Would You Put Ads On Your Homescreens For Free Mobile Service?

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Moolah Mobile is teaming up with SurgePhone Wireless to offer people a new way to pay their cell phone bills -- by putting ads on their homescreens. Moolah CEO Vernell Woods (pictured above) said the startup has already been offering gift cards and other rewards to users who view its homescreen ads. So this is a similar model, except instead of earning gift cards, the ads are subsidizing cell phone service from Surge. The ads show up on users' homescreens during interstitial moments between using apps, so the goal is to offer free service without consumers having to change their behavior. Woods said all that ad time adds up, with "the average person who's using their phone on a consistent basis" viewing "easily between two to three hours" of homescreen ads each day. And that's enough to pay for the "equivalent" of Surge's $10 monthly plan. On the other hand, if for some reason a subscriber isn't hitting the necessary total, Woods said they can also earn more points by accepting offers or taking surveys. The subsidized wireless service will roll out in Florida, Virginia, Georgia and Texas initially, with an aim of reaching 40,000 locations by the end of the year.

Comments

Not only no

[e3m4n]

Not only no, but fuck no. Have you people not learned exactly how deep that fucking rabit hole will go? They OWN you when they give you free shit in exchange for being their whore!! Didnt Facefuck tesch you anything?!?!?!

Re:Not only no

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Fully. However, this won't prevent "them" from figuring out that is a screen they can occupy. Just look at smart TVs.

Re:Not only no

[e3m4n]

I like my TVs to be dumb HDMI inputs redirected from a receiver where my other devices output video. I dont need a camera on my streaming devices and my ps4 VR only gets plugged in when I want to do some vr shit. I might be paranoid, but its probably because way back in the day my teachers made me read Animal Farm and 1984.

Re:Not only no

[tquasar]

I still have a piece of tape over the camera on my laptop. I don't live with my smartphone and have never used the social media. I read a real newspaper and subscribe to several magazines. I'm dead in dog years.

Re:Not only no

[sconeu]

Came here to post this EXACT comment.

Well, at least the first sentence. The rest is true, but I was just going to stop at fuck no.

Re:Not only no

[Anonymous Coward]

No, fuck no.

Re:Not only no

[rtb61]

From a more sensible business perspective. Honestly why would you spend money advertising to people who can not pay for a basic mobile phone plan. You are spending advertising dollars to sell nothing because you are advertising to people who can not afford to spend much of anything and have very little choice in their consumer habits.

Technically it is a scam targeted at advertiser, getting them to buy worthless ads. It really is getting messy in ad space, people who can afford to buy product can also afford to by ad free content, people who can not afford to buy ad free content are the getting ads for products they can not afford to buy.

To be blunt outside of politics, why spend money advertising to, well, cough, cough, losers. Kind of a waste of money, outside of politics, yeah those, well, cough, cough, idiots will vote for whom ever they are told often enough, to vote for.

It is forcing ads and gross invasions of privacy and targeted manipulation that creates the problems for the rest of us and the reason why would should political target politicians to cripple the likes of M$, Google, Facebook et al.

Re:Not only no

[Anonymous Coward]

What you say is correct which is why advertisers are getting more creative in terms of how they spend their money. Ever seen your favorite youtuber with some random gadget in the background or some other random product critically placed in perfect camera view? All advertising. Same goes for your hollywood blockbuster movies or your favorite celebrities. They're all willing to take advertising dollars to do product placement. It is only the highest of premium content creators that don't take product placement dollars like maybe HBO or something like that.

Re:Not only no

[ctilsie242]

Exactly. Knowing previous history, even with ads, they will soon start charging a fee for "maintenance", then in no time, people will be paying the full cost of the mobile carrier again... and have ads. This has happened before. Cable TV is a good example, where it was initially ad-free, paid for by subscribers. Then, a few ads between shows. Now, you pay for the same, perhaps more ads as you get by watching OTA TV.

I'm would not be surprised if the ads would become more invasive over time. Perhaps demanding you watch a 2 minute spot before you can call, or watching 30 second ads per megabyte of bandwidth used. Of course, any of the data on the phone will be fair game, including geolocation, voice transcriptions of phone calls, screenshots of apps in use, etc.

