Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

"The top-selling advert-blocking software on Apple's App Store will soon let companies pay to show you ads"

http://news.sky.com/story/1558786/be...-soon-show-ads

riiidaa

iTrader: (2)

How is Apple to blame? A developer of a third party app is making a deal with another third party?

neil-h

Because as is always the way in any thread about Apple that wasn't started by Jack, someone is trying to troll Jack.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Because they are continuing to allow this ad blocker to be sold in their store which infact does not do what it is being paid for. So they are indirectly encouraging fraud. By allowing something to be sold that does not do what it is intended for.

Tidgy

well to be fair its not like jack posts anything other than isheep worship so do need some balance,,,,,,

riiidaa

iTrader: (2)

I guess all countries (bar Switzerland) are encouraging VW and used car dealerships to commit fraud

JackClark

I just wish people would read up on the links they're posting.

Its opt in. Which should shut you up but if you want the full and perfectly reasonable explanation then stop posting dumb and start searching smart.

JackClark

http://murphyapps.co/blog/2015/9/25/on-acceptable-ads

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

What makes you think I didn't read the link?

Also it is not opt in, it is opt out as the ads will "likely to be on by default"
So this also raised another issue, not only is he selling an ad blocker that allows companies to pay for his blocker not to block their ads but he also provides an option to block ads that companies are specifically paying for his blocker not to block.

JackClark

I put it on a plate for you and you still don't get it

If it's off by default I'd turn it on, blanket banning isn't a great idea.

Devildog

None of which is Fraud Wurzel.


Does the add blocker block adds - yes if set to do so.


Therefore it does what it says on the tin. Just like Ronseal. Stop being so dramatic