That's not some kind of magic incantation that gives you the right to do as you please though.
> If it becomes an issue, we'll probably add an option to get Rapportive to coexist with the ads rather than replacing them.
Shouldn't that have been the default?
> Here's a fact: the most popular entry by far in the Google Chrome Extensions gallery - with 1.3 million installs, and 126k more each week - is AdBlock, which hides the Gmail ads.
Adblock does not target a specific site, it hides all the ads.
I'm afraid you're setting precedent here, that by doing this you are opening the doors to it being 'ok' to modifying content in-flight in ways that the creator of that content does not sanction and does not condone, directly targeting the bottom line of one specific site.
I'm sure you're doing it out of a good motivation but I simply can't find myself agreeing with this strategy, especially not when you admit that you have alternatives.
> We don't have any ethical problems with what we're doing,
Apparently :)
> but we understand if you feel software that blocks the ads is wrong
I'm fine with ad blocking in the general case, just can't see why you wouldn't have any ethical issues with this.
Anyway, enough said, I do hope you succeed and I do hope that at some point you might come to see things my way.
If someone pulled a 'rapportive' on you I'd be on your side just as strongly.
> Adblock does not target a specific site, it hides all the ads.
I don't get this point at all. Why is it more ethical for a user to choose to hide ads indiscriminately than hiding ads on certain sites? Would it resolve your ethical concerns if our software blocked all ads everywhere, like Adblock does, but continued to only add value to Gmail? (The latter is functionally identical to installing both Rapportive and Adblock.)
I'm not sure if what I've written so far didn't get the point across how I will be able to do so with more words, but I'll give it a try.
Targeting a large website to launch your product off is a fine strategy, you benefit from the existing userbase. That should be 'profit' enough for anybody, there is no need to kick them in the teeth by affecting their bottom line in a negative way, especially if you don't absolutely have to.
Those users that did not want to see those ads already had the option to install adblock, so by doing this you are not adding anything that wasn't on the table before, only now you and not the user has taken the decision to block those ads.
It's either rapportive, or ads, but never both and that should have been the default.
Clearer now?
I think this whole ad-replacement gig is a blemish on an otherwise very nicely conceived and executed product.
"only now you and not the user has taken the decision to block those ads"
Actually the user does make the decision to block those ads. I don't care much for the ads in Gmail but never overcame my inertia to even think of installing an adblocker. Along comes Rapportive, which promises to offer me something useful and hey presto, my inertia is overcome.
In the end the user makes the choice and that is as it should be. It shouldn't be up to the user to worry about how Gmail does (or does not) make money.
That's not some kind of magic incantation that gives you the right to do as you please though.
> If it becomes an issue, we'll probably add an option to get Rapportive to coexist with the ads rather than replacing them.
Shouldn't that have been the default?
> Here's a fact: the most popular entry by far in the Google Chrome Extensions gallery - with 1.3 million installs, and 126k more each week - is AdBlock, which hides the Gmail ads.
Adblock does not target a specific site, it hides all the ads.
I'm afraid you're setting precedent here, that by doing this you are opening the doors to it being 'ok' to modifying content in-flight in ways that the creator of that content does not sanction and does not condone, directly targeting the bottom line of one specific site.
I'm sure you're doing it out of a good motivation but I simply can't find myself agreeing with this strategy, especially not when you admit that you have alternatives.
> We don't have any ethical problems with what we're doing,
Apparently :)
> but we understand if you feel software that blocks the ads is wrong
I'm fine with ad blocking in the general case, just can't see why you wouldn't have any ethical issues with this.
Anyway, enough said, I do hope you succeed and I do hope that at some point you might come to see things my way.
If someone pulled a 'rapportive' on you I'd be on your side just as strongly.