Re:Not only no

[coofercat]

Whilst I agree with what you're saying, the likes of Amazon seem to be doing very well selling the Kindle Fire, at massive discount, subsidised by ads. FWIW, I've bought two - more on that in moment. Those things are wall-to-wall ads - on the lock screen, on your home screen, in every app you run - everywhere. All so you can save some money on the purchase price. It's a way to buy a 'proper brand' device at a 'chinese knock-off' price, and in some sense takes the risk out of that purchase.

In my case, I bought them for the kids. The 'kids mode' turns off every single ad, and limits what apps they can use to the ones I allow them to have. For us brits, that means I can load it up with BBC Iplayer Kids + some cbeebies apps and then hand the tablet to my kids knowing they can do what the hell they want without ever seeing any 'bad' (or even questionable) content, and also never, ever seeing an ad. Perfect! When they get old enough that I can take off the training wheels, they'll get a chinese knock-off tablet instead.

Back to the topic at hand - you'd have to be an idiot to want a 'free' phone that shoves apps at you day and night. Given that phones on contract don't cost much (at least, not 'ordinary' phones on 'ordinary' contracts), just pay up the £30/month and be done with it. You won't get an iPhoneX for free on these schemes, so it's not like you'd be getting a 'better' phone for less money than you'd be doing on contract.

Re:Not only no

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes,
I have a GSM alarm system, and the white plastic box will be a good listener.

Re:Not only no

[toebob]

The target demographic isn't always too poor to afford the products advertised. When you're poor you get money in small windfalls and you spend it quickly before it disappears on its own.

Payday comes around, or tax refund time, or welfare check time - whatever it is - and the advertisers want to make sure their product is right at the top of the minds of people who are yearning for something to make them happy. Many will gladly splurge on expensive sneakers or as-seen-on-TV gadgets to try to temporarily forget about normal life.

Maybe they can't pay for a monthly cell phone bill but they can certainly buy stuff.

Re:Not only no

[jellomizer]

There is a key difference between mobile service and free access to a website.
The reason for Ads on websites, is because many of them are nearly hard to monetize. Back in the early 2000's we talked about micropayments where you would be charged a fraction of a cent to hit a webpage. However that never caught on. Ads on most websites are the best way for them to make money, as their business model is based on trying to make it a popular place to go to. The economic problem is making a complex website is expensive, however it handles a lot of users for its investment so it may lead to a dollar per user. But charging people a small amount for access is just annoying to the users who can find somewhere else for free. So the Ad model came to be.
However for Mobile service we can charge the individual, for it. Because it is one bill for a unified service, and they can pick what they want more speed, less speed, unlimited, bandwidth caps...

Re:Not only no

[Anonymous Coward]

It starts with ads paying for the service. Then the ads only give you a discount, but they're optional. Then the ads become mandatory. And then the discount goes away because there are no alternatives without ads. Do you want constant ad bombardment? Because this is how you get constant ad bombardment.

Re:Not only no

[mjwx]

Came here to post this EXACT comment.

Well, at least the first sentence. The rest is true, but I was just going to stop at fuck no.

This.

Because like anything else "ad supported", they'll eventually start asking for money and blocking off people who don't pay. Of course the ads will not go away no matter how much you pay.

A lot of ISP's in countries with more lax justice systems already inject ads into their clients service.

However here in the UK, my mobile service is £6 per month, no contract, for 1.5 GB of data with unlimited calls and texts... And that by far is not the cheapest plan I could get (in fact it puts me on the most reliable network in the UK). Parting with £72 a year for hassle free and ad free service is a fair deal to me.

Re:Not only no

[Anonymous Coward]

The target demographic isn't always too poor to afford the products advertised. When you're poor you get money in small windfalls and you spend it quickly before it disappears on its own.

Payday comes around, or tax refund time, or welfare check time - whatever it is - and the advertisers want to make sure their product is right at the top of the minds of people who are yearning for something to make them happy. Many will gladly splurge on expensive sneakers or as-seen-on-TV gadgets to try to temporarily forget about normal life.

Maybe they can't pay for a monthly cell phone bill but they can certainly buy stuff.

He's not wrong.

Source: On disability.

Ads are not just ads

[themusicgod1]

In the 21st century, they are tracking devices, spying on you. The telescreens watch you through the ads. I do not consent to be watched by your panopticon, no.

Re:Ads are not just ads

[Anonymous Coward]

I named my ChromeCast, "Panopticon".

Short Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Next.

Re: Short Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

No. No next.

