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?

Why pull instead of improve?

[SuperKendall]

If he found the blocker was blocking ad-networks he considered to be well-behaved, why not update the app to simply not allow blocking of ad-cblockers he felt were good citizens?

Instead by pulling the app, all that means is people will move to ad-blockers that are less concerned with the effects of blocking, and simply block everything outright.

His app, popular as it was, could have been a real voice for moderation in blocking, a reasonable compromise between advertising that is respectful and that which is not. What good did it do anyone by pulling it?

Re:Moral outrage!

[tripleevenfall]

To me, this is the same argument as the argument for a la carte cable TV.

The cable companies, not wanting us to stop paying, cry "But a la carte means there will be fewer channels, because some won't survive a subscription basis!" Well, do we need those channels then? Why should they force me to subsidize Oprah's channel when I've no interest in watching it?

If a website doesn't provide content valuable enough to generate revenue or to be supported by the crowd, perhaps it doesn't have a good argument for its own existence?

For users it's black and white that ads = malware

[Sarusa]

All ad networks serve up malware at multiple times. All of them. They can't help it. The Russians are more devious than they are, and more motivated - text-only ads are less dangerous, but even those have been compromised with scripting holes.

So as a user, you have to block ads or get pwned - removing Flash and Java helps a lot, but it's not sufficient.

Move to a Patreon or other microsubscription model - Dave Kellett (Sheldon) just did so after a bit of user request. He already had a Patreon, but wasn't highlighting it and was still running ads. So he did a 'replace the ads' drive and now I believe he's up to enough supporters to get rid of ads entirely. I subscribe to sites like Ars Technica for the same reason - I want to support them but am not willing to view their ads.

Then there's the entirely separate issue of bloat, like The Verge's terrible pages which are 10000 : 1 crap to content. But that's secondary to the malware.

Responsible advertising

[fyngyrz]

The problem is not advertising. The problem is the mechanisms that are in use. Responsible advertising can be done easily -- just source the image or text from your own website. Don't send the user's browser haring all over the intertubes, track them, or otherwise do anything except talk about, and link to, the product being sold.

There are a lot of invested people out there right now that are trying to tell you that ads as they are constituted now, are a good thing, because "that's how content is paid for." This is either disingenuous or bewildered. Content can be paid for without abusing the site visitors. Ads can be served without bringing in other network excursions. No one has to be tracked.

Evil practices we can do entirely without today, without "breaking the internet", include (but are not limited to:

o roll-overs: If I didn't click on it, I DIDN'T WANT IT. Ads, menus, "keywords" -- anything
o tracking -- not unless I say you can
o network traffic outside of the content provider -- just don't
o unnecessarily splitting content over many ad-bearing pages -- I hate you
o pop-up "continue to web site in x seconds" -- will not watch, let finish, or click. EVER.

The solution is right in front of all of us. All you have to do as a web site owner is grasp it. You'll instantly have happier visitors, visitors that stay longer, visitors that are MORE likely to click on your ads.

You'd also be VERY smart to ask users to select between text and graphic advertising. Best thing Google ever did was host text ads. Worst thing they ever did was lose focus on them. Learn from that. Let users select text ads if they prefer them. I would be *much* more likely to click on a polite text ad than the sanctimonious garbage the ad companies are inflicting on us these days.