The Most Popular Paid App in the App Store Is Gone

19,243

The Most Popular Paid App in the App Store Is Gone

Marco Arment, internet pundit and creator of Instapaper, has decided to stop selling his wildly-popular ad blocker, Peace, for iOS 9. His reason? It “just doesn’t feel good.” But there’s more to it than that.

Like many other entrepreneurs, Arment released his ad blocker on Wednesday, when the release of iOS 9 meant Apple mobile users could finally block ads. Like many publications, Gizmodo pointed out that Apple’s strategy here wasn’t about protecting consumers. Ad blockers destroy the revenue models for many small publishers online, who depend on ad money to pay their writers and editors. And with its News app, Apple is clearly exploring the publishing platform business. So Apple had good reason to undermine other publishers.

Arment says that Peace was the number one paid app in the App Store for 36 hours, and that was part of what made him rethink his choice.

Wrote Arment on his blog today:

Achieving this much success with Peace just doesn’t feel good, which I didn’t anticipate, but probably should have. Ad blockers come with an important asterisk: while they do benefit a ton of people in major ways, they also hurt some, including many who don’t deserve the hit.

Peace required that all ads be treated the same — all-or-nothing enforcement for decisions that aren’t black and white. This approach is too blunt, and Ghostery and I have both decided that it doesn’t serve our goals or beliefs well enough. If we’re going to effect positive change overall, a more nuanced, complex approach is required than what I can bring in a simple iOS app ... 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.

He notes that he still feels that ad blockers are necessary, and he still supports Ghostery’s efforts.

But it sounds like Arment has also realized that ad blockers aren’t a perfectly ethical solution to the problems with spyware-laced advertising online. The situation is complicated, and he’s looking for a “more nuanced” approach. Which — this is a pretty rare thing for an entrepreneur to do.

Let’s hope that his decision inspires other developers, publishers, and entrepreneurs to rethink their strategies too.

[via Marco.org]

Contact the author at annalee@gizmodo.com.
Public PGP key
PGP fingerprint: CA58 326B 1ACB 133B 0D15 5BCE 3FC6 9123 B2AA 1E1A

58Reply

All replies

The following replies are approved. To see additional replies that are pending approval, click Show Pending. Warning: These may contain graphic material.

Show pending

PikapeeAnnalee Newitz
9/18/15 7:17pm

So where does this leave everyone who has paid for the damn app already? I have a strong feeling he won't be issuing refunds while looking for this new approach.

3

Reply
- ReasonsPikapee
  9/18/15 7:26pm
  
  If you bought the app, the app still works. You can also redownload it in the purchased tab any time you need to. It just won’t receive updates or support.
  
  Reply
- 3v3ntH0riz0nReasons
  9/18/15 7:42pm
  
  Thats fuckin lame. I bought this shit yesterday.
  
  6
  
  Reply
- Jeremy TurnleyReasons
  9/18/15 7:45pm
  
  Which means in 3 months it will be useless. Ablock databases and apps need to be maintained to be useful.
  
  7
  
  Reply
- GeniusUnleashedReasons
  9/18/15 9:30pm
  
  But we won’t ever get an update, which is, more or less, an unwritten agreement when I buy an app from a developer.
  
  1
  
  Reply
Show more replies in this thread
mrbofusAnnalee Newitz
9/18/15 7:15pm

This is an interesting about-face from the guy who said two days ago:

“new browser-level countermeasures are needed to protect us from today’s web abuses. And we shouldn’t feel guilty about this.”

It’s also really interesting that in today’s post he says, “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.” But he wasn’t the arbiter of what was being blocked, since he was just using Ghostery’s list, right?

And he also says, “Ad blockers come with an important asterisk: while they do benefit a ton of people in major ways, they also hurt some, including many who don’t deserve the hit.” Yet he continues to recommend using Ghostery on computers and other apps on iOS.

But him pulling his own app after spending however many days/weeks/months coding it seems to recommend not using ad blockers?

