5 ms·

We're trying to make something people want. The traction we've achieved suggests that a lot of people do want more context and social information in their inbo

We're trying to make something people want. The traction we've achieved suggests that a lot of people do want more context and social information in their inbox. It also suggests that a lot of people don't want the ads Gmail serves. If it becomes an issue, we'll probably add an option to get Rapportive to coexist with the ads rather than replacing them. Some people might even use it: we've had a couple of requests from people who want to monitor the Gmail ads they've purchased, or who use the ads as a way of keeping an eye on their competitors' marketing activities. We are making Gmail more useful, and we think that's beneficial for Google. The revenue from the ads is certainly not the only benefit Google derives from Gmail: others include paid inbox upgrades, driving adoption of Google Apps, and the world's biggest corpus for spam filtering. We're not depriving them of any of those benefits; if we can increase adoption or engagement with Gmail, then we actually reinforce them. We've even heard of people switching to Gmail because they want the Rapportive sidebar. The ethics of hiding the Gmail ads rather depend on the facts of Google's business strategy, and those facts are probably not available to anyone commenting here. You assert that "the whole principle of gmail being free is that it is ad supported" - that's not a fact, it's just one of the possible strategies Google might be taking. Here's a fact: the most popular entry by far in the Google Chrome Extensions gallery - with 1.3 million installs, and 126k more each week - is AdBlock [1], which hides the Gmail ads. Google could trivially ban it from the gallery, but it's still there. We don't have any ethical problems with what we're doing, but we understand if you feel software that blocks the ads is wrong, and if so you shouldn't install Rapportive until we solve that. In the meantime, don't forget to keep clicking on those ads ;) [1] https://chrome.google.com/extensions/list/popular?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/extensions/list/popular?hl=en Update: added link to list of most popular Chrome extensions Update 2: fix typo, add emphasis.

jacquesm 16y ago
> We're trying to make something people want That's not some kind of magic incantation that gives you the right to do as you please though. > If it becomes an issue, we'll probably add an option to get Rapportive to coexist with the ads rather than replacing them. Shouldn't that have been the default? > Here's a fact: the most popular entry by far in the Google Chrome Extensions gallery - with 1.3 million installs, and 126k more each week - is AdBlock, which hides the Gmail ads. Adblock does not target a specific site, it hides all the ads. I'm afraid you're setting precedent here, that by doing this you are opening the doors to it being 'ok' to modifying content in-flight in ways that the creator of that content does not sanction and does not condone, directly targeting the bottom line of one specific site. I'm sure you're doing it out of a good motivation but I simply can't find myself agreeing with this strategy, especially not when you admit that you have alternatives. > We don't have any ethical problems with what we're doing, Apparently :) > but we understand if you feel software that blocks the ads is wrong I'm fine with ad blocking in the general case, just can't see why you wouldn't have any ethical issues with this. Anyway, enough said, I do hope you succeed and I do hope that at some point you might come to see things my way. If someone pulled a 'rapportive' on you I'd be on your side just as strongly.
- samstokes 16y ago
  > Adblock does not target a specific site, it hides all the ads. I don't get this point at all. Why is it more ethical for a user to choose to hide ads indiscriminately than hiding ads on certain sites? Would it resolve your ethical concerns if our software blocked all ads everywhere, like Adblock does, but continued to only add value to Gmail? (The latter is functionally identical to installing both Rapportive and Adblock.)
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    I'm not sure if what I've written so far didn't get the point across how I will be able to do so with more words, but I'll give it a try. Targeting a large website to launch your product off is a fine strategy, you benefit from the existing userbase. That should be 'profit' enough for anybody, there is no need to kick them in the teeth by affecting their bottom line in a negative way, especially if you don't absolutely have to. Those users that did not want to see those ads already had the option to install adblock, so by doing this you are not adding anything that wasn't on the table before, only now you and not the user has taken the decision to block those ads. It's either rapportive, or ads, but never both and that should have been the default. Clearer now? I think this whole ad-replacement gig is a blemish on an otherwise very nicely conceived and executed product.
    - amirmc 16y ago
      "only now you and not the user has taken the decision to block those ads" Actually the user does make the decision to block those ads. I don't care much for the ads in Gmail but never overcame my inertia to even think of installing an adblocker. Along comes Rapportive, which promises to offer me something useful and hey presto, my inertia is overcome. In the end the user makes the choice and that is as it should be. It shouldn't be up to the user to worry about how Gmail does (or does not) make money.
mikeryan 16y ago
We making Gmail more useful, and we think that's beneficial for Google. Making Gmail more useful by removing it's revenue stream doesn't seem like a tradeoff most people would be interested in.
- jedc 16y ago
  I've found that Google likes users that are engaged with their products, whether it's search, Gmail, or any of the other tons of products. Search is only valuable for Google because a lot of people use it. Surely Gmail is more valuable the more other people use it? (Even if it's not in the same way.) I mean, that's the whole point of the Google Apps Marketplace: http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/ http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/
  - mikeryan 16y ago
    Search and Gmail are only valuable because people use it and because they sell ads. It takes both users and ads - one without the other is useless.
    - jedc 16y ago
      Please see my other comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1628381 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1628381 In a nutshell, Gmail business model != Google Search business model. Therefore, the relative importance of revenue streams is different.
      - mikeryan 16y ago
        It seems to me that if you're okay replacing ads on Gmail you'd be okay with replacing ads on Search as well? Or are you saying you're okay with replacing ads on Gmail - but on Search replacing ads would be wrong? This seems like a slippery slope you're treading.
        jedc 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

