Strangely no. When it comes to my profession, what I charge people for, I always think things through. Never abruptly U-turn like this. Believe it or not!
You never in your life changed your opinion? And whatever product or service you sold, you supported for free for multiple years? Apps stop getting updates every single day and there is always somebody who just bought it the day before.
Please read my last sentence you quoted. There's already one guy who have to re-install iOS 9 as new and lost the app. It's "a few days" we're talking about here. Not years. Not months. Not even weeks.
You mean the person who neither copied the app to iTunes (by simply syncing the phone) nor backed up his phone to iCloud or iTunes? It doesn't matter whether you bought an app yesterday or six months ago, an app can get cancelled every day. If you don't know this yet, you might have to learn it the hard way.
And if somebody looses the app today, it should be fairly trivial to find out that she or he can get fully re-imbursed for it.
You mean the person who neither copied the app to iTunes (by simply syncing the phone) nor backed up his phone to iCloud or iTunes? It doesn't matter whether you bought an app yesterday or six months ago, an app can get cancelled every day. If you don't know this yet, you might have to learn it the hard way.
And if somebody looses the app today, it should be fairly trivial to find out that she or he can get fully re-imbursed for it.
He backed up to iCloud. What's your point? iCould, the basic form of backup that Apple promoted, didn't back up apps. Do you know that?
Oh yeah.. I did. But I stick with my responsibility. This concept might be new to guys like Marco, who knows?
Which he did by re-imbursing everybody. What if you had done something you deeply regretted? Would you continue doing it in order not to disappoint the people who gave you a one-time fee for it. Sometimes you have to make a decision between pissing off two different persons (or groups of persons). And the only harm done here is to inconvenience some people buy having to apply for a refund and install another app. If that is a capital offence in your mind, fine, be my guest.
Which he did by re-imbursing everybody. What if you had done something you deeply regretted? Would you continue doing it in order not to disappoint the people who gave you a one-time fee for it. Sometimes you have to make a decision between pissing off two different persons (or groups of persons). And the only harm done here is to inconvenience some people buy having to apply for a refund and install another app. If that is a capital offence in your mind, fine, be my guest.
What does he regret exactly? You want to defend him. Fine. I'm all ears. But answer me this: What has changed between the day he was grandstanding when the app was launched and a few days later when he pulled it?
Nothing.
Nothing has changed. Only his heart. There was no new requirement from Apple. No new restriction whatsoever. Do you even know the real reason he pulled the app? How long do you follow him?
Anyone who has stolen music has no right to criticise ad blockers. And I think it's safe to say the vast majority of the publishers whining about this have done, and currently do just that. Hypocrites.
Of course my evidence is non existent, but statistically this must be true.
I'm a composer and I rely on people paying for music to survive.
It angers me that publishers are up in arms about ad blocking, yet think it fine to steal other online content.
Not to mention those sites that just republish other writers' work almost word for word.
And those that steal photos, and artwork without any compensation to the photographers and artists.
Can you point me to publishers that have openly supported music piracy and denounced ad blockers?
Yes, there are sites that re-publish other people's work without permission but Appleinsider isn't exactly one of them. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Apparently because you have been wronged, all bets are off and it is fine for anybody to cheat to pay back society for what it has done to you.
Just because some publishers have behaved immorally (or even illegally), doesn't remove the right for other publishers to discuss such issues. Or should I smear all composers because some of them have stolen music from other composers?
Nothing has changed. Only his heart. There was no new requirement from Apple. No new restriction whatsoever. Do you even know the real reason he pulled the app? How long do you follow him?
I've read his blog for about five years. I have listened to podcasts with him almost weekly for a similar amount of time. I have read his blog post in which he announced that he pulled the app.
So, yeah, I do have some reasonable ideas why he pulled the app and it was not because I got bored with it. It is pretty clear that he had some doubts about indiscriminate ad-blocking that have been affected by the discussion in the last couple of days and that he doesn't want to stand in the centre of a shit-storm about this issue. And unless you have been at the centre of a public shit-storm (and with you, I mean your real-life identity, not an anonymous online alias), I would be careful to judge people that have been for their decisions.