Also, it is interesting that he said “Ghostery and I have both decided”. Why does Ghostery need to be involved in the decision for him to pull his app or not?

All that said, I do appreciate him explaining his side of it. Better that than to pull it with zero explanation.

3

Reply
- Arcanemrbofus
  9/18/15 7:30pm
  
  “Pull your app and say it’s due to an internal ethical debate you’re experiencing and we’ll pay you double what you would’ve made with it because we’ll lose 10 times that amount in ad revenue if you don't”
  
  —Anonymous ad network.
  
  23
  
  Reply
- The Ghost of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Arcane
  9/18/15 8:05pm
  
  This thought crossed my mind. Oh well I am sure he wouldn’t be the first if this is what happened.
  
  Reply
- Wilsonmrbofus
  9/18/15 8:24pm
  
  Ghostery is involved because they were partners in the app. They got a cut of the sales from it as a licensing fee for their database. They put effort into helping him with integration. It would be poor form for him to unilaterally decided to do this without at least discussing his rationale with them.
  
  1
  
  Reply
- mrbofusWilson
  9/19/15 1:02am
  
  Ah, gotcha. I went back to his website and read the (somewhat lengthy) post regarding the launch and he does mention that. Thank you for letting me know!
  
  Although I don’t know how much effort they put in to helping him; he says,“The app is completely my code, using a copy of Ghostery’s tracker database hosted on my server that the app periodically checks for updates.” Ghostery’s effort doesn’t seem to be much, if anything, beyond what they would do anyways, which would be updating their database.
  
  Reply
barrister07101Annalee Newitz
9/18/15 7:10pm

“...Arment has also realized that ad blockers aren’t a perfectly ethical solution to the problems with spyware-laced advertising online.”

Exactly why is anyone concerned with an ‘ethical solution’ to ‘spyware-laced advertising’? I understand that the App took an all or nothing approach, but I fail to see the ethical dilemma there? If I want zero advertising and zero tracking and zero spyware laced ads - what is the issue (beyond concern for revenue generation)?

12

Reply
- Reasonsbarrister07101
  9/18/15 7:17pm
  
  The revenue issue is the issue, though not (I think) for the reason you believe. A lot of desktop ad blockers default to blocking everything, which a lot of people like very much. But they also have whitelist functionality that allows the user to show ads on sites they want to support financialy. For me, those sites are primarily independent webcomics (like Hark, A Vagrant! or Dresden Codak) that rely on add revenue to support their creators. Asked to choose between supporting the few creators they find worthwhile and just blocking all ads, I think most people would choose the latter. The problem with this ad blocker wasn’t that it blocked ads, necessarily, but rather that it did so indiscriminately.
  
  1
  
  Reply
- Platypus ManReasons
  9/19/15 12:38am
  
  It’s funny you should mention Hark, A Vagrant - they and several other webcomics use what’s called Project Wonderful, a company created by Dinosaur Comics creator (and current Unbeatable Squirrel Girl writer) Ryan North, specifically to create ads that don’t suck. I added all their ads to my whitelist because of that and I think that’s the better option than adblockers — if everyone had ads that were there, but not obnoxious and terrible, then fewer people would feel that they had to block them, but people would still get money. As it sits now, most admakers just make them harder and harder to block, but that’s a losing battle.
  
  1
  
  Reply
saintandrewsfallAnnalee Newitz
9/18/15 7:38pm

The only reason we need ad blockers is because the ads got too invasive. Instead of having a small banner or “brought to you by” before a video, we got covering the screen with a pop up, flashing shit on the side, videos that auto play, and so on. Tone it down sites and I’ll glad turn off my ad blockers.

11

Reply
- Jeremy Turnleysaintandrewsfall
  9/18/15 7:44pm
  
  That, and stop with the ads on the download page that say “CLICK TO DOWNLOAD” so you intentionally can’t tell what you really need to click. As long as those exist, I will be denying all ad revenue to those sites.
  
