Google Removing Ad-Blockers From Play 337
SirJorgelOfBorgel writes "It appears Google has begun removing ad-blocker apps for Android from the Play store, citing breaches of the Play Store Developer Distribution Agreement. The apps would be welcome back as soon as they no longer violated the agreement, though that doesn't seem possible while keeping the apps' core functionality intact."
Update: 03/18 20:06 GMT by U L : You can still easily install ad blockers using F-Droid, the Free Software only replacement for Play.
Play store not the only source (Score:4, Interesting)
Though after the initial availability this change of heart does surprise me.
Re:Play store not the only source (Score:5, Interesting)
A quick look on Amazon and there is at least one ad blocker available. People can say what they like about Amazon, but I'm really glad they started their app store for Android. As far as is possible with app stores, it forced some choices there that I'm sure Google didn't in any way want.
On the other hand, we as consumers helped enable app stores. It was a pretty big shift from the way hardware/software has historically worked. Microsoft is now tripping all over itself to get a piece of the action. Make the hardware, and then make a cut off of every app sold. Yeah. A wet dream from MS. Hey, not only that, but they get final approval over the apps in the store. Double yeah!
Re:Play store not the only source (Score:5, Interesting)
I have had my share of trouble with Amazon's app store and apps/games acquired through it. Guess what happens to your apps/games when you remove the Amazon app store? Nothing works. Not going to play that game any longer... I quit that game quite some time ago. But it seems Google's store (play) is similar though no one actually removes the play store do they?
So the only way to be in control of your apps is to pirate them or acquire them directly from the maker which is often not an available option.
Seriously, I feel icky downloading a $3 app or game from a torrent site. I'd rather pay for it. But there are advantages to getting it the other way... and risks... and I still pay when I can. $3-$5 apps is the way things ought to be!
Re: (Score:2)
But it seems Google's store (play) is similar though no one actually removes the play store do they?
As far as I can tell they are not similar. I've loaded apks downloaded with the play store and backed up with titanium backup on systems which still run market, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And then its perfectly fair for people who don't want advertising to pay for their software
Seems people want the free software and no advertising which brings in revenue to the developers
Re:Play store not the only source (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what that sounds like?
LINUX
People are just doing to Google what Google is doing to the community.
If ad infested versions of basic freeware system utilities become less prevalent then that would not be such a tragedy really.
Re: (Score:3)
Really, it's that I don't want ads, and don't care, in any way, if my ignoring or blocking ads has impact on anyone. I will give them money in exchange for the program, but I will not give them my attention. I feel no obligation to view the ads in software any more than I feel obliged to sit through commercials on TV.
Re: (Score:2)
You are kidding!!! Now Google is censoring apps I have no reason to stay with the play store, but Amazon's policy of crippling your phone if you dare uninstall their app is completely unacceptable. Can somebody else back up this allegation?
Maybe Samsung will open their own store?
For free apps, if somebody was to set up a good repository then all the mod distros including by default would give it a (small) default user base.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Thankfully we have the Amazon store, as that's really the only other widely trusted Android repository right now. If not for Amazon I don't think there's any other repository most geeks would trust for paid apps, due to the complexities of properly handling/securing payment details.
But this still bites. Play is the de facto Android store; most users don't have immediate access to other stores, and as for Amazon they have some reall
Re:Play store not the only source (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as is possible with app stores, it forced some choices there that I'm sure Google didn't in any way want
If Google hadn't wanted, then they would have locked their device to their app store the same way Apple did. This decision sucks, but it only emphasises how much Google had it right when it came to Android; if Google does turn to the dark side, Android users can go somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
if Google does turn to the dark side,
We're way past that point.
Re:Play store not the only source (Score:5, Informative)
That's what I love about Android. It actually feels like a PC in my pocket where I can do whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
World's largest ad-pusher seeks to push more ads.
Can you use Android without the Goog? (Score:3)
(From a Linux geek still happy with a "dumbphone", but considering Android)
Can you use Android without serving yourself up to Google?