I've read his blog for about five years. I have listened to podcasts with him almost weekly for a similar amount of time. I have read his blog post in which he announced that he pulled the app.
So, yeah, I do have some reasonable ideas why he pulled the app and it was not because I got bored with it. It is pretty clear that he had some doubts about indiscriminate ad-blocking and that he doesn't want to stand in the centre of a shit-storm about this issue. And unless you have been at the centre of a public shit-storm (and with you, I mean your real-life identity, not an anonymous online alias), I would be careful to judge people that have been for their decisions.
Oh.. He took a time writing codes for months under the same condition it is today and suddenly, he has doubt? Is he an idiot, to not know what app he's writing? And what it will do?
And let be clear here. He didn't has doubt when he released it but a few days later he had. Ha! Now you have to answer my question above again. What had changed?
Do you know about his app called The Magazine? How does that end for him?
Oh.. He took a time writing codes for months under the same condition it is today and suddenly, he has doubt? Is he an idiot, to not know what app he's writing? And what it will do?
And let be clear here. He didn't has doubt when he released it but a few days later he had. Ha! Now you have to answer my question above again. What had changed?
Do you know about his app called The Magazine? How does that end for him?
I'm late to your conversation and others probably already said this, but I have to wonder if he was financially persuaded to pull it by Google?
I Just thought I'd chime in to let everyone know we're listening to your feedback and taking it to heart. I mean, I have a headache now, but I've read all your posts. I know Kasper and Neil have been checking in as well. A lot of the issues you've voiced have been raised behind-the-scenes for a while, and plans are in motion. I can probably confirm new forums are one of the more kinetic projects without getting into too much trouble. Some things will take longer than other things.
To those suggesting we offer a subscription -- we hear you. We want to do it right, and it will take time for things to line up. It's something we had talked about doing when we originally debuted the iOS app, but the subscription numbers made us back off from the idea pretty quickly. If that's something you really want to see, please consider subscribing via the iOS app to show support in a more-than-words kind of way.
As always you can send us your feedback at [email protected] or you can hit us up on twitter @appleinsider ... or just email Neil with your issues, he loves that.
I think Apple's made this decision to support ad blockers because the entire ecosystem around web advertising is flawed. Here we are in a sea of ads surrounding content. MacDailyNews is a prime example of a site where each page is 10% content and 90% advertising. That's just wrong, but they claim that it's necessary. I, for one, have started blocking ad hosts though my /etc/hosts file, and I don't miss them at all. It makes for a more pleasant browsing experience where content is first and foremost. So the system does need to change, and it seems that Apple has taken it upon themselves to force that change. I would almost go as far to say that this is a move to force more people and content providers to use native apps over web-based deliveries. Even web-based apps would be affected by the ad-blockers, and there's far too much abuse in that arena... companies releasing "an official app" only to have it be a wrapper around their website. That's sad.
I am aware of how the loss of ad revenue will affect online publishers. I hope that they are exploring new ways of generating revenue, and new ad opportunities. They do exist. Remember how Apple essentially forced Flash ads to die a slow death? Well, does anybody miss the onslaught of Flash websites in 2015? I would say the world is a better place for it, so I applaud Apple's insistence with that.
I rarely clicked on or visited any of the advertisements that I see on websites. Was my eyeballs blindly scanning past them really enough to keep businesses afloat? Something just doesn't feel right about that. It's like turning every flat surface in a cityscape into advertising (Reno?), and then adding billboards along every road and highway. There comes a time when enough is enough, and I think we reached that point with web advertising. So, once again, I applaud Apple for this move. The world will be better for it, even if there's some roadkill along the way.
You've never done something that you immediately regretted? Is this the first paid app abandoned by its dev? What's the worse that can happen if the app stops working?
