this decision on his own, operating in a vacuum. The real world is a lot more complex than the simple case you are making it to be.
So... you're saying that "rich people can't act morally, because they have fat wallets" isn't a simple case? That's what I'm arguing against. You're projecting this 'vacuum' idea onto me, because I said nothing of the sort.
>So... you're saying that "rich people can't act morally, because they have fat wallets"
No, he's saying it's easy for rich people to act morally in such cases, and in others too (e.g. not steal).
Especially in the case of giving back money / charity, that we're talking about in this thread: if both a rich and a poor person give $10.000 to a charity, for a rich person it could be 1/1000 of his income, whereas for an average person it could be 1/5 of his income.
It's not even debatable which made the bigger sacrifice, it's pure math.
In fact (and continuing with the $1m/year vs $50k/year) the rich person giving $10.000 --which can have people swoon, news coverage and a front seat to the charity's dinner party--, would be equivalent (as percentage of income) to the average person giving $50 to his local charity, which nobody would see as particularly great.
Doesn't make it any less true though. It's really easy to act on what you believe is unethical if you have plenty of money just in case it turns sour. Not everyone has that luxury. You can say everyone should be act ethical and I agree but I also understand in the many cases where they don't think they can.
This makes sense. The App Store is a store and Marco is a wholesaler to the store -- the customer's relationship is with Apple. Stores refund purchases all of the time without talking to their suppliers (or asking permission).
Peace uses a block-list that was kept up-to-date on a server -- without it, the app is useless (defective). Apple would be negligent not to refund it immediately.
About this guilt for ad-blocking thing: wasn't Marco's entire fortune (pre Tumblr buyout) made by selling a service used to bypass content owners entirely and read their articles without ads, in one page, and in his own templates?
Not really. Instapaper's design was such that you had to look at the site — with all the ads — at least once to save the page to it. This was by design. Instapaper users wouldn't see ads on subsequent pages or on subsequent viewings, though.
Skipping the cruft of formatting and advertisements was a prime benefit, as I recall. How many users wouldn't immediately jump to the reformatted version?
Surreal. What's wrong with ad blocking? Maybe it would have created a market for micropayments which maybe it's far superior to ads? I know on my MIFI which charges insane amounts for wifi, anything that blocks popup videos or images while maintaining text and formatting is definitely loved by me.
I don't buy this at all! Sell the App to someone who is prepared to fight the war .. marco has sold things before and knows how easy it is. (I have sold many apps, etc. Trust me.. it is very very easy)
My little hunch-o-maker tells me there is an untold part to this story and he's just trying to distract us from his real reasons.
If I were to guess, it was his tumblr/yahoo connections that reached out to him and asked him not do this. If he made a lot of money off of tumblr as a founder, than yeah, it'd be pretty sucky to build something that would hurt that product.
It gives Google a monopoly in selling users' private data. Nobody can ad-block Google. (And Google Analytics.)
> Maybe it would have created a market for micropayments which maybe it's far superior to ads?
Believe me, if micropayments were a viable thing, then ad networks would be the first to jump ship. The current intrusive advertising model doesn't make anyone happy, ad networks included. (Ad networks don't profit from intrusive malware advertising. This is a 'tragedy of the commons' scenario, too much advertising hurts ultimately hurts the ad network bottom line.)
I think the way Marcos Arment writes indicates that he is unwilling to have an opinion on anything which could cause above some threshold of harm. Which is a fine position to take if you don't feel up to the task of policymaking. Let someone else take up the position.
He explained his decision in a previous post. I think it's more interesting to focus on him as an example of doing something difficult because he felt it was the right thing to do.
His reasoning is unsound. Crippling user experience for some vague, completely unsupported belief that content can't be supported by anything except ads is hugely misguided.
Maybe content could be 10x valuable (because much of the noise would be eliminated) if micropayments had a chance to take off. Who knows! Let the market figure it out... For Marco to think he can penetrate the mists of the internet economy single handedly is the height of arrogance.
He went from the position of deciding which ads to block for a handful of people to hundreds of thousands literally overnight and decided that was too much responsibility for himself to handle. Whether or not you agree with his reasoning is immaterial. It made him feel uncomfortable to be in this position, so he made the decision to bow out.
Marco is not the first person, nor will he be the last, to regret the possible consequences of having built a weapon of war. He's simply in the enviable scenario of being able to destroy the schematics.
I thought he was using Ghost's ad lists? I don't think he was making the decisions of which to block at all. He just made the tool that enabled those defined blocks to be made.
That's a fair point. However, by proxying that list to his users, he's still in the position of choosing which ads to block — even if he's delegating that authority to others (in essence, he's choosing who chooses).
You have just constructed a giant straw man that does not in any way reflect his actual stated reasoning for pulling the app.
He is not opposed to ad blocking. He is not opposed to ad blocking apps. He doesn’t think people blocking ads are acting immorally. He doesn’t think overbearing ads aren’t a problem or are definitely needed.
Figuring out the actual reason he states for withdrawing the app is left as an exercise to the reader.
It is hugely misguided. Obviously, there is strong demand for ad-blocking. Someone else will move into this space and serve that demand. He didn't make a statement, he made a headache for all the people who downloaded his app, and for Apple who now has to refund all their purchases.
There is demand for all sorts of products you personally are capable of building, yet wouldn't for reasons of personal ethics. Should we judge you on your failure to bring these to market? After all, if you don't build it someone else will.
It must have been annoying for them to deal with thousands of refund requests by hand. I was expecting Apple would just bulk-approve refunds for this app, but it's great that they've gone one step further.
The "I want to cancel the order" option is only available in the EU and a few other countries (like Taiwan) for up to 14 days after your purchase, but not in the US.
Rather interesting that clicking on that link, I see a banner above the content saying "you have an adblocker installed, please pay for our content with cash".
- changing Peace into a more responsible content-blocker, if that was his concern
- giving the proceeds to charity
- putting the proceeds towards a new type of ad company, or a new type of new/media business
- funding scholarships for journalists
(In general "which charity" has a simple answer: any. In general donating proceeds immediately solves accusations of self-interest, except perhaps for the component that it's reactionary rather than being announced ahead of time.)
The notoriety that this concept has managed to garner in the past 36 hours only secures the fact that a clone app (and however many more) will be made in a short period of time.
How much of an effect is removing the app really going to have?
Do we have any ethical add blocker around. I would love to have an add blocker that disables tracking but allows ads by default, and I as a user should have option to block ads in some sites or block certain ad network i find offensive/creepy/...
http://www.marco.org/2015/09/18/just-doesnt-feel-good
In this update, Apple has made the (apparently unprecedented) decision to proactively refund all purchases of the app, rather than requiring users to request refunds individually.