[rebelos]

That's a very cavalier attitude given how much of the consumer app ecosystem depends on ad revenue to survive. Having it drop precipitously over a very short span of time could trigger a chain reaction that might ultimately reduce the availability or utility of apps for consumers. It will also disproportionately harm the long tail of app developers.

I detest tracking just as much as anyone else here but I'm skeptical this is the right way to go about dealing with it. A more sensible system would give users the choice between accepting targeted ads or paying a fee for the service.

[JoshTriplett]

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of ad-based apps (without IAP of some kind) make less than $0.50 lifetime revenue on average from 90+% of users. Some quick checking suggests that the median total revenue for most apps is close to $0. Most apps would probably win out if they said "turns out ads don't work, would you be willing to pay $0.99". Even if they lost users, they'd gain revenue.

Whenever an unsustainable free service comes out on HN, and it's something people actually want, there's often a comment saying "this seems unsustainable, so I don't think I can count on it; please let us pay you". The same thing applies to apps.

[fomine3]

I doubt lifetime revenue is less than $0.5 in general. I'd like to see statistics. Even if $0.5 is correct, do you think 1/2 of users pay $0.99? Looks like optimistic.

[zo1]

I'd say that's a good thing. I would further posit that some number above 90% of all apps on the respective app-stores are useless junk and need to be pruned immediately. Ads are a societal ill at this point (just look at what it's done to mobile gaming, or how somehow we have profitable websites seem to need to put ads on anyways e.g. Ebay).

[justinclift]

Lots of "mights" and "coulds" there. Evidence please. :)