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 wonder how somebody who has no business relationship with Google could be financially motivated by Google to do anything? Or do you think Google is going around and try to buy out all ad-blocker developers? I don't think that could be a sustainable solution for Google.
[quote]This week's launch of iOS 9 also marked the debut of optional content (read: mobile ad) blockers in Apple's Safari browser. The ensuing firestorm has led to a highly emotional debate over intrusive and annoying ads, versus the need for online publishers to make money in order to stay afloat.[/quote] Releasing it was not a firestorm The “ensuing firestorm" IS the "highly emotional debate”.
I want an add blocker that deliberately targets bad actors. For example, if the ads are displayed without annoying popups or other tricks, then they should be allowed. Otherwise, they should be blocked. A big problem right now is that supposedly a lot of sites have no control over the ads they display. When this is the case, then those ads should be blocked if any of them behave badly. The onus is on the site owner to display well-behaved ads.
Personally, I use an ad blocker, but whitelist good sites (including Appleinsider). I don't mind ads on this site, but if I see a popup ad that's hard to dismiss and covers everything or has a countdown timer, I will instantly enable my ad blocker.
Question to AI operators (a little side topic): How feasible would it be to at least offer an subscription option for the desktop site, or a mean to extend the iOS subscription? If your livelihood depends on ads, which I understand, but the only ads you can offer come with all the tracking etc. noise, giving people an option to ad blocking would be a logical step?
I do pay for ad free versions of a few sites on iOS devices, having the same option here would at least allow me to do the right thing. For now there is no acceptable option for either side.
no, you miss the point -- any site that blocks its content and instead renders a nastygram ISNT going to get another second of attention from me. tab closed. done.
you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
And you're not entitled to content that is ad-supported if you block the ads. It's that simple. The direction newspaper sites are going is that they now throw the subscription wall at you if you block any of the ads.
My Point of View as a content provider and an Ad publisher is that the people blocking ads can go buy the DRM-free eBook version of the content if they don't want the free ad supported content. Downloading the content without paying for it in the form of not letting the ads load is the same as downloading the eBook without paying for it. There's also physical printed books for the people who don't like reading content on a LCD screen that actually costs money to print and the content creators make the least amount of money from. If it's your prerogative to be a content pirate, then don't cry when content you like but weren't supporting in any shape goes out of business, or the profitability tells them it's not worth their time to create it.
This is why any "blocking" software must have a whitelist.
These websites that are getting all panicky over content blockers are waaaaay overreacting. Apple didn't build ad blockers into Safari, and so users have to go out of their way to find an app, make sure it's not a piece of junk and that it'll do what they want it to do. Ad blockers have been available for the desktop for years, and the internet has survived. Perhaps the best middle ground is for websites to politely ask users to allow ads, and they better be tasteful ads. And on the user end a ratings based shared whitelist might be a good compromise. Right now I'm seeing four flashing ads all from the same sponsor on this page that I'd love to block. AppleInsider has been on my whitelist for a while now, but I might reconsider.
And you're not entitled to content that is ad-supported if you block the ads.
Unless and until YOU pay my data fees, I have the absolute right to decide what content I do not want coming over that connection.
Casual viewers might decide to whitelist you if they feel that your content is valuable and they trust you won't assault them with an ad onslaught. If you block them right out of the gate, they'll never find that out and you'll never get those viewers. No one will link to your content, no one will discover it accidentally, and your installed base will shrink. You're only hurting yourself.
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.
You hit the nail on the head. When he launched The Magazine, he said it will be curated by him. Less than a month after, he hired someone else to do it instead. And not too long after that he sold the app completely.
I'm sure he had all the perfect reasons for it but how can you trust a guy like this I'm not sure. The app is monthly subscription and people subscribed to it because it's Marco's app and Marco's curation. Another U-turn for him.
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.
You hit the nail on the head. When he launched The Magazine, he said it will be curated by him. Less than a month after, he hired someone else to do it instead. And not too long after that he sold the app completely.
I'm sure he had all the perfect reasons for it but how can you trust a guy like this I'm not sure. The app is monthly subscription and people subscribed to it because it's Marco's app and Marco's curation. Another U-turn for him.
Thankfully its a free country by and large in the USA and Marco can decide what he wants to do for a living.
If someone opens a business only to find that it doesn't suit them or they do not want to run it anymore, I fail to see how selling said business or shutting it down is so terrible. That is not a black mark against someones character necessarily.
The Magazine had a good run for over two years but in the end it didn't work out. From The Magazine homepage:
"The Magazine published 58 issues over more than two years on a wide variety of subjects of interest to curious people. It ceased publication on December 18, 2014.