Strangely no. When it comes to my profession, what I charge people for, I always think things through. Never abruptly U-turn like this. Believe it or not!
Also you might be new to him but this is not the first time he'd done something like this. He used to make an app called The Magazine that call for people to subscribe monthly. A few months later he sold it to someone else. How can you trust people like this?
I wouldn't call 7 months "a few", but I understand how you might feel like it was.
The only time I ever felt somewhat burned by Apple was when they dropped the price of the original iPhone by $200 a mere 2 months later. I bought that iPhone on the day it was released. That U-turn by Apple was less than a few months, more like a couple. And boy did people freak out about it.
Turns out Apple did the right thing and gave me and everyone else a $100 store credit because we were early adopters and all felt burned. Apple made the right decision because they both made me happy while lowering the barrier to entry for new customers. More purchasers helped it survive and thrive to become the platform we enjoy today. Overall a pretty solid U-turn IMO.
If big corporations like Apple can have a change of heart or make a U-turn, then why not Marco?
$2.99 for peace is nothing like the $100 difference ($200 price drop minus $100 store credit) I lost being an early adopter with the iPhone. In the end I was perfectly happy losing the $100, the iPhone was just that cool when it came out.
If you want a full refund for Peace it's easy enough to get your $2.99 back.
I'm late to your conversation and others probably already said this, but I have to wonder if he was financially persuaded to pull it by Google?
Agree!
The users downloading ad blockers are most likely heavy content browsers to begin with, which I believe would actually put them in a category of generating more revenue for ad companies, versus people who browse occasionally. If this is correct, then Google, would see an immediate hit to their daily mobile browsing revenue. If said multi-billion dollar ad company were to pay a dev several million to drop it, that would be a fast way to profit with little work, if the dev were so inclined.
He backed up to iCloud. What's your point? iCould, the basic form of backup that Apple promoted, didn't back up apps. Do you know that?
Thinking about it, the one time I attempted to restore from iCloud (in the Apple Store after buying a new phone), I remember I had to download the apps separately after the restore process. But I aborted that restore process and switched to restoring from iTunes because it was faster. But since I (a) semi-regularly sync with iTunes and (b) always back up to iTunes whenever I sync the phone with it, I know that iTunes has the apps (and I have half a dozen backups of my iTunes library) and that restoring from iTunes includes the apps, I guess I blocked out the memory that iCloud backups don't include the apps.
Strangely no. When it comes to my profession, what I charge people for, I always think things through. Never abruptly U-turn like this. Believe it or not!
Also you might be new to him but this is not the first time he'd done something like this. He used to make an app called The Magazine that call for people to subscribe monthly. A few months later he sold it to someone else. How can you trust people like this?
A couple weeks into The Magazine, he hired an editor (Glenn Fleishman) after he realised that developing apps (including the one for the The Magazine) was where his interests and talents lied. When he sold the The Magazine, he sold it to Glenn Fleishman who was largely running the editorial side already for a while. No subscribers got harmed in the process.
And I am sure he feels a bit like an idiot already (for spending time and public exposure) on something only to shutter it so soon. But I thought America was all about everybody trying to find their own fortune, to create their own thing and failing was part of the program.
I dont care what universe you are from, two days of software updates is not enough. Especially for a paid App
Which is why he is offering a full refund. How many apps offer a full refund after they get discontinued? And I find it rich to complain about a lack of updates for free apps as you implicitly just did.
Comments
Strangely no. When it comes to my profession, what I charge people for, I always think things through. Never abruptly U-turn like this. Believe it or not!
You never in your life changed your opinion? And whatever product or service you sold, you supported for free for multiple years? Apps stop getting updates every single day and there is always somebody who just bought it the day before.
You never in your life changed your opinion?
Oh yeah.. I did. But I stick with my responsibility. This concept might be new to guys like Marco, who knows?
Please read my last sentence you quoted. There's already one guy who have to re-install iOS 9 as new and lost the app. It's "a few days" we're talking about here. Not years. Not months. Not even weeks.