> We're trying to make something people want That's not some kind of magic incantation that gives you the right to do as you please though. > If it becomes an issue, we'll probably add an option to get Rapportive to coexist with the ads rather than replacing them. Shouldn't that have been the default? > Here's a fact: the most popular entry by far in the Google Chrome Extensions gallery - with 1.3 million installs, and 126k more each week - is AdBlock, which hides the Gmail ads. Adblock does not target a specific site, it hides all the ads. I'm afraid you're setting precedent here, that by doing this you are opening the doors to it being 'ok' to modifying content in-flight in ways that the creator of that content does not sanction and does not condone, directly targeting the bottom line of one specific site. I'm sure you're doing it out of a good motivation but I simply can't find myself agreeing with this strategy, especially not when you admit that you have alternatives. > We don't have any ethical problems with what we're doing, Apparently :) > but we understand if you feel software that blocks the ads is wrong I'm fine with ad blocking in the general case, just can't see why you wouldn't have any ethical issues with this. Anyway, enough said, I do hope you succeed and I do hope that at some point you might come to see things my way. If someone pulled a 'rapportive' on you I'd be on your side just as strongly.

samstokes 16y ago
> Adblock does not target a specific site, it hides all the ads. I don't get this point at all. Why is it more ethical for a user to choose to hide ads indiscriminately than hiding ads on certain sites? Would it resolve your ethical concerns if our software blocked all ads everywhere, like Adblock does, but continued to only add value to Gmail? (The latter is functionally identical to installing both Rapportive and Adblock.)
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I'm not sure if what I've written so far didn't get the point across how I will be able to do so with more words, but I'll give it a try. Targeting a large website to launch your product off is a fine strategy, you benefit from the existing userbase. That should be 'profit' enough for anybody, there is no need to kick them in the teeth by affecting their bottom line in a negative way, especially if you don't absolutely have to. Those users that did not want to see those ads already had the option to install adblock, so by doing this you are not adding anything that wasn't on the table before, only now you and not the user has taken the decision to block those ads. It's either rapportive, or ads, but never both and that should have been the default. Clearer now? I think this whole ad-replacement gig is a blemish on an otherwise very nicely conceived and executed product.
  - amirmc 16y ago
    "only now you and not the user has taken the decision to block those ads" Actually the user does make the decision to block those ads. I don't care much for the ads in Gmail but never overcame my inertia to even think of installing an adblocker. Along comes Rapportive, which promises to offer me something useful and hey presto, my inertia is overcome. In the end the user makes the choice and that is as it should be. It shouldn't be up to the user to worry about how Gmail does (or does not) make money.

mikeryan 16y ago

We making Gmail more useful, and we think that's beneficial for Google. Making Gmail more useful by removing it's revenue stream doesn't seem like a tradeoff most people would be interested in.

jedc 16y ago
I've found that Google likes users that are engaged with their products, whether it's search, Gmail, or any of the other tons of products. Search is only valuable for Google because a lot of people use it. Surely Gmail is more valuable the more other people use it? (Even if it's not in the same way.) I mean, that's the whole point of the Google Apps Marketplace: http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/ http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/
- mikeryan 16y ago
  Search and Gmail are only valuable because people use it and because they sell ads. It takes both users and ads - one without the other is useless.
  - jedc 16y ago
    Please see my other comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1628381 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1628381 In a nutshell, Gmail business model != Google Search business model. Therefore, the relative importance of revenue streams is different.
    - mikeryan 16y ago
      It seems to me that if you're okay replacing ads on Gmail you'd be okay with replacing ads on Search as well? Or are you saying you're okay with replacing ads on Gmail - but on Search replacing ads would be wrong? This seems like a slippery slope you're treading.
      - jedc 16y ago