Creator of Top iOS Ad Blocker Pulls App After Two Days

An anonymous reader writes: One of the most important aspects of the iOS 9 launch was that ad blocking software is now allowed on the App Store. Ad blocking apps rocketed to the top of the store's rankings, led by Marco Arment's Peace. A day afterward, Arment talked about the cognitive dissonance he felt from having his software blocking the (admittedly well-behaving) ads on his own website. Now, Arment has pulled Peace from the App Store, saying its success "just doesn't feel good." He continues, "Ad blockers come with an important asterisk: while they do benefit a ton of people in major ways, they also hurt some, including many who don't deserve the hit. Peace required that all ads be treated the same — all-or-nothing enforcement for decisions that aren't black and white. This approach is too blunt, and Ghostery and I have both decided that it doesn't serve our goals or beliefs well enough. If we're going to effect positive change overall, a more nuanced, complex approach is required than what I can bring in a simple iOS app." Arment also posted a link with detailed instructions on how to get a refund, if you already bought the app.

Comments

Am i the only one...

[hyperar]

That doesn't believe in his explanation?

Re:Am i the only one...

[hyperar]

He had the number 1 paid app in the app store until he pulled it. Money would be a reason to keep it on the app store.

I think it would have take him years to get the same amout of money Google could offer him in only one check.

Re:Am i the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I do believe him when he says that it "Just doesn’t feel good". He's a under social pressure from the people in his circle, and he's a leftist so he's very sensitive to that.

Wonder who paid them off?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but that's what this looks like to me.

Re:Moral outrage!

[SvnLyrBrto]

Or they could just stop being assholes with obnoxious-as-hell ads that degrade my experience, slow my computer, eat an inordinate amount of bandwidth, require plug-ins, or inject malware. When web ads were just a static gif banner, or even an image in the sidebar; I never used to block them. Google AdWords are also fine. And I have a fairly large whitelist on my desktop ad-blocker of sites I do want to support and, critically, are not scumbags about their advertising. But the first time I see any of:

- pop-ups
- pop-unders
- overlays
- interstitials
- automatically-playing audio or video
- any sort of graphic that follows, or is triggered by, the movement of my mouse pointer
- Some of the other rage-inducing stupid javascript or HTML5 tricks
- Flash or Java for any reason

I have no hesitation whatsoever to pull the site from my whitelist and let its ads goto the devil.

I get that many sites rely on ad revenue to pay the bills. And philosophically, I don't object to being advertised at. I don't even mind targeted ads, so long as they're well-targeted and not insulting. (i.e. Don't show me ads for Microsoft or any of its products.) But it's all about respect. If the site respects me, by refraining from the behaviors I enumerated above, then I respect it by not blocking its ads. If the site disrespects me; well, screw 'em.

Re:Moral outrage!

[OakDragon]

Why should they force me to subsidize Oprah's channel when I've no interest in watching it?

Because the people who watch OWN are, in turn, subsidizing the fixed costs of the channels YOU want to watch.

That's right. It's just a hunch, but I bet that people who want ala carte the most have narrower interests, and thus *that* programming needs subsidies more than OWN ( for example).

Started this comment intending to make an "in Soviet Russia" joke (OWN subsidizes you) but now I can't go through with it.