Is it true that you have to have a Google account to start up your phone?
Can you (easily) install apps by just downloading them to your computer and then transferring to the phone?
Do you have to give up your credit card info and name/address to sign up for the Google app store? (In light of the recent story that app developers get all your info, I don't know if I want every 2-bit app to get that info. The info itself could be worth more than the 99 cents for the application.)
Also, do free apps also get your personal information?
Any hints or links re: using Android without the all-seeing eye?
Builtin app replacement recommendations?
Re: (Score:3)
Sort of
No
Yes
No
It depends
Re:Can you use Android without the Goog? (Score:5, Informative)
Can you use Android without serving yourself up to Google?
Yes.
Is it true that you have to have a Google account to start up your phone?
No.
Can you (easily) install apps by just downloading them to your computer and then transferring to the phone?
Yes, generally referred to as 'sideloading'.
Do you have to give up your credit card info and name/address to sign up for the Google app store? (In light of the recent story that app developers get all your info, I don't know if I want every 2-bit app to get that info. The info itself could be worth more than the 99 cents for the application.)
No, you can use a regular google account. However, to pay for an app you will need to do so.
Also, do free apps also get your personal information?
Each app has a list of what features it requests access to available on the store page (and you will be notified of them before installation). There are apps that allow you to enforce your own arbitrary restrictions on any app, but it may casue some to stop working.
Any hints or links re: using Android without the all-seeing eye?
Try some of the various alternative Android distros like Cyanogenmod. XDA Developers is a good place to start.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In the UK you need to use a card to enable Google Music. (It can be removed again immediately afterwards).
Now you can get pre paid cards (£10/£25 - Tesco / Morrisons).
I understand that this is probably one of the better countries. (It was credit card (None prepaid) or nothing until very recently).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Do you have to give up your credit card info and name/address to sign up for the Google app store? (In light of the recent story that app developers get all your info, I don't know if I want every 2-bit app to get that info. The info itself could be worth more than the 99 cents for the application.)
No, you can use a regular google account. However, to pay for an app you will need to do so.
You can also use Google Play pre-paid cards to purchase apps without giving out additional info.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can!
You do, however, have to be aware of what not to do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, you have been fed incredible amounts of FUD. Where did you get this "information"?
None of the things you are scared of are true. All the "i would like it to work this way" are correct.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can you use Android without serving yourself up to Google?
Yes. Best way is probably the hosts file, which means you need to root the device (not hard, especially if you get a Nexus device)
Is it true that you have to have a Google account to start up your phone?
You need at least a gmail account. But that doesn't mean you have to use it for anything else.
Can you (easily) install apps by just downloading them to your computer and then transferring to the phone?
Yes.
Do you have to give up your credit card info and name/address to sign up for the Google app store? (In light of the recent story that app developers get all your info, I don't know if I want every 2-bit app to get that info. The info itself could be worth more than the 99 cents for the application.)
Credit card number only if you download non-free apps. No address. If you're worried, use a pre-paid credit card.
Also, do free apps also get your personal information?
Sometimes.
Any hints or links re: using Android without the all-seeing eye?
See above...
Builtin app replacement recommendations?
GoLauncherEx for homescreens
Playerpro (music)
ChompSMS
K9 Mail.
HTH
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(From a Linux geek still happy with a "dumbphone", but considering Android)
Can you use Android without serving yourself up to Google?
It is difficult, but possible. Just.
Is it true that you have to have a Google account to start up your phone?
No, but without a google account you cannot use their app store, and without an account of some sort somewhere you cannot use the calendar. I personally have setup a Zarafa server with Z-push to mimic an Exchange with active-sync. Using that allows me to use the calendar and sync my email, contacts and calendar without using google at all.
Can you (easily) install apps by just downloading them to your computer and then transferring to the phone?
That depends. If they are apps from someone who has realised that Google Play is not required, and just distributes the APKs then sure,
Re: (Score:3)
It is difficult, but possible. Just.
