Integrating ads with your app isn't merely trying to manipulate your users in a way that is liable to exploit, harm, disadvantage, or oppose their interests. It is virtually certainly compromising their privacy in a fashion that isn't immediately obvious and opening up a security hole that may be used to harm them further.
The first and most obvious clue that what you are considering is wrong is the fact that you are admitting that if people were presented with a choice they would overwhelmingly opt out of such a system so pervasively that there wouldn't be any money in it at all.
> That would effectively make it impossible for single/small dev teams to justify making apps for the Play store.
This is an inversion of priorities. The dev's profession exits to create useful things for users. The users don't exist to enable the devs profession. If the only way an app can come into existence is through the exploitation and disadvantage of its users then the world would be better off if it didn't exist.
And lo there is another way an app can come into existence: through paying users. Which they don't. The users prefer to pay with their "exploitation" so we have today what we all (as a society) requested.
To me it’s kind of wild we call such products “free”. Like YouTube claims to be free, but it’s ToS prohibit use unless the user pays with their headspace and attention to ads (and really awful ones to boot). If you use an ad blocker and refuse to pay, it will now tell you you’re not allowed to use it. So it’s “free”, but you need to pay to use it. And they will try to enforce it. But don’t overthink it, and repeat after me - “it’s free™” (so long as the dues are paid)
Convincing everyone that content online is free while taking payment for it is one of the greatest sleights of hand of the century. That kind of thing used to be called a con.
> This is an inversion of priorities. The dev's profession exits to create useful things for users. The users don't exist to enable the devs profession. If the only way an app can come into existence is through the exploitation and disadvantage of its users then the world would be better off if it didn't exist.
If that seems hard to chew on try this on for size. Food doesn't exist to demonstrate the art of the chef. Without someone to eat it becomes rot. This doesn't degrade the chef nor his art it defines it.
The first and most obvious clue that what you are considering is wrong is the fact that you are admitting that if people were presented with a choice they would overwhelmingly opt out of such a system so pervasively that there wouldn't be any money in it at all.
> That would effectively make it impossible for single/small dev teams to justify making apps for the Play store.
This is an inversion of priorities. The dev's profession exits to create useful things for users. The users don't exist to enable the devs profession. If the only way an app can come into existence is through the exploitation and disadvantage of its users then the world would be better off if it didn't exist.