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. al_borland · 1790095023 · focus · HN ↗
    > 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've been hearing this kind of thing a lot, but if a customer is paying for a luxury product, and part of that luxury is not having ads (or being an ad)... advertising to them because of it breaches the trust, erases the luxury, and alienates that valuable customer.
    At some point, customers price themselves out of advertising. We see this in fashion. Designer brands have their consumer level lines with logos all over them, then they usually have a luxury line where those logos go away. With Ralph Lauren, for example, Polo gets you a logo on almost everything[0], while Purple is nearly logo free[1].
    [0] <a href="https://www.ralphlauren.com/men-clothing-button-down-shirts/r/polo-ralph-lauren" rel="nofollow">https://www.ralphlauren.com/men-clothing-button-down-shirts/...
    [1] <a href="https://www.ralphlauren.com/men-clothing-button-down-shirts/r/purple-label" rel="nofollow">https://www.ralphlauren.com/men-clothing-button-down-shirts/...
    deathanatos · 1790095448 · focus · HN ↗
    Customers who are "only" willing to pay $130 for a shirt should get ads, it's fine, because if they didn't want ads, they should pay up for that shirt, to the tune of $500¹?
    Do you understand how incredibly privileged you have to be to afford a $500 shirt? (Most people would say that about the $130 shirt!) Then that principle, applied across my entire set of life expenses, just to get a company to not take advantage of me?
    ¹… and that's tossing the $3,000 shirt on that page, too…
    rrr_oh_man · 1790149277 · focus · HN ↗
    I've never understood this.
    You can get shirts tailored (bespoke, not MTM!) for well under $100 in Istanbul, around $150 in Hongkong, and about $200 in Mexico City.
    So why pay to be a walking advertisement for some European brand conglomerate?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.