4 ms·

Wow. That's a real example of putting money where the mouth is. I always felt that he is an opinionated, stand up guy but this move actually proves that he mea

Wow. That's a real example of putting money where the mouth is. I always felt that he is an opinionated, stand up guy but this move actually proves that he means what he says and he was sincere about his feelings on ad blockers [1]. Much respect. [1] http://www.marco.org/2015/09/18/just-doesnt-feel-good http://www.marco.org/2015/09/18/just-doesnt-feel-good

benologist 11y ago
In the submitted post he says Apple made the decision without consulting him.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- loumf 11y ago
  This makes sense. The App Store is a store and Marco is a wholesaler to the store -- the customer's relationship is with Apple. Stores refund purchases all of the time without talking to their suppliers (or asking permission). Peace uses a block-list that was kept up-to-date on a server -- without it, the app is useless (defective). Apple would be negligent not to refund it immediately.
johnpowell 11y ago
He was a founder in Tumblr. He probably isn't worried about cash.
- ryanSrich 11y ago
  Yep. Pretty easy to put your money where your mouth is when you have gobs of it.
  - idlewords 11y ago
    That's just a pointlessly catty thing to say.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      Doesn't make it any less true to the point that's a trivial observation: people with more money can more easily afford to give some of it where "their mouth is".
      - vacri 11y ago
        Nevertheless, just because it's "easier" doesn't mean that it's actually done - there are plenty of arsehole rich folks who could spread their money around more. A rich person being nice is still a person being nice.
        yarou 11y ago
        Sure, but a rich person is also a person that is rich. Their calculus in determining a potentially "ethical" decision is much different than, say, a developer struggling in the former eastern bloc. People rarely ever operate in a vacuum, and a person is subconsciously influenced by a variety of factors, of which financial status is one. In this particular instance, it would be a bit disingenuous to assume that Marco made this decision on his own, operating in a vacuum. The real world is a lot more complex than the simple case you are making it to be.
        vacri 11y ago
        So... you're saying that "rich people can't act morally, because they have fat wallets" isn't a simple case? That's what I'm arguing against. You're projecting this 'vacuum' idea onto me, because I said nothing of the sort.
        coldtea 11y ago
        >So... you're saying that "rich people can't act morally, because they have fat wallets" No, he's saying it's easy for rich people to act morally in such cases, and in others too (e.g. not steal). Especially in the case of giving back money / charity, that we're talking about in this thread: if both a rich and a poor person give $10.000 to a charity, for a rich person it could be 1/1000 of his income, whereas for an average person it could be 1/5 of his income. It's not even debatable which made the bigger sacrifice, it's pure math. In fact (and continuing with the $1m/year vs $50k/year) the rich person giving $10.000 --which can have people swoon, news coverage and a front seat to the charity's dinner party--, would be equivalent (as percentage of income) to the average person giving $50 to his local charity, which nobody would see as particularly great.
  - lips 11y ago
    And yet so many people with aforementioned gobs don't. Stand-up guy is stand-up. The Apple side of this is intriguing. I guess this is pocket change to them, but did they do this after reading about his thoughts and decision? Or was it simply cost-effective to batch return the money vs. reviewing and processing an unknown number of individual requests?
    - iofj 11y ago
      Alternate explanation : he's still employed by yahoo, has millions in unvested shared (it's still less than 4 years), and got threatened with termination. Just an alternative theory. He may have simply chosen the more money option.
      - paulcole 11y ago
        Wait, why would he still be employed by Yahoo? Pretty sure he left at least a year before the acquisition.

benologist 11y ago

In the submitted post he says Apple made the decision without consulting him.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
loumf 11y ago
This makes sense. The App Store is a store and Marco is a wholesaler to the store -- the customer's relationship is with Apple. Stores refund purchases all of the time without talking to their suppliers (or asking permission). Peace uses a block-list that was kept up-to-date on a server -- without it, the app is useless (defective). Apple would be negligent not to refund it immediately.

johnpowell 11y ago

He was a founder in Tumblr. He probably isn't worried about cash.

ryanSrich 11y ago
Yep. Pretty easy to put your money where your mouth is when you have gobs of it.
- idlewords 11y ago
  That's just a pointlessly catty thing to say.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Doesn't make it any less true to the point that's a trivial observation: people with more money can more easily afford to give some of it where "their mouth is".
    - vacri 11y ago
      Nevertheless, just because it's "easier" doesn't mean that it's actually done - there are plenty of arsehole rich folks who could spread their money around more. A rich person being nice is still a person being nice.
      - yarou 11y ago
        Sure, but a rich person is also a person that is rich. Their calculus in determining a potentially "ethical" decision is much different than, say, a developer struggling in the former eastern bloc. People rarely ever operate in a vacuum, and a person is subconsciously influenced by a variety of factors, of which financial status is one. In this particular instance, it would be a bit disingenuous to assume that Marco made this decision on his own, operating in a vacuum. The real world is a lot more complex than the simple case you are making it to be.
        vacri 11y ago
        So... you're saying that "rich people can't act morally, because they have fat wallets" isn't a simple case? That's what I'm arguing against. You're projecting this 'vacuum' idea onto me, because I said nothing of the sort.
        coldtea 11y ago
        >So... you're saying that "rich people can't act morally, because they have fat wallets" No, he's saying it's easy for rich people to act morally in such cases, and in others too (e.g. not steal). Especially in the case of giving back money / charity, that we're talking about in this thread: if both a rich and a poor person give $10.000 to a charity, for a rich person it could be 1/1000 of his income, whereas for an average person it could be 1/5 of his income. It's not even debatable which made the bigger sacrifice, it's pure math. In fact (and continuing with the $1m/year vs $50k/year) the rich person giving $10.000 --which can have people swoon, news coverage and a front seat to the charity's dinner party--, would be equivalent (as percentage of income) to the average person giving $50 to his local charity, which nobody would see as particularly great.
- lips 11y ago
  And yet so many people with aforementioned gobs don't. Stand-up guy is stand-up. The Apple side of this is intriguing. I guess this is pocket change to them, but did they do this after reading about his thoughts and decision? Or was it simply cost-effective to batch return the money vs. reviewing and processing an unknown number of individual requests?
  - iofj 11y ago
    Alternate explanation : he's still employed by yahoo, has millions in unvested shared (it's still less than 4 years), and got threatened with termination. Just an alternative theory. He may have simply chosen the more money option.
    - paulcole 11y ago
      Wait, why would he still be employed by Yahoo? Pretty sure he left at least a year before the acquisition.