Absolutely not

[Anonymous Coward]

It's exhausting being bombarded by people trying to sell you shit around the clock. I didn't mind the occasional advertisement, but these ghouls and their war for clicks and eyeballs has gone too far and for far too long. I have a visceral, negative reaction now to anyone trying to sell me their wares. It's been good for my checking account at least.

Hell NO -- and Apps that Put them Should be Banned

[Anonymous Coward]

Apps that put those ads up should be banned permanently and companies advertising through them should be blacklisted..

This is serious... and dangerous... and pickup up my phone, I have to punch through some unwanted ad before I can answer a call or make a call or respond to a text... Why does Android and iOS even allow this at all? Much less, allow such apps on their stores?

Those companies who advertise through them should be punished, also.. severely.

Not sustainable

[93 Escort Wagon]

The more ads you shove into the face of a consumer, the less engaged with each ad that consumer becomes - and the lower your return per-advertisement goes.

Re:Not sustainable

[JaredOfEuropa]

The solution: 1) more ads. 2) target ads more accurately by mining our private lives ever deeper.

Re:Not sustainable

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I'm SUUUUUUUUUUUUURE they target ads. I'm a fan of multiple hobbies, specific but not niche media, and various videogames. I get ads for Cunt of Shit: Bitch Ops XVIIXVI, Apex Retardation, and other crappy military shooters I have literally no interest in. Where the hell are the ads for games I play, TV shows I'd like, drawing, model painting, and so on?

All ads get blocked until they stop trying to sell me a shitty Reichwagen Cockschmircht Nein among my ten other demands, including suing webmasters for any costs incurred to repair my computer when their ad redirects me to malware. No I don't give a fuck that you "don't control the ad", you don't control rabid dogs either but you're still paying for my medical bills if it bites me.

Phones are not just phones

[DogDude]

If you have a smart phone, you are already being tracked and spied on.

People are already giving away their personal information hand over fist for the sake of convenience or some stupid, mindless entertainment, so I would imagine they'd happily to it in exchange for saving a few bucks a month.

Re:Phones are not just phones

[Aristos Mazer]

But there are still ways to limit *who* is spying on you, and if we all collectively minimize that list, that makes those few easier to police/regulate.

Re:Phones are not just phones

[themusicgod1]

This is why I don't have a handheld surveillance device / smart phone. But it doesn't have to be this way. Purism, for example is making decent progress on a handheld computer that doesn't, though I doubt there's much they are doing on the radio side to protect the user from the predatory carriers.

The problem with the people who opt-out of such things is you don't hear about them so much. They exist.

Re:Phones are not just phones

[themusicgod1]

Agreed, but we're not even close to that, so for the time being treating as as an infection is good practice.

Re: Phones are not just phones

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget store loyalty cards, or when the cashier asks "Do you have a phone number with us?"

Or all of the security cameras that are filming you as you walk by stores.

Re:Phones are not just phones

[Falos]

am tracked / am not tracked is a false dichotomy

Your defeatist attitude will sink you much lower on the very much not binary spectrum.

Re:Phones are not just phones

[DogDude]

If you have an Android phone, the one of the largest software companies on the planet is spying on you. Being concerned about smaller companies doesn't really make any sense.

Re: Phones are not just phones

[Aristos Mazer]

Of course it makes sense. Google is big enough to regulate and is subject to US law. If youâ(TM)re a US citizen, that gives some control over what it does with our data â" we could put whatever restraint we want, just as GDRP law did in Europe. The smaller companies often are not US players. Also, Google is boycot-able, and responsive to market pressures. The smaller companies are much harder to target with collective action.

Re: Phones are not just phones

[DogDude]

. Google is big enough to regulate and is subject to US law.

Are you kidding? The US has no laws about data privacy.

Also, Google is boycot-able, and responsive to market pressures

Again, are you kidding, or are you being serious?

Re: Phones are not just phones

[Aristos Mazer]

Just because we do not have data privacy laws does not mean we cannot. And several boycotts have worked on Google over the years (the revamping of YouTube, for one example), so I see no reason why they would not be effective in the future, were someone to start organizing one. So, to answer your question: yes, I am serious.

Re: Phones are not just phones

[DogDude]

What "Revamping of Youtube"? Youtube is still as much of a cesspool as it's always been.