I had to load about six different ROM images onto my phone before I found one that would let me use GPS without leaking information to Google. This is on gingerbread, though... Who new privacy was a feature which had to be added? Or hacked in.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a happy owner of a Android phone running CyanogenMod with the FSF FreeDroid (F-Droid) Store. I didn't installed the Play Store on purpose. Sure I don't have access to 300k Apps, but most important Apps* are available and the Phone is working fine and reliable.
* That of course depends on your needs. For me its: Browser, Firefox, aCal calendar, OsmAnd Map application, shopping list, Jabber client, SIP client, GPS tracker, calculator, text editor, and a few games
Re: (Score:2)
As an ex-android user, the things which i will mention, from experience as i learnt the hard way are; look at the google nexus phones first, if they don't offer the sort of hardware you are interested in, then think twice before going to other phones. If you can, avoid getting a carrier branded phone. Google phones are better because they, first and foremost, get updates, but they're also generally free of bloatware. Carriers are notorious for loading up useless apps which they also make sure that you can't
And what did you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm quite glad Android is not completely closed, and projects like F-Droid exist:
http://f-droid.org/ [f-droid.org]
It's not half as good as official Google store at the moment, but it's open source, and it will get improved.
As for me, I won't be happy until I can apt-get install apps on my mobile
--Coder
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A corporation will do ANYTHING to defend its cashflow. Any corporation, even Google.
It's time to drop the "even" when referring to Google.
If you like an app buy it (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If you like an app buy it (Score:5, Informative)
If you like an app, pay the dollar or two for the ad free version, other wise you're stealing from the developer of the app, justify it however you like, but it is theft.
That's not always possible. There are a few apps that I use where there isn't a version without the ads. I'd happily plonk down a few quid to remove them, but the option isn't there.
Re: (Score:2)
Some games like Angrt Birds make more money from the Ad version than the paid version. Simply because people are playing them all the time and after 40+ hours the ads are worth more. That's why you see some apps without pay versions at all, particularly in Android where prices are "too low" already then they don't have to compete with cracked pay versions..
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps that's true. However, I've never clicked on a single ad in any of my apps. I don't use an adblocker, I just don't click on ads. So they'd make more money from me by providing a paid for app. Plus they'd piss me off less.
Re: (Score:2)
Just pushing people to find alternatives to Play (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not exactly a power droid user, but ad-blocking is absolutely something that will push me to go look outside of the google store. Is that really what they want to do?
GNU forks of Android and Play needed (Score:5, Interesting)
The subject says it all, but unpacking the two issues:
- We need a GNU (or Debian) fork of Android so that key user protections like a preconfigured Netfilter firewall are available out of the box, as well as a root account and full set of root admin tools. Google's protection of advertisers by giving apps free reign once you've installed them needs to end.
- We need a GNU (or Debian) fork of Google Play to carry full-source free software apps including ad blockers and other forms of user-based control, like a NoScript equivalent. Google is utterly not on the user's side in this regard, and their hegemony needs to end. Our devices belong to us, not to Google.
Re: (Score:2)
wait, sorry, I meant that these guys already did it
It will only work if developers use it. The developer of Adaway says go to F-Store in the future. But in the present, the version of Adaway I got recently from google play is 2.2 and the latest version on F-Store is 2.1. So I guess go there in the future, but don't go there in the present...
Comparison to Apple and other vendors... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm gonna get modded down here for bringing Apple into this, but it is relevant and is exactly an example of why having alternative app sources is important for users. I've long held that Apple must be forced to allow apps installed from third-party sources and here is an exact reason as to why that would be beneficial. Want to install something that the vendor agrees with? You can do it with Android thanks to the Amazon store, F-droid, and the like. And in all honesty, it's somewhat fair of Google to do this - if they've put up the Play Store, then they should have the right to determine what gets sold on it.
