Changing the content of someone else's page in flight is already murky enough when translation services do it, but when you actively start messing with someone else's revenue stream I feel some line has been crossed.
That line is probably labelled 'symbiotic' on one side and 'parasitic' on the other.
You're arguing from the point of view of Google, in that they will lose money due to a symbiotic/parasitic addon. I'm arguing from the point of view of the actual user who seeks the best experience they can get.
I think it's the user's choice. People installing ad blockers, and in some cases re-using their space for another purposes, is the market sending a signal to Google. Google and other ad hosts can get cranky as much as they want, but it's my browser on my computer and my browsing experience.
If they offered an ad-free for-pay version, I'm sure they'll get many customers. Heck, they would make money off of me when I am not giving them any right now.
How would you feel if you were operating a store selling ice-cream without whipped-cream, and some guy walked in, threw your chocolate boxes out in to the street and started giving people whipped-cream inside your store because it improves the users experience, after all, none of the ones buying ice-cream were buying chocolate anyway?
Never mind that the user owns the browser, the whole principle of gmail being free is that it is ad supported and this project was launched in the hope that as large a number of people as they can attract would adopt it.
So at some point it will start to affect googles bottom line. Is that ok?
Of course it is the browser on your computer, that's fine. But this is not you doing this, it's rapportive doing it, setting up shop inside googles pages displayed on your computer.
> started giving people whipped-cream inside your store because it improves the users experience...
I think in this analogy, he'd be right outside my window, not in my store. As you say, I'm not selling whipped cream to begin with.
> after all, none of the ones buying ice-cream were buying chocolate anyway?
If my customers weren't buying the chocolate then why am I stocking it? Clearly, there's something for me to learn here from the guy outside my window. Perhaps I should have a chat with him and see what we can do together. After all, the more people that come by my shop, the more opportunities I have to sell them ice lollies.
This analogy is not 100% accurate. A better attempt: If I were giving free ice creams along with a local business flyer, Rapportive is basically a stall nearby that offers a better ice cream cone while taking the flyer.
That's the user's choice. For me as an ice cream vendor it would suck. For me as a user, it's a more yummy cone.
Except that all the income the ice cream vendor made was made from giving away the flyers, you've reduced their effectiveness to the point where the flyers no longer bring in the money and he has to close up shop.
Now in the case of google that's a stretch, but this is not 'ok because it is google', neither would it be 'illegal because the party it is done to is small and vulnerable'.
It's either 'ok' or it is 'not ok' not taking in to account the size of the party it is done to.
That line is probably labelled 'symbiotic' on one side and 'parasitic' on the other.