The Magazine was funded entirely by subscribers."
I am not sure if The Magazine would have survived had Marco stuck with it and dumped all of his energy into it. But that is not what he wanted to do. He wanted to make apps like Overcast and Peace, do a podcast and blog, and probably other things.
To expect someone to work on something that they don't feel good about is simply bananas.
If you never want to trust Marco ever again, then don't buy anything from him ever again. But if he comes out with a decent new product in the future you would only be hurting yourself by not enjoying it. He likely won't miss your money.
If you want a $2.99 refund for Peace you can easily get it. It's not like Marco has stolen your money. Although it appears he has stolen your good will toward him. Perhaps with some time the wounds will heal.
Thankfully its a free country by and large in the USA and Marco can decide what he wants to do for a living.
....
The Magazine had a good run for over two years but in the end it didn't work out. From The Magazine homepage:
"The Magazine published 58 issues over more than two years on a wide variety of subjects of interest to curious people. It ceased publication on December 18, 2014.
The Magazine was funded entirely by subscribers."
I am not sure if The Magazine would have survived had Marco stuck with it and dumped all of his energy into it. But that is not what he wanted to do. He wanted to make apps like Overcast and Peace, do a podcast and blog, and probably other things.
Sure. And I'm free to trust anyone I deem trustable.
It's not about survival. I don't hold the grudge that the Magazine had to fold. It's about sticking to your words. If you don't understand that then I have no more to say to you.
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 bought his app, but in light of his childish decision to not support it, I'll definitely be requesting a refund.
Thankfully its a free country by and large in the USA and Marco can decide what he wants to do for a living.
....
The Magazine had a good run for over two years but in the end it didn't work out. From The Magazine homepage:
"The Magazine published 58 issues over more than two years on a wide variety of subjects of interest to curious people. It ceased publication on December 18, 2014.
The Magazine was funded entirely by subscribers."
I am not sure if The Magazine would have survived had Marco stuck with it and dumped all of his energy into it. But that is not what he wanted to do. He wanted to make apps like Overcast and Peace, do a podcast and blog, and probably other things.
Sure. And I'm free to trust anyone I deem trustable.
It's not about survival. I don't hold the grudge that the Magazine had to fold. It's about sticking to your words. If you don't understand that then I have no more to say to you.
Not sure why you had to edit my words in order to make your point. Since words have meaning.
Sometimes people when faced with new information change their way of thinking. In science it's a lot like discovering something new that disrupts the old way of thinking. No one should be forced to stick to their words if they don't feel those old words still hold the same meaning as they once did.
If you can't understand that I feel sorry for you. Seems you would rather have a world where everyone stuck to their word and never updated their thinking. That is a sad world if you ask me.
I'll never use a Marco app again. I deleted his podcast app.
Getting this angry about an imaginary $3 that you didn't spend isn't healthy. I don't know what's going on in your life but you might want to take a step back.
And you're not entitled to content that is ad-supported if you block the ads. It's that simple. The direction newspaper sites are going is that they now throw the subscription wall at you if you block any of the ads.
My Point of View as a content provider and an Ad publisher is that the people blocking ads can go buy the DRM-free eBook version of the content if they don't want the free ad supported content. Downloading the content without paying for it in the form of not letting the ads load is the same as downloading the eBook without paying for it. There's also physical printed books for the people who don't like reading content on a LCD screen that actually costs money to print and the content creators make the least amount of money from. If it's your prerogative to be a content pirate, then don't cry when content you like but weren't supporting in any shape goes out of business, or the profitability tells them it's not worth their time to create it.
This is why any "blocking" software must have a whitelist.
I agree with the whitelist, but honestly, if you're screwing up my experience to the point where I'd rather just not visit your site (and there are a number of sites I just no longer read), you've lost nothing by me blocking ads.
I see no problem with throwing up a paywall for those who block ads (not trackers, though - just ads). If everybody does that, enough people may pay to make the site worthwhile without ads - or the ads will continue to provide revenue if enough people unblock them.
I'd pay not only for an ad-free AI site, but also for the mods to rid the troll infestation that's been plaguing the forums and letting them run amok.
Hell, if I didn't have alternatives to this site, I'd pay to have the hostile, arrogant, self-important geek jerks eliminated from the "community", not just the topic trolls. Frankly, when the "troll" is actually a long standing member that never gets moderated, it just degrades the overall experience for those that want nothing to do with such kinds of personalities. The Internet is a wonderful medium for anonymous cowards to flex the muscles they wish they had, in a safely consequence-devoid environment.
