I believe I have the right to determine what content is downloaded onto my phone. This means that if I don't wish to be bothered by adverts, I have the right to block them.
I am always happy to pay for software that I use. If I use free software that I find particularly impressive/useful, I tend to take the time to make a donation to the developer. If a developer releases ad-supported software and fails to release a paid-for, ad-free version, this does not affect my right to determine what content is accessed and retrieved by my phone, regardless of whether it impacts their capacity to generate revenue.
I exercise this freedom by using AdFree. If AdFree interrupts the flow of revenue to a developer whose application is installed upon my phone, there is something seriously wrong with their financial plans. If they feel that they have the right to continue generating revenue from an application installed upon my personal device for an indefinite (and possibly unlimited) period, that is their opinion, and I am under no obligation to respect it.
If I might offer a scenario for consideration, I think it might make my position clearer. If I have a building with a large, empty space available on an external wall, I can offer that space to an advertising agency, and generate revenue by displaying adverts in that space.
Now, my phone's screen does not have a large, empty, unused space on it. Every pixel on this tiny screen has a purpose, which means that screen real estate comes at a higher premium, logically, than an unused wall. Being a SAMOLED screen, the pixels also have a limited lifespan (and yes, after nearly a year of use, it is possible to see where some of those LEDs have already started to fade), which means that any use of those pixels without my consent should be compensated for. They are technically perishables, and every use takes them a little closer to the end of their useful life.
If I factor in the use of my bandwidth (for which I pay a monthly premium), my local storage media (which also has a limited lifespan and must be replaced at cost eventually), and my time and energy wasted in the mere observation of these adverts (considering how small that screen is, it's not as though I have many other places to look), all I need to do in order to start generating revenue is convince developers that they are morally obligated to make a financial concession for all the above, right?
Perhaps I can attempt to strengthen my case by suggesting that any individuals attempting to avoid paying this surcharge to me would be contemptible and deserving of scorn. This would be emotional blackmail, legally ambiguous, and entirely unfair... wouldn't it?
Yes, it would. The door only swings one way, you see; I must endure being made to feel bad for not wishing to be bombarded by adverts on my personal device, and taking steps pursuant to my wishes, by developers who think that the work they put into the product should be paid for in perpetuity.
In my line of work, I provide services from which my clients continue to benefit long after the labour was undertaken. Do I have the right, morally, to oblige them thenceforth to accept a daily lecture on the benefits of using my services, at the risk of having such benefits removed if they refuse? I spend plenty of my free time doing research, writing scripts, and learning new tricks to support my work role - how many decades should I insist that a client wears my business card on his forehead in order to compensate me for doing my job properly, rather than simply paying me for my time?
If a developer wants to make money from their software, they can charge me appropriately for it. If this does not provide them with adequate compensation for their time, they can work quicker or charge more... or perhaps, improve the quality of their software so that more people purchase it.
If a developer believes that they have the inalienable right to generate revenue indefinitely from an application installed on my personal devices, and that I should feel bad for downloading their "FREE" software (yes, that is the very word most often included in the software's description; this implies that the software is provided without charge) while failing to allow access to potentially harmful and offensive content that would otherwise be utilising my bandwidth, my storage, my screen space, and my time - well, there is only one appropriate response to that sentiment:
You know where you can stick that with a handful of sand, don't you?
__________
Edit: I just realised how old this thread was (only months, but that's what... decades in internet forum terms).
Sorry...