You mean the person who neither copied the app to iTunes (by simply syncing the phone) nor backed up his phone to iCloud or iTunes? It doesn't matter whether you bought an app yesterday or six months ago, an app can get cancelled every day. If you don't know this yet, you might have to learn it the hard way.
And if somebody looses the app today, it should be fairly trivial to find out that she or he can get fully re-imbursed for it.
You mean the person who neither copied the app to iTunes (by simply syncing the phone) nor backed up his phone to iCloud or iTunes? It doesn't matter whether you bought an app yesterday or six months ago, an app can get cancelled every day. If you don't know this yet, you might have to learn it the hard way.
And if somebody looses the app today, it should be fairly trivial to find out that she or he can get fully re-imbursed for it.
He backed up to iCloud. What's your point? iCould, the basic form of backup that Apple promoted, didn't back up apps. Do you know that?
Oh yeah.. I did. But I stick with my responsibility. This concept might be new to guys like Marco, who knows?
Which he did by re-imbursing everybody. What if you had done something you deeply regretted? Would you continue doing it in order not to disappoint the people who gave you a one-time fee for it. Sometimes you have to make a decision between pissing off two different persons (or groups of persons). And the only harm done here is to inconvenience some people buy having to apply for a refund and install another app. If that is a capital offence in your mind, fine, be my guest.
Which he did by re-imbursing everybody. What if you had done something you deeply regretted? Would you continue doing it in order not to disappoint the people who gave you a one-time fee for it. Sometimes you have to make a decision between pissing off two different persons (or groups of persons). And the only harm done here is to inconvenience some people buy having to apply for a refund and install another app. If that is a capital offence in your mind, fine, be my guest.
What does he regret exactly? You want to defend him. Fine. I'm all ears. But answer me this: What has changed between the day he was grandstanding when the app was launched and a few days later when he pulled it?
Nothing.
Nothing has changed. Only his heart. There was no new requirement from Apple. No new restriction whatsoever. Do you even know the real reason he pulled the app? How long do you follow him?
Anyone who has stolen music has no right to criticise ad blockers. And I think it's safe to say the vast majority of the publishers whining about this have done, and currently do just that. Hypocrites.
Of course my evidence is non existent, but statistically this must be true.
I'm a composer and I rely on people paying for music to survive.
It angers me that publishers are up in arms about ad blocking, yet think it fine to steal other online content.
Not to mention those sites that just republish other writers' work almost word for word.
And those that steal photos, and artwork without any compensation to the photographers and artists.
Can you point me to publishers that have openly supported music piracy and denounced ad blockers?
Yes, there are sites that re-publish other people's work without permission but Appleinsider isn't exactly one of them. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Apparently because you have been wronged, all bets are off and it is fine for anybody to cheat to pay back society for what it has done to you.
Just because some publishers have behaved immorally (or even illegally), doesn't remove the right for other publishers to discuss such issues. Or should I smear all composers because some of them have stolen music from other composers?
Nothing has changed. Only his heart. There was no new requirement from Apple. No new restriction whatsoever. Do you even know the real reason he pulled the app? How long do you follow him?
I've read his blog for about five years. I have listened to podcasts with him almost weekly for a similar amount of time. I have read his blog post in which he announced that he pulled the app.
So, yeah, I do have some reasonable ideas why he pulled the app and it was not because I got bored with it. It is pretty clear that he had some doubts about indiscriminate ad-blocking that have been affected by the discussion in the last couple of days and that he doesn't want to stand in the centre of a shit-storm about this issue. And unless you have been at the centre of a public shit-storm (and with you, I mean your real-life identity, not an anonymous online alias), I would be careful to judge people that have been for their decisions.
I've read his blog for about five years. I have listened to podcasts with him almost weekly for a similar amount of time. I have read his blog post in which he announced that he pulled the app.