But then, technology forums tend to attract members with social skills deficits. That's been a problem with the tech business from day one, but got much worse when Apple and others invented "geek IS chic" marketing. The revenge of the nerds thing went nuts when those nerds found the libertarian party, and the other associated mentalities rationalizing/justifying selfishness and capitalism as the apex of humanity, trying to use "cold logic" to justify their purely self-serving attitudes...
Seriously: why the hell can't I scroll up without the page jumping to the top? Only AI does this to me. It's actually more annoying than the sites that break "tap top of screen to scroll to top of page" functionality.
Comments
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 wonder how somebody who has no business relationship with Google could be financially motivated by Google to do anything? Or do you think Google is going around and try to buy out all ad-blocker developers? I don't think that could be a sustainable solution for Google.
Releasing it was not a firestorm
The “ensuing firestorm" IS the "highly emotional debate”.
Personally, I use an ad blocker, but whitelist good sites (including Appleinsider). I don't mind ads on this site, but if I see a popup ad that's hard to dismiss and covers everything or has a countdown timer, I will instantly enable my ad blocker.
Question to AI operators (a little side topic): How feasible would it be to at least offer an subscription option for the desktop site, or a mean to extend the iOS subscription? If your livelihood depends on ads, which I understand, but the only ads you can offer come with all the tracking etc. noise, giving people an option to ad blocking would be a logical step?
I do pay for ad free versions of a few sites on iOS devices, having the same option here would at least allow me to do the right thing. For now there is no acceptable option for either side.
And you're not entitled to content that is ad-supported if you block the ads. It's that simple. The direction newspaper sites are going is that they now throw the subscription wall at you if you block any of the ads.
My Point of View as a content provider and an Ad publisher is that the people blocking ads can go buy the DRM-free eBook version of the content if they don't want the free ad supported content. Downloading the content without paying for it in the form of not letting the ads load is the same as downloading the eBook without paying for it. There's also physical printed books for the people who don't like reading content on a LCD screen that actually costs money to print and the content creators make the least amount of money from. If it's your prerogative to be a content pirate, then don't cry when content you like but weren't supporting in any shape goes out of business, or the profitability tells them it's not worth their time to create it.
This is why any "blocking" software must have a whitelist.
These websites that are getting all panicky over content blockers are waaaaay overreacting. Apple didn't build ad blockers into Safari, and so users have to go out of their way to find an app, make sure it's not a piece of junk and that it'll do what they want it to do. Ad blockers have been available for the desktop for years, and the internet has survived. Perhaps the best middle ground is for websites to politely ask users to allow ads, and they better be tasteful ads. And on the user end a ratings based shared whitelist might be a good compromise. Right now I'm seeing four flashing ads all from the same sponsor on this page that I'd love to block. AppleInsider has been on my whitelist for a while now, but I might reconsider.
Anyway, I'm sure it'll work itself out.
Unless and until YOU pay my data fees, I have the absolute right to decide what content I do not want coming over that connection.
Casual viewers might decide to whitelist you if they feel that your content is valuable and they trust you won't assault them with an ad onslaught. If you block them right out of the gate, they'll never find that out and you'll never get those viewers. No one will link to your content, no one will discover it accidentally, and your installed base will shrink. You're only hurting yourself.
lol.
If they still show the content to me while the ads are blocked, I absolutely can view it.
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.
You hit the nail on the head. When he launched The Magazine, he said it will be curated by him. Less than a month after, he hired someone else to do it instead. And not too long after that he sold the app completely.
I'm sure he had all the perfect reasons for it but how can you trust a guy like this I'm not sure. The app is monthly subscription and people subscribed to it because it's Marco's app and Marco's curation. Another U-turn for him.
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.
You hit the nail on the head. When he launched The Magazine, he said it will be curated by him. Less than a month after, he hired someone else to do it instead. And not too long after that he sold the app completely.
I'm sure he had all the perfect reasons for it but how can you trust a guy like this I'm not sure. The app is monthly subscription and people subscribed to it because it's Marco's app and Marco's curation. Another U-turn for him.
Thankfully its a free country by and large in the USA and Marco can decide what he wants to do for a living.
If someone opens a business only to find that it doesn't suit them or they do not want to run it anymore, I fail to see how selling said business or shutting it down is so terrible. That is not a black mark against someones character necessarily.
The Magazine had a good run for over two years but in the end it didn't work out. From The Magazine homepage:
"The Magazine published 58 issues over more than two years on a wide variety of subjects of interest to curious people. It ceased publication on December 18, 2014.