But the problem with Apple and the Iphone ecosystem is that you don't have any such choice - once you buy an Iphone, you do what Apple tells you and that's the end of the story, until you go to the lengths of exploiting the operating system to install what you like. And I don't want to hear that it's not a problem because Apple doesn't have a monopoly, which should somehow enable them to impose their decisions on their customers. We've seen such a backlash in the US over the people's right to unlock their phone's bootloader because once you buy it, it's yours. How is that different in the case of Apple forcing you to install only apps that they approve of? Once you buy it, it's yours - you should be able to run whatever you want on it if you should also have the right of unlocking it and doing what you wish. And you shouldn't have to go to the lengths over exploiting the OS in order to do it.
Regardless, I'm not an Android or Google fanboy (anymore, if I ever was one to begin with), and though they are in general better than Microsoft and Apple, they are distancing themselves from the goodness that comes from non-profit producers such as Mozilla. I'm pretty much set on dumping Android if/when I replace my phone in the next few years, and it's their vigorous policy towards advertising wiht such utter disregard for privacy that is pushing me that way. If there's one thinig I hate as a consumer, it's being treated like a sheep. Seems like FirefoxOS, Ubuntu Mobile, or crazily enough, maybe even Blackberry is the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
well..
with apple what they do is ask you for a hundred bucks. you can do plenty with developer credentials.
same with windows phone.
I just hope nobody at google figures out that they could ask hundred bucks a year for enabling adb and sideloading. because if some dimwit over there does the numbers of 100 000 "devs" * 100 bucks, that's a lot of potential dough.
Re: (Score:2)
I just hope nobody at google figures out that they could ask hundred bucks a year for enabling adb and sideloading.
Me too, because it's just one more thing to pay to have unlocked, which will probably be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
It does seem evil but apple is forcing a fair and profitable ecosystem for developers to get paid
iOS devs make more money which is why the best new apps are on iOS first
Go look at the top 10 lists on both stores. iOS its real applications. Android you have nonsense like launcher pro in along with other geek apps in the top ten
That's cool... (Score:3)
What About App Developers? (Score:2)
I can understand why people ad-block - especially web pages.
However, developers get a slice of the ad-revenue when the ads are presented via their apps.
I have an android phone & tablet and free apps with advertising and I've also paid for apps too - usually to disable ads or shock horror actually find an app useful and pay the developer a fair price.
If you like an app enough then buy it (in most cases just a few pounds) or if you are not willing to pay for an app you'll have to put up with ads instead.
I
Re: (Score:2)
If you like an app enough then buy it (in most cases just a few pounds) or if you are not willing to pay for an app you'll have to put up with ads instead.
If you can't survive without people seeing your ads, make the app fail if they aren't displayed. In any case, Adaway never seems to have hidden in-app ads for me, but it did block in-browser ads. They took it down anyway. They're evil assholes.
Re:What About App Developers? (Score:5, Informative)
I can understand why people ad-block - especially web pages.
However, developers get a slice of the ad-revenue when the ads are presented via their apps.
Typically, it's not a hell of a lot of money.
5000 user sessions per day * 2 minutes per session * 2 ads per session *80% ad network fill rate * $0.50 per works out to about 8 bucks a day, or right around $1/hour for a 52 week 40 hour work week. That's assuming that you get enough distribution numbers and the app is sticky enough that you can get that many sessions for that long per day to get your 4 ad views per session.
The ad networks would like you to believe you are going to get rich on advertising revenue when you include their ad platform library in your free version of your App, but typically you will instead usually net about $1280 a year per app, and that's if you are lucky.
So basically, you can keep those numbers up for 4 years in a row, or you could just charge the $0.99 for the app up front to realize that $5000 up front, rather than over a period of 4 years during which you have to remain relevant enough to 5000 free downloaders that they spend 2 minutes a day in your app.
The only people to pull down any heavy cash for their ad supported version of their apps are people like the Angry Birds developers, which is why they can spend all that money porting to every platform under the sun.
the killer ap (Score:2)
I remember a decade ago when people were always debating the next "killer ap". Well, we found it. It was AdBlock.