I'm sorry, but if you look at recent US history, you'll see very few, if any, privacy laws passed in favor of regular people in the past few decades. It's not going to happen. We have an incredibly corrupt government.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

No. What a stupid question.

As said above.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was just a regular churn of ads on the homescreen (and only the homescreen!) with no telemetry or metadata unless you clicked on an ad for more info, then I would definitely consider it (a cellphone is effectively a tracking device today as it is.) However, if it has the sort of invasive information gathering facilities most current ad networks have, which often violate privacy and sift through personal data stored on the phone, then no, I would not. And given the number of trust breaches that have done exactly that since smartphones made a big splash ~10 years ago, I would *NEVER* consider one of these services because we already know they will abuse it, either after everyone is already hooked, or when their business model starts faltering and they need extra revenue to keep their earnings up, whether by hook or by crook.

No.

[mydn]

No.

What a stupid question.

No

[Jarik C-Bol]

No. Not only no, but Hell No.

Why this makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can't afford something as cheap as a cell phone bill? No problem, we'll advertise to you instead of charging you money."
"Surely people that don't have any money or are cheapskates will be a cash cow for these advertisers..."

No.

[Rick Zeman]

I repeat, HELL no.

the proper question is..

[Anonymous Coward]

would you install invasive, always tracking bullshit on your start screen for free* mobile service?

___

*excess use charged at some ridiculous rate. we define what 'excess' means and can change the definition or rates whenever the fuck we want. we'll also snoop all over your device and sell what we gather. no you can't opt out, no you can't know what we find or who we sell it to. just fuck off already and eat our ads.

no

[WCMI92]

Too many ads. No way.

Hell No!

[WindowsStar]

Hell No, Hell No! we are already commercialized to death on everything now!

Re:Hell No!

[Iwastheone]

I'm nearing 60 orbits around our Sun, have seen the "progress" of the internet over the years, back when annoying banner ads 'strobe light flashed' to get your attention. So I have learned to completely ignore any ad, thank God for adblocking software. Am I willing to have to wait while a 30/60 second ad plays before I can actually do what I intended? Of course not. Todays modern internet is invasive enough already. If I need to buy something I know how to find it, I do not need some ad telling me how happier my life will be if I buy this soda or car or whatever, but I'm old and much wiser now. The newer people are not aware of how advertising works, they are the new 'suckers' for the ad companies. God damn, we do live in an interesting time.

If they were just static ads, maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but as they're pretty much guaranteed to be spying portals, hell no.

Re: If they were just static ads, maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

They can do that by serving static ads, or 1x1 pixel 'bugs' and logging your IP address.

Two to three HOURS a day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so for a minimum of two hours a day, you get $10 a month of value.

They think your time is worth 16.7 cents an hour. I think Chinese gold farmers make more? In fact, I don't think you can earn that little even in Africa.

This is literally idiotic. You can work near minimum wage for 1 hour a month and pay for the service...

Headline Rules

[chromeronin799]

If there is a questionmark in the headline, the answer is NO!

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I'd block them.

Sweet remuneration

[Anonymous Coward]

2-3 hours of ad-viewing per day * 30 days = 60-90 hours per month all to receive a $10/month service. That means you'll be paid 11 to 17 cents per hour to watch ads. Who could resist that sweet remuneration?

Re:Sweet remuneration

[Excelcia]

This is meta, but has anyone else noticed odd downvotings? At the time I write this, there are about 10 "no" posts all downvoted to 0. The post I'm replying to being one of them, even though it is quite value added with a cogent and persuasive point about the benefit to time ratio.

Makes me question the moderation point generation system. I've noticed what appears to be targeted/questionable/organized downvoting on more and more posts in recent months.

Re:Sweet remuneration

[tepples]

At the time I write this, there are about 10 "no" posts all downvoted to 0.

Posts by Anonymous Coward start at zero.

Amazon already offers this

[WoodstockJeff]

To save $20 on a Kindle, you agree to allow them to put an advertisement on the screen when the Kindle is idle.

I gave them the extra $20.

Re:Amazon already offers this

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too!

Netzero?

[Anonymous Coward]

Took long enough for Netzero to reinvent itself.

Let me be clear

[Ziest]

FUCK NO!

Just in case someone is confused. FUCK NO means FUCK NO NEVER

Re:Let me be clear

[CanadianMacFan]

I'm sensing a slight negativity towards the idea.

there are free VOIP services for wifi-only phones

[Anonymous Coward]

which include free sms, phone calls... without ads!!

the only real downside is not always having wifi, but if you work at home or have a stay-at-home spouse it's great

Free PC 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they implement this better than Free PC did about 20 years ago.