The Magazine was funded entirely by subscribers."
I am not sure if The Magazine would have survived had Marco stuck with it and dumped all of his energy into it. But that is not what he wanted to do. He wanted to make apps like Overcast and Peace, do a podcast and blog, and probably other things.
To expect someone to work on something that they don't feel good about is simply bananas.
If you never want to trust Marco ever again, then don't buy anything from him ever again. But if he comes out with a decent new product in the future you would only be hurting yourself by not enjoying it. He likely won't miss your money.
If you want a $2.99 refund for Peace you can easily get it. It's not like Marco has stolen your money. Although it appears he has stolen your good will toward him. Perhaps with some time the wounds will heal.
Thankfully its a free country by and large in the USA and Marco can decide what he wants to do for a living.
....
The Magazine had a good run for over two years but in the end it didn't work out. From The Magazine homepage:
"The Magazine published 58 issues over more than two years on a wide variety of subjects of interest to curious people. It ceased publication on December 18, 2014.
The Magazine was funded entirely by subscribers."
I am not sure if The Magazine would have survived had Marco stuck with it and dumped all of his energy into it. But that is not what he wanted to do. He wanted to make apps like Overcast and Peace, do a podcast and blog, and probably other things.
Sure. And I'm free to trust anyone I deem trustable.
It's not about survival. I don't hold the grudge that the Magazine had to fold. It's about sticking to your words. If you don't understand that then I have no more to say to you.
I bought his app, but in light of his childish decision to not support it, I'll definitely be requesting a refund.
I bought his app, but in light of his childish decision to not support it, I'll definitely be requesting a refund.
That is a wise thing to do.
Also, this is a good article on WIRED about ad blocker on iOS 9. There're some recommendations in there
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/content-blocking-apps/
I really love to have Hide & Seek on desktop.
Thankfully its a free country by and large in the USA and Marco can decide what he wants to do for a living.
....
The Magazine had a good run for over two years but in the end it didn't work out. From The Magazine homepage:
"The Magazine published 58 issues over more than two years on a wide variety of subjects of interest to curious people. It ceased publication on December 18, 2014.
The Magazine was funded entirely by subscribers."
I am not sure if The Magazine would have survived had Marco stuck with it and dumped all of his energy into it. But that is not what he wanted to do. He wanted to make apps like Overcast and Peace, do a podcast and blog, and probably other things.
Sure. And I'm free to trust anyone I deem trustable.
It's not about survival. I don't hold the grudge that the Magazine had to fold. It's about sticking to your words. If you don't understand that then I have no more to say to you.
Not sure why you had to edit my words in order to make your point. Since words have meaning.
Sometimes people when faced with new information change their way of thinking. In science it's a lot like discovering something new that disrupts the old way of thinking. No one should be forced to stick to their words if they don't feel those old words still hold the same meaning as they once did.
If you can't understand that I feel sorry for you. Seems you would rather have a world where everyone stuck to their word and never updated their thinking. That is a sad world if you ask me.
Quick question, did you actually buy Peace?
I'll never use a Marco app again. I deleted his podcast app.
Getting this angry about an imaginary $3 that you didn't spend isn't healthy. I don't know what's going on in your life but you might want to take a step back.
What News app? I cannot locate it on iPhone running iOS 9.
It's US-only at the moment.
I agree with the whitelist, but honestly, if you're screwing up my experience to the point where I'd rather just not visit your site (and there are a number of sites I just no longer read), you've lost nothing by me blocking ads.
I see no problem with throwing up a paywall for those who block ads (not trackers, though - just ads). If everybody does that, enough people may pay to make the site worthwhile without ads - or the ads will continue to provide revenue if enough people unblock them.
Hell, if I didn't have alternatives to this site, I'd pay to have the hostile, arrogant, self-important geek jerks eliminated from the "community", not just the topic trolls. Frankly, when the "troll" is actually a long standing member that never gets moderated, it just degrades the overall experience for those that want nothing to do with such kinds of personalities. The Internet is a wonderful medium for anonymous cowards to flex the muscles they wish they had, in a safely consequence-devoid environment.
But then, technology forums tend to attract members with social skills deficits. That's been a problem with the tech business from day one, but got much worse when Apple and others invented "geek IS chic" marketing. The revenge of the nerds thing went nuts when those nerds found the libertarian party, and the other associated mentalities rationalizing/justifying selfishness and capitalism as the apex of humanity, trying to use "cold logic" to justify their purely self-serving attitudes...