So, yeah, I do have some reasonable ideas why he pulled the app and it was not because I got bored with it. It is pretty clear that he had some doubts about indiscriminate ad-blocking and that he doesn't want to stand in the centre of a shit-storm about this issue. And unless you have been at the centre of a public shit-storm (and with you, I mean your real-life identity, not an anonymous online alias), I would be careful to judge people that have been for their decisions.
Oh.. He took a time writing codes for months under the same condition it is today and suddenly, he has doubt? Is he an idiot, to not know what app he's writing? And what it will do?
And let be clear here. He didn't has doubt when he released it but a few days later he had. Ha! Now you have to answer my question above again. What had changed?
Do you know about his app called The Magazine? How does that end for him?
I'm late to your conversation and others probably already said this, but I have to wonder if he was financially persuaded to pull it by Google?
I'm late to your conversation and others probably already said this, but I have to wonder if he was financially persuaded to pull it by Google?
I don't think so. He's rich enough. Beside, he hates Google. Ha!
I Just thought I'd chime in to let everyone know we're listening to your feedback and taking it to heart. I mean, I have a headache now, but I've read all your posts. I know Kasper and Neil have been checking in as well. A lot of the issues you've voiced have been raised behind-the-scenes for a while, and plans are in motion. I can probably confirm new forums are one of the more kinetic projects without getting into too much trouble. Some things will take longer than other things.
To those suggesting we offer a subscription -- we hear you. We want to do it right, and it will take time for things to line up. It's something we had talked about doing when we originally debuted the iOS app, but the subscription numbers made us back off from the idea pretty quickly. If that's something you really want to see, please consider subscribing via the iOS app to show support in a more-than-words kind of way.
As always you can send us your feedback at [email protected] or you can hit us up on twitter @appleinsider ... or just email Neil with your issues, he loves that.
P.S.
We are hiring.
I think Apple's made this decision to support ad blockers because the entire ecosystem around web advertising is flawed. Here we are in a sea of ads surrounding content. MacDailyNews is a prime example of a site where each page is 10% content and 90% advertising. That's just wrong, but they claim that it's necessary. I, for one, have started blocking ad hosts though my /etc/hosts file, and I don't miss them at all. It makes for a more pleasant browsing experience where content is first and foremost. So the system does need to change, and it seems that Apple has taken it upon themselves to force that change. I would almost go as far to say that this is a move to force more people and content providers to use native apps over web-based deliveries. Even web-based apps would be affected by the ad-blockers, and there's far too much abuse in that arena... companies releasing "an official app" only to have it be a wrapper around their website. That's sad.
I am aware of how the loss of ad revenue will affect online publishers. I hope that they are exploring new ways of generating revenue, and new ad opportunities. They do exist. Remember how Apple essentially forced Flash ads to die a slow death? Well, does anybody miss the onslaught of Flash websites in 2015? I would say the world is a better place for it, so I applaud Apple's insistence with that.
I rarely clicked on or visited any of the advertisements that I see on websites. Was my eyeballs blindly scanning past them really enough to keep businesses afloat? Something just doesn't feel right about that. It's like turning every flat surface in a cityscape into advertising (Reno?), and then adding billboards along every road and highway. There comes a time when enough is enough, and I think we reached that point with web advertising. So, once again, I applaud Apple for this move. The world will be better for it, even if there's some roadkill along the way.
Thanks for the link, I thought he was very articulate.
His two suggestions - Purify and Crystal - do seem to have flexible options to avoid blanket elimination
of ads on sites you choose to support...I wonder whether you could or should use both in iOS9?
I use both Ghostery and AdBlockPlus in OS X, and they seem to attack different 'invaders', somewhat.
...This opinion has been brought to you by your friends at...
The problem is that clown charged $2 for his App and then stop supporting it after 2 days.
If it was a free App I would have ZERO problem with what he done. Even worse he is not refunding people directly but is passing the buck to Apple.
Guy is a flat out idiot. If he had reservations he should have made it a free App.
I didn't buy the App but got Crystal for free. I delete the clowns podcast App.