Here's why Netflix had success...

[MindPrison]

...it wasn't because of their astonishing content,

but rather the fact your average Joe now had a way to say goodbye to AD's forever, well - almost forever, because Netflix is in certain parts of the world re-introducing advertisement into their subscription plans.

Youtube had a similar scheme, while it DID not become the subscription boom they've hoped for, it did gather a rather substantial amount of actually faithful subscribers (we're talking Youtube premium here), and it keeps growing. Yes - you can use ad-blockers, but let's face it, that doesn't pay anyone's bills, let alone the content creators.

Personally I have both, simply as a way to opt-out of all the onslaught of senseless, mind numbing repetitive irrelevant ads. A.I will always have an opinion on what you want or need, regardless of what you really think, this makes people scramble towards AD-free solutions, even if they have to pay for it, and I'm no different in that regards, I simply HATE ads. And that's coming from a guy who used to work in advertisement.

The reason they want to offer you "free anything" is because there really is no such things in this world as a free meal, if you want something for free, you won't get that - but you can accept being a slave of the consumer audience, meaning you accept certain chores (such as having to watch an ad) in order to get something in return, so - nothing for free here. But you'll soon find yourself tired to death over it, or buying stuff you don't really need - if you're weak.

Ad free - is the future. Your time is valuable, way more valuable than any wasted time on useless products you'll never need. Every minute you waste or being distracted by things that annoy you, serves you no good at all. But it does bring other people jobs, and money, while you suffer through it all - nothing is for free.

Your choice, essentially. Vote with your money!

Re:Here's why Netflix had success...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Netflix ever tries ads here, they are gonna instantly be dropped! I am close to that now because they are not getting the content that I want, and their "original content" SUCKS BIG GREEN DONKEY DICKS!!!!!!!!!!
I don't have a "smart" phone, my desktop computer has neither a mic or camera (but a nice set of speakers with a sub-woofer). The camera and mics on my laptop are physically disconnected! I use both ad and script blocking online as well as Privacy Badger, Disconnect (blocks connections to ad servers) and HTTPS Everywhere. I will never have a "smart" TV or any IoT spy-crap!

I guess you get the point, I HATE ads, and I HATE being spied upon so that ads can be targeted at me!!!!!

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Sounds like a great idea

[Pollux]

I mean, look how well it worked out for Free-PC!

reverse trendy

[Anonymous Coward]

And you still use a rotary phone at home and don't own a TV. Great. You're ultra cool and elite.

Some of us love our smartphones, and even use it as a pocket computer complete with Bluetooth keyboard. I'm one of them.

That said, different strokes for different folks. If I were to use this service and even if it tracked everything including when I go to the bathroom, they won't get much out of my boring life. For some others, this would be a major liability.

Re:reverse trendy

[Anonymous Coward]

Inferiority for the inferior.

Love the penetration.

2words+

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure...at $10M per min with a sliding scale of increase of 10 per cent of sales or online time....whichever is smaller...

Or this: two words...FUCK and OFF.

People who do dumb things with their money

[raymorris]

You're not wrong.

At the same time, people who make dumb decisions might be the perfect audience for certain advertisers. Perfect place for a payday loan ad. (Grumble)

Yes, absolutely!

[Anonymous Coward]

I came here and was disappointed to find not one single honest person.

Can not one of you think of fun things to do with free spying devices? Do none of you have hobbies?

Short answer: NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Short answer: NO

The yungguns

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe out of all these posts, you were the only person who mentioned Netzero. I came here specifically looking for it. The fucking kids don't know shit. Netzero got me through college!

no. i rarely see ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Ads are cancer. I dont want cancer.

Necessary total

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, if for some reason a subscriber isn't hitting the necessary total, Woods said they can also earn more points by accepting offers or taking surveys.

You know they'll push "necessary total" to the absolute breaking point, meaning "maximum annoyance level".
So ever if I were OK with the ads (I'm not), that alone would be a big, massive NO.

Windows 10 beat them

[fph il quozientatore]

On the other hand, most people are already using on their computer a free (as in beer) OS which comes with Candy Crush ads in the main system menu...