  3
  
  Reply
- NameTagUserNamesaintandrewsfall
  9/19/15 12:49am
  
  This is exactly why I block ads. It was one thing when it was just banners. Now I have ads that are based on what I was looking at on other websites or blocks what I’m trying to read or crap that auto plays at loud volumes, or freezes my browser.
  
  I was looking at dildos on Amazon and decided not to buy one so I stopped looking at dildos. Then I decided to read about how Darth Vader might be in the new Star Wars flick. Reading an article about Star Wars and seeing a dildo ad pop up isn’t going to make me rethink my dildo buying decision. Sell me Star Wars shit or a Darth Vader themed dildo. You know, something relevant to what I’m currently looking at.
  
  When I open Rolling Stone and there are ads every page and I can easily skip them. Let me skip ads on websites just as easily and I’ll gladly turn off my adblocker. Until then fuck ‘em.
  
  1
  
  Reply
- PositronicPimpJeremy Turnley
  9/19/15 6:44am
  
  TBH, if you’re not paying attention to what you DL, then you deserve what you get.
  
  Reply
GeniusUnleashedAnnalee Newitz
9/18/15 9:29pm

So does that mean I get my money back?

1

Reply
- NorthernRoamerGeniusUnleashed
  9/18/15 10:53pm
  
  Indubitably.
  
  Reply
- InterdimensionGeniusUnleashed
  9/19/15 12:20am
  
  Yes. You can request a refund for Apple on cases like these (and quite a few other cases, involving “accidental” purchases).
  
  Reply
VeraxusAnnalee Newitz
9/19/15 12:26am

I hope this guy gets sued. There’s a strong case to be made for releasing an update-dependent app for just a couple days, then pulling it permanently. You fuck absolutely everyone who purchased your app. There’re several easy civil arguments to be made... and just once I’d like to see one of these bait-and-switch developers get their legal due.

Reply
- Platypus ManVeraxus
  9/19/15 12:44am
  
  Yeah he doesn’t owe you any damn thing. Carpe diem, there’s always a risk when you buy anything in life. You paid for the app and that’s what you got. You expected updates for free, that’s on you. And from what it seems, Apple is giving out plenty of refunds here for those who ask for one. Not to mention, there are far worse things than losing $3.
  
  He’ll pay for it in the next app he releases because now he has a reputation for this and fewer people will pay him money lest he does it again.
  
  Reply
- ZortozPlatypus Man
  9/19/15 3:30am
  
  I think you’re looking for “caveat emptor” but I agree with your sentiment.
  
  1
  
  Reply
Lotion In The BasketAnnalee Newitz
9/18/15 9:21pm

I block with abandon because I’ve never clicked on an ad, and never will. They are meaningless to me.

1

Reply
- mconheadyLotion In The Basket
  9/19/15 1:37am
  
  You don't have to. Impression count. Stop pretending you are better than ads but good enough for the content you read. You aren't.
  
  Reply
oldtakuAnnalee Newitz
9/18/15 7:29pm

They’re perfectly ethical till you guys offer other payment options. It’s amazing how much the new media companies are like the stubborn old media companies.

I don’t demand free content, but I’m not going to have unprotected sex in Haiti either. You can’t control your ad content, and neither can anyone else. Every single ad network serves up malware (even text only - scripting bugs). Till you fix that (and you can’t), I’m blocking ads from everyone for prophylactic reasons.

And I do support a bunch of Patreons and subscribe to sites like Ars for just that reason.

3

Reply
BerkyjayAnnalee Newitz
9/18/15 9:51pm

If I were him I’d use the app as a bargaining chip. Force advertisers to find a more ethical way to deliver ads or we straight up kill all ads. Frankly if some “little guys” have to go down then so be it. Sometimes bad behavior needs to be checked without prejudice.

Reply
RonGalaxyAnnalee Newitz
9/19/15 3:57am

Offer people the opportunity to remove ads themselves by paying a yearly fee, and this won’t be a problem. If you make good stuff, people will support you. If you don’t, you will die out, along with the Internet’s current form of advertising (which is bad/useless).

Reply