Thread

Apple has added persistent 'ads' to iOS, and it's driving users crazy

822 points · 601 comments · MC995

AnonC · 1790088825 · focus · HN ↗
I doubt John Ternus will change direction anytime soon, since it will look like he’s reversing the plethora of eyesore ads that Tim Cook added over his tenure.
But the Apple with ads is not the Apple that had some taste and discernment in the past. For a long time I’ve visited the App Store’s app update page directly (tap and hold on App Store icon to see the context menu option). Anytime I inadvertently go to the App Store home page or the few times I search, it’s an ad filled disaster!
From this article
> repeatedly attempting to prod customers towards even more of the company’s products might seem cheap, even distasteful.
From a recent post by John Gruber:
> Steve Jobs in 2011: 'We Build Products That We Want for Ourselves, Too, and We Just Don't Want Ads' [1]
Looks like Tim Cook, John Ternus and Eddy Cue really enjoy being swamped with ads in their products. Will there soon be a time when Apple executives start carrying some other brand’s devices with them to avoid having a rotten experience?
[1]: We don’t want ads <a href="https://daringfireball.net/linked/2026/07/28/jobs-we-dont-want-ads" rel="nofollow">https://daringfireball.net/linked/2026/07/28/jobs-we-dont-wa...
1. rapind · 1790089281 · focus · HN ↗
  Imagine spending $2k on a phone only to be presented with ads. Quick way to lose your luxury and loyal customers IMO.
  On the flip side, imagine having another product made for people who can afford $2k phones... Well you'd probably pay a lot to advertise to that market.
  I think trying to balance between these 2 is going to be tough, and your luxury market could evaporate if a significant competitor came along. And by competitor, we're probably just talking about AI in your pocket or on your face that replaces the traditional phone interface. I also think it's a real slippery slope to short term profits once you start taking ad revenue.
  1. akudha · 1790093031 · focus · HN ↗
    Why is it tough to balance? There are ridiculously cheap ad ridden phones sold in Asia - it makes sense because ads subsidize those phones. How does it make sense to show ads in a $2000 phone, especially from a company that prides themselves for "taste", "courage" and a bunch of other buzzwords? And a company that is already far, far ahead of its competitors when it comes to profit margins in the smartphone business? I don't understand.
    autoexec · 1790093524 · focus · HN ↗
    > it makes sense because ads subsidize those phones.
    It's not about the cost of the phone. If it were they'd stop pushing ads the moment they'd earned back the full cost of the discounted phone you bought. It's purely about greed. Companies push ads so they can stuff more cash in their pockets over and over again for years, if not decades, after the money they got from your initial purchase. It doesn't matter if the phone was $100 or $2000 because ads increase their profits in either case, and money is literally the only thing they care about.
    MichaelZuo · 1790094096 · focus · HN ↗
    The real question is why is the median Apple decision maker circa 2026 vastly more short term greedy than the median Apple decision maker circa 2012?
    GolfPopper · 1790094985 · focus · HN ↗
    While I don't know, my suspicion is that the market is saturated, but the company is still hungry for "numbers go up".
    "We have a large, loyal consumer base and can count on a steady return for many years," is no longer sufficient. So corporations cannabalize, turning long-term strengths into short term profits.
    It's what we're doing to our entire civilization. Why should Apple do anything different?
    kleene_op · 1790095096 · focus · HN ↗
    I think it's not just Apple. Everyone and every company seem to become greedier and greedier. Economically, the world is not in a great place, apart from a minority which just gets richer and richer.
    autoexec · 1790095240 · focus · HN ↗
    I think some of it just that different people have different levels of greed. Some of what protected Apple was vanity. I think Steven Jobs cared about how people saw him and his products. He wanted to be the guy who made a premium product. The longer time went on, the less Apple execs cared about what he would have wanted and started caring more about what they wanted. I also think that they're counting on people to have been conditioned to accept ads everywhere. Microsoft has been infesting their OS with ads for over a decade which, like it or not, has normalized that practice.
    Apple is counting on the fact that apple users aren't going to switch to andriod devices just because the company starts pushing ads in their face. In addition to all the customers who don't stop buying apple products because they are filled with ads, a percentage of them will start paying for more Apple products and services because of the ads. The obvious next step from here is to increase the amount of ads until that's no longer the case. Get used to seeing ads iphone users. It's only going to get worse.
    TheOtherHobbes · 1790097719 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the Apple Effect was largely a result of personal narcissism.
    Jobs had to be the smartest and most tasteful person in the room, even when he pretended otherwise. He was desperate for adulation from customers who loved him for his taste, inventiveness, risk-taking, and style.
    The motivation was questionable and arguably toxic, but the results were spectacular.
    Cook was more of a nickel and dime guy. So far Ternus is looking disappointingly similar.
    The share price is all. Customers are the farm animals who Make Number Go Up, and Make Number Go Up is Rule Number One.
    The kind of customer focus that drove Jobs is fading into background noise.
    lostlogin · 1790101931 · focus · HN ↗
    What happened to Apple University, or whatever they called Job’s attempt to document their key to success?
    Some MBA poisoned it?
    CyberDildonics · 1790121998 · focus · HN ↗
    Steven Jobs definitely cared about the polish as a reflection of himself. He wanted people to associate the name Steven Jobs with apple. When people thought of apple they thought of Steven Jobs. He didn't want to put the name of his company on anything unpolished or tasteless because people would associate that with Steven Jobs, since everyone knew Steven Jobs had the final say.
    asdff · 1790095630 · focus · HN ↗
    No more Jobs being tastemaker at the helm. Cook is pure business.
    theendisney · 1790209542 · focus · HN ↗
    Everyone is slowly moving the line. Cant move to far ahead, cant stay to far behind.
    The more we can isolate consumers the less they will care about others and the less of a point complaining.
    serial_dev · 1790093688 · focus · HN ↗
    I guess advertising to people who pay 2000 for a phone are a more valuably audience than those buying phones for 80 bucks.
    But I agree, I wish more leaders in the product development space would just stand up and say: "it's garbage, it's hostile towards our users, so we won't do it, because it compromises our values for a quick buck"
    kakacik · 1790096890 · focus · HN ↗
    apple crowd is highly uncritical, I struggle to use word objective towards their approach to their beloved brand. So corporation is testing how much more they can milk customers before they stand up and go to competition. Their ad business has been growing steadily in past years, its not coming from nowhere and it has been discussed here (with strong disdain) ad nausea.
    Wait, you thought apple, unlike every other company, is not out there for maximal profit for owners but some sort of higher mission? Or where does the misunderstanding comes from? The era of respectful companies having long term utmost moral standing and behavior thinking decades ahead is thing of the past. At least for big boys thats pretty clear.
    theendisney · 1790209250 · focus · HN ↗
    There exists a good answer to that question but they apparently dont know it.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.