Everything old is new again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually remember free dial-up connections funded by adverts on your desktop TWENTY YEARS AGO. It was a pretty shit idea then, too.

I am rich, so no

[GuB-42]

I have a decently paying job now, I don't need to deface my home screen to get mobile service.
But before that, $10 is $10 so if it isn't too annoying, then yes.

BTW, it shows a flaw in that system. If you don't have money to pay for your mobile service, you most likely won't have money to buy what the ads are showing.

Let me think

[houghi]

I put black tape over the logo on my monitor, so I do not see the logo. I cut it out of my backpack (Not a hole into the backpack), so there is no logo.

I pay extra for stuff to have no logo, so the answer will be "unelikely".

Ovivo

[Going_Digital]

Was tried in the UK by a company called OVIVO, it crashed and burned.

Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd sign up if

a) it didn't disturb my phone use. If it was like YouTube and I had to wait 5 seconds to skip add to use an app, then f no!

b) it presented ads without hovering stuff about me and my phone use. I cannot believe that would be the case for the advertisers

Sure I would... trust me.

[ne1av1cr]

I'd be more than happy to load them then run a script to make them invisible so I never see them.

Ads on phones.

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember back in the '90's, a company was giving out free computers for internet use, but they constantly showed ads. Basically, you had a screen that was mostly filled with ads, and only 640x480 of usable screen space.
I'll pass, thank you very much.

Re:I would not put AIDS in my home for free mobile

[Anonymous Coward]

APGay? He's a weak-ass little faggot who would make even Leonardo Dicaprio, Mark Zuckerberg and Justin Bieber look like men.

What a terrible idea

[danomac]

We're already bombarded with ads wherever we go.

I can see it now: You're having a heart attack and need to dial 911. But wait! Your phone forces you to watch an ad for aspirin before you can place the call...

Sure, the service will be free *for now*

[TheDarkener]

But in a couple of years when the board is looking for new revenue streams (COUGHhuluCOUGH) they'll start charging a small amount. Hell, maybe they'll offer "ad-free" service for a couple of bucks more a month for those who are tired of the ever-increasing and ever-annoying ads when they just want to respond to a text for 3 seconds.

Then it intensifies. More ads, so more people start switching to "ad-free". But then the ad-free service becomes "minimal ad" service. Then they slowly turn the dial up, slow enough for most not to notice consciously.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Until they get bought out by AT&T or some other similarly evil megacorp.

I pay for my service

[johnsie]

I pay for my service and get the service i expect.

maybe

[Cajun Hell]

I wouldn't show the ads on my real home screen or give them access to my real coordinates/camera/etc, but sure, in exchange for internet access I might be willing to run their malware inside of some kind of container, if I had confidence in the container really being secure.

Fuck

[MerlTurkin]

No.

I would do it for the slightest discount

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at how many of us bought the Kindle Fire HD with ads. It's not even free and we accept ads on the product for its lifetime even though we only get a single discount at time of purchase.

I grew up being inundated with advertisements and have grown accustom to them. And frankly even if I don't get some kind of discount or free thing someone is still going to show me some ads.

No

[euxneks]

Fuck no. Ads can fuck right off.

metro did it

[Anonymous Coward]

well, metro already does this on their phones, which usually has a certain demographic. every time they unlock their android phones, some burned-in app displays a pop-up full screen loaded with clickbait and ads... and no, it's not to pay their bill lol... at least Moolah team wants to give something back to the consumer, while metro is making ad money AND consuming your data plan... Not that I'm encouraging this idea or anything...

Avoid lock in

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay about 2 USD (1.40 GBP) every month for a subscription to the Turkish Tidal entity. I have it set up on a card that charges me the Mastercard rate with no fees, so what you see is what I get. The first few newsletters were all in Turkish, but once I used Google Translate to unsubscribe it's not bothered me. With the way the Turkish lira is going, this is only going to get cheaper over time.
So no, I won't let ads appear on my homescreen for a silly, probably locked-in and smaller content base music subscription service.

Yes,

[Anonymous Coward]

... after adding a good adblocker.

Re: I would not put AIDS in my home for free mobil

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly!!! We are getting bombarded. Itâ(TM)s not going away. PAY ME FOR MY EYEBALLS!! Iâ(TM)LL TAKE IT!!!

TechCrunch

[rowleydaisy]

No, I don't Put Ads On my Home Screens For Free Mobile Service