In the link, he includes clear instructions on how to obtain a refund...
To my sense, he simply developed a conscience - a little bit late.
Many of your posts, while irascible, seem to support the idea
of business people displaying a conscience - try applying the standard here.
You've never done something that you immediately regretted? Is this the first paid app abandoned by its dev? What's the worse that can happen if the app stops working?
Strangely no. When it comes to my profession, what I charge people for, I always think things through. Never abruptly U-turn like this. Believe it or not!
Also you might be new to him but this is not the first time he'd done something like this. He used to make an app called The Magazine that call for people to subscribe monthly. A few months later he sold it to someone else. How can you trust people like this?
Marco announced The Magazine October 11, 2012: http://www.marco.org/2012/10/11/the-magazine
Seven months later he announced he was selling it on May 29, 2013: http://www.marco.org/2013/05/29/sold-the-magazine ;
I wouldn't call 7 months "a few", but I understand how you might feel like it was.
The only time I ever felt somewhat burned by Apple was when they dropped the price of the original iPhone by $200 a mere 2 months later. I bought that iPhone on the day it was released. That U-turn by Apple was less than a few months, more like a couple. And boy did people freak out about it.
Turns out Apple did the right thing and gave me and everyone else a $100 store credit because we were early adopters and all felt burned. Apple made the right decision because they both made me happy while lowering the barrier to entry for new customers. More purchasers helped it survive and thrive to become the platform we enjoy today. Overall a pretty solid U-turn IMO.
If big corporations like Apple can have a change of heart or make a U-turn, then why not Marco?
$2.99 for peace is nothing like the $100 difference ($200 price drop minus $100 store credit) I lost being an early adopter with the iPhone. In the end I was perfectly happy losing the $100, the iPhone was just that cool when it came out.
If you want a full refund for Peace it's easy enough to get your $2.99 back.
I'm late to your conversation and others probably already said this, but I have to wonder if he was financially persuaded to pull it by Google?
Agree!
The users downloading ad blockers are most likely heavy content browsers to begin with, which I believe would actually put them in a category of generating more revenue for ad companies, versus people who browse occasionally. If this is correct, then Google, would see an immediate hit to their daily mobile browsing revenue. If said multi-billion dollar ad company were to pay a dev several million to drop it, that would be a fast way to profit with little work, if the dev were so inclined.
He backed up to iCloud. What's your point? iCould, the basic form of backup that Apple promoted, didn't back up apps. Do you know that?
Thinking about it, the one time I attempted to restore from iCloud (in the Apple Store after buying a new phone), I remember I had to download the apps separately after the restore process. But I aborted that restore process and switched to restoring from iTunes because it was faster. But since I (a) semi-regularly sync with iTunes and (b) always back up to iTunes whenever I sync the phone with it, I know that iTunes has the apps (and I have half a dozen backups of my iTunes library) and that restoring from iTunes includes the apps, I guess I blocked out the memory that iCloud backups don't include the apps.
Strangely no. When it comes to my profession, what I charge people for, I always think things through. Never abruptly U-turn like this. Believe it or not!
Also you might be new to him but this is not the first time he'd done something like this. He used to make an app called The Magazine that call for people to subscribe monthly. A few months later he sold it to someone else. How can you trust people like this?
A couple weeks into The Magazine, he hired an editor (Glenn Fleishman) after he realised that developing apps (including the one for the The Magazine) was where his interests and talents lied. When he sold the The Magazine, he sold it to Glenn Fleishman who was largely running the editorial side already for a while. No subscribers got harmed in the process.
And I am sure he feels a bit like an idiot already (for spending time and public exposure) on something only to shutter it so soon. But I thought America was all about everybody trying to find their own fortune, to create their own thing and failing was part of the program.
I dont care what universe you are from, two days of software updates is not enough. Especially for a paid App
Which is why he is offering a full refund. How many apps offer a full refund after they get discontinued? And I find it rich to complain about a lack of updates for free apps as you implicitly just did.