I don't believe he wrote an app hoping to have a small user base, so I don't believe that the success of the app was the problem. Without to mention that there are a number of ways to fix that, including finding a price point that makes it less interesting in order to reduces the installation base. But if the app was created in the first place, it was because the idea was to make everybody install it. It's a blackbox since we don't know the details but from the outside output I don't believe the blog post contains all the facts that influenced this choice.

Thinking you understand what a situation is going to be like ahead of time and seeing what that situation actually is like when it happens are 2 very different things.

The world is full of stories of people who attempt something and then get upset or disheartened or unhappy when it comes to pass. Why does everyone have to assume something nefarious here?

> I don't believe he wrote an app hoping to have a small user base, so I don't believe that the success of the app was the problem.

Absolutely agreed. All else aside, I don't really believe someone goes through the trouble of building, launching and promoting an iOS application on the app store (with all its hurdles) with the thought, "Gee, I really hope it doesn't get too popular!"

I'm not Marco (nor have I ever talked to him) and I'm not trying to put myself into his head space. Moreover, I absolutely despise a conspiracy theory. I'm simply saying that the explanation he gave, true or not, does not make sense to me so I personally choose not to believe it. If I were Marco and reading my comment, my response would be, "Good for you; I honestly couldn't care less what you think."

Dunno, marco just seems like an entitled jerk who's constructed a maze of rationalization around ad blocking. If you don't like the ads a website shows, well, you should have found that out of the first visit. Great. Then don't visit again. Here's his rationalization:

   Publishers won’t solve this problem: they cannot consistently enforce 
   standards of decency and security on the ad networks that they embed in 
   their sites. Just as browsers added pop-up blockers to protect us from that 
   abusive annoyance, new browser-level countermeasures are needed to protect 
   us from today’s web abuses.
   
   And we shouldn’t feel guilty about this. The “implied contract” theory that 
   we’ve agreed to view ads in exchange for free content is void because we 
   can’t review the terms first — as soon as we follow a link, our browsers 
   load, execute, transfer, and track everything embedded by the publisher. Our 
   data, battery life, time, and privacy are taken by a blank check with no 
   recourse. It’s like ordering from a restaurant menu with no prices, then 
   being forced to pay whatever the restaurant demands at the end of the meal. [1]

To use his dumb analogy, it's going to the same restaurant over and over and whining about the prices. If you don't like the prices, stop going.

Continuing to visit while blocking ads is no different than downloading movies or apps for free because you can. It's fine when a handful of people do it; just like music sharing wasn't a huge problem until Napster. When every ios user starts totally blocking ads, it's not longer ignorable. There's no human right to read the nytimes.

[1] http://www.marco.org/2015/09/16/peace-content-blocker

He's an entitled jerk because he released a piece of software and then decided to refund his users and take it down?

what part of his "maze of rationalization around ad blocking" has he rescinded? None.

   I still believe that ad blockers are necessary today, and I still think 
   Ghostery is the best one, but I’ve learned over the last few crazy days that 
   I don’t feel good making one and being the arbiter of what’s blocked. [1]

He doesn't want to be the author of the ad-blocking software, but he continues to use it. :rolleyes: He wants to dodge personal responsibility while continuing to engage in and advocate for the behavior he's now acknowledged is harmful. ie he's an entitled jerk.

Note ad blocking also disabled ads on marco.org and daringfireball.net, though; I'm sure that was unrelated to his decision.

ps -- he hasn't refunded his users. He's indicated how they can get a refund which isn't the same thing at all. Sincere regret might be easier to believe if he got rid of the tens of thousands of dollars he earned from this.

[1] http://www.marco.org/2015/09/18/just-doesnt-feel-good

Unless something changed recently, the iOS App Store doesn't have a way for developers to issue refunds; the user must request them.

I don't think Marco Arment needs the money from an ad blocker at this point.

> realize you on the path to make $100K on an app that, rightly or wrongly, could impact other people's livelihoods

Because someone giving me 100k for an app which wrote, to use it for the exact purpose I made it for is certainly /the/ reason I would change my mind about making it...

> and subject me to a torrent of unpleasantness. But that’ll end soon enough, and that’s better than how I’d feel if I kept going.

What he doesn't say is that he is obviously already getting what amounts to a "torrent of unpleasantness", from people which are more like colleagues than customers. Of course, no one wants to admit to kowtowing, so there is no mention of it, but as we can see, he cares about this sort of thing, so it was obviously a significant factor.

So you're saying your idea of what's moral is different. The "what he doesn't say" and "cares about this sort of thing" is completely unfounded and callous. Not exactly useful.

Can you or anyone else tell me if The Deck ads still track and employ targeting. If they do, then personally I'd consider them still invasive and worth blocking. If not, then I see his point.

marco claims Deck doesn't track, per link above

Thank you. I should have clicked the link before posting. I'd agree that a better option would have been to have an ad network whitelist option to reward those who strive for improving UX. Tough spot to be in.