First of all: You can opt out of that feature with minor hassle. I usually don't like opt-in by default features, but here he has a point, imo.
Now - if you opt out, where is your problem with the change? If he would break future versions of AdBlock to force ads on you, someone would step up and make sure that there's an AdBlockBlock plugin.
Are you, by chance, using applications on the mobile OS of your choice that displays ad to gain revenue?
Whether that results in Adblock plus plus or not isn't something I tried to address, though the eventuality seems likely.
> Are you, by chance, using applications on the mobile OS of your choice that displays ad to gain revenue?
No. Few apps of any quality push ads, as they're incredibly detrimental to the UX on such a small screen device.
Now it's fine to be critical and to dislike that change, but I considered your 'he takes money (according to another subthread that's planned but not the case just yet) and that will lead to more and more ads being "okay"' too - simple.
Mobile apps w/ ads: Angry Birds on Android?
Well, the fact that he plans to financially benefit from displaying advertisements (or allowing them to be displayed) is key to understanding the alignment of his incentives: money for ads, insofar as his userbase will put up with it.
> Mobile apps w/ ads: Angry Birds on Android?
Haven't played it; I'd assumed it was a paid game. It's 99 cents on iOS. Unclear why it's free on Android.