Apple refunding all purchases of Peace
marco.org
marco.org
http://www.marco.org/2015/09/18/just-doesnt-feel-good
In this update, Apple has made the (apparently unprecedented) decision to proactively refund all purchases of the app, rather than requiring users to request refunds individually.
https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/releaseno...
Even I'm surprised at how popular ad blocking is becoming. I would not have expected the general public to be willing to actually pay money to block ads.
Of course, when you have ads that try to take over my browser (Android), won't go away when you hit the "go away" button (iOS), or ads that suddenly play loud audio (both), I guess it's no surprise that even the general public now regards online ads as a nuisance to be blocked.
I have to admit, I have uninstalled quite a few apps recently because of offensively-intrusive advertising.
It isn't even the ads themselves (easily blocked, of course) that cause the problem, but the horrible user-hostile layouts that are clearly designed to maximize page views (and thus ad impressions).
What should be a one page essay is like 20 fucking goddamn pages of bullshit (rage getting to me just thinking about it). Ain't nobody got time for that.
This is, I think, basically the web version of how desktop shareware authors destroyed their own market with the downward spiral of including increasingly annoying "installer add-ons".
PS. I will note here prior to claims of blocking being the problem that I never ran an ad blocker personally (other than for testing) until 2014, and only started then because "the web" as a whole basically forced my hand by making the idea of using the web without one completely unbearable.
While it was extensions for browsers etc, it was one thing. But now Apple (take note) has built it into their most talked about product.
And given how the media production and apple products are intertwined, suddenly the media people sit up, take notes, and start talking/writing about it.
> The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet [wiki]
The streisand effect is about censorship, not about propaganda. If the current coverage is negative, it's a smear campaign at best. Censorship would be refusing to publish any articles on ad blocking entirely and somehow trying to get the apps taken down from the app store.
I always felt that he is an opinionated, stand up guy but this move actually proves that he means what he says and he was sincere about his feelings on ad blockers [1]. Much respect.
The Apple side of this is intriguing. I guess this is pocket change to them, but did they do this after reading about his thoughts and decision? Or was it simply cost-effective to batch return the money vs. reviewing and processing an unknown number of individual requests?
Just an alternative theory. He may have simply chosen the more money option.
People rarely ever operate in a vacuum, and a person is subconsciously influenced by a variety of factors, of which financial status is one. In this particular instance, it would be a bit disingenuous to assume that Marco made this decision on his own, operating in a vacuum. The real world is a lot more complex than the simple case you are making it to be.
No, he's saying it's easy for rich people to act morally in such cases, and in others too (e.g. not steal).
Especially in the case of giving back money / charity, that we're talking about in this thread: if both a rich and a poor person give $10.000 to a charity, for a rich person it could be 1/1000 of his income, whereas for an average person it could be 1/5 of his income.
It's not even debatable which made the bigger sacrifice, it's pure math.
In fact (and continuing with the $1m/year vs $50k/year) the rich person giving $10.000 --which can have people swoon, news coverage and a front seat to the charity's dinner party--, would be equivalent (as percentage of income) to the average person giving $50 to his local charity, which nobody would see as particularly great.
Peace uses a block-list that was kept up-to-date on a server -- without it, the app is useless (defective). Apple would be negligent not to refund it immediately.
So you didn't spend much time in the site, didn't see all the article pages (when they break it in multiple pages), and you sure didn't click any ads.
>I don’t feel good making one and being the arbiter of what’s blocked.
He doesn't have a problem with ad blocking, but doesn't want to be the one deciding what's blocked and what isn't
My little hunch-o-maker tells me there is an untold part to this story and he's just trying to distract us from his real reasons.
If I were to guess, it was his tumblr/yahoo connections that reached out to him and asked him not do this. If he made a lot of money off of tumblr as a founder, than yeah, it'd be pretty sucky to build something that would hurt that product.
It gives Google a monopoly in selling users' private data. Nobody can ad-block Google. (And Google Analytics.)
> Maybe it would have created a market for micropayments which maybe it's far superior to ads?
Believe me, if micropayments were a viable thing, then ad networks would be the first to jump ship. The current intrusive advertising model doesn't make anyone happy, ad networks included. (Ad networks don't profit from intrusive malware advertising. This is a 'tragedy of the commons' scenario, too much advertising hurts ultimately hurts the ad network bottom line.)
What do you mean by this? (I've had google-analytics.com in my /etc/hosts file for many years.)
Maybe content could be 10x valuable (because much of the noise would be eliminated) if micropayments had a chance to take off. Who knows! Let the market figure it out... For Marco to think he can penetrate the mists of the internet economy single handedly is the height of arrogance.
He went from the position of deciding which ads to block for a handful of people to hundreds of thousands literally overnight and decided that was too much responsibility for himself to handle. Whether or not you agree with his reasoning is immaterial. It made him feel uncomfortable to be in this position, so he made the decision to bow out.
Marco is not the first person, nor will he be the last, to regret the possible consequences of having built a weapon of war. He's simply in the enviable scenario of being able to destroy the schematics.
He is not opposed to ad blocking. He is not opposed to ad blocking apps. He doesn’t think people blocking ads are acting immorally. He doesn’t think overbearing ads aren’t a problem or are definitely needed.
Figuring out the actual reason he states for withdrawing the app is left as an exercise to the reader.
The email confirming my request and the email confirming the refund had been accepted literally arrived in the same minute.
- changing Peace into a more responsible content-blocker, if that was his concern
- giving the proceeds to charity
- putting the proceeds towards a new type of ad company, or a new type of new/media business
- funding scholarships for journalists2 he addresses in the linked piece: which charity?
3: he tried this already with The Magazine and learned that he does not like those challenges
4: this is a bad solution and I'm assuming you offered it as a joke
See http://ipod.about.com/od/theappstore/a/How-To-Install-Apps-R...
Well, you still get the tax deducations, don't you?
Plus the goodwill ("here I gave all those to charity") bought with other people's money.
How much of an effect is removing the app really going to have?