I just spent two hours reading about crazy people destroying their livers to increase their mental capacity by 10% (I doubt it's more than that from the spelling errors). Why? One can get as much boost (at least during your Internet time) from any good ad-blocking program with no damage to your liver at all.
If the mountain of crap won't stay away from Muhammad then Muhammad must stay away fro
Re: (Score:2)
That is an interesting way to put it.
Almost all of them require rooting (Score:2)
So it's not much of a loss either way.
In Other Words (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't shop at the Play Store unless you are willing to be relentlessly bombarded with ads and your entire life's every moved tracked to improve the bottom line of Google Corporation.
Google doesn't just make glasses. They want to own your eyeballs as well.
Don't be evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Minor impact, really, blown way out of proportion. (Score:2)
Considering the most efficient ad blockers (AdKill is my favorite) only work on rooted devices, and only a minority of users root their phones/tablets, I don't see this having any serious impact on the user experience.
And if you can root your phone, you can certainly enable sideloading and say fuck you to Google Play.
Two Step Model (Score:3)
Would it be possible to have an app in the Play Store that had two modes?:
1) if the presence of a certain code bundle was detected, exec that.
2) if it's missing, bring up a web browser and point to the website for the user to download it, then provide for a guided copy/install.
I'm assuming the Play Store already prohibits direct code downloads, but if not that would be even easier.
Just a guess (Score:2)
There are a lot of developers that provide a "free" app whose revenue comes from allowing advertisements to appear somewhere on the screen. Assuming these adblockers would also block those ads, anyone using them would be cutting the revenue of those kind devs who released their apps for free. And if that's the case, then I think what Google is doing is justifiable.
This hypothesis was made on the basis of zero research and two cups of coffee :)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be OK if there were an option to pay for the app and have no advertising.
Or even if google play let me filter the apps by their funding model.
I absolutely do not want ads on my phone, under any circumstances. I'd rather pay the developer.
Google, you have not thought this through (Score:2)
That means that my users can not see your advertisement regardless of what you do, since it's blocked on the DNS level.
Ok (Score:4, Informative)
This is why I use Android anyways. Google can control the apps on their store and I don't care. What I care about is that if I don't want to use them as a source I can just go get the same apps from another place and install them on my device.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Way to miss the point. It's about Android, not Chrome.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
You do know that Mozilla is releasing their own Phone OS, right? With their own app store.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
You do know that Mozilla is releasing their own Phone OS, right? With their own app store.
With Blackjack and hookers?
Re: (Score:3)
If you belive that you will have *more* controll over ZillOS than the Providers, you probably also belive that Firefox is small and fast...
All it takes to make it worth it to some people is to have more control over it than Android or iOS. Also, Firefox is as small and fast as the competition. Chrome ain't svelte any more. Mobile Firefox Beta seems pretty credible. I wouldn't know if mobile Chrome is as good because it won't install on my device, but Firefox will. Is there seriously anything required for Chrome that isn't in gingerbread?
Re: (Score:3)
nope, the guy taking over android is in charge of Chrome
google is merging everything under chrome
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
...for now.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like something that should be OK on an open platform.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
You can still download them from outside of the play store. That's pretty open...unlike some other platforms.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Being "open" in no way impacts google's way to block them. You can still load these blockers from any other android store if it chooses to make them available. That is the point of OS being "open".
Google's point here is to obviously make them as invisible as possible to minimize users that block ads. Most people won't go around other android stores or internet sites searching for software, they're fairly happy with google play.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
All the ad blockers I know of (granted, I've not exactly researched the multitudes, so this may be wrong) require root access on your device.
Most people don't even know what it is, or if they do, don't want to go through with the process. Worst case is they rate the app poorly because it doesn't work.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Google's point here is to obviously make them as invisible as possible to minimize users that block ads. Most people won't go around other android stores or internet sites searching for software, they're fairly happy with google play.
Quite right! Until today, I didn't know that there were ad blockers for Android. With today's action, not only has Google made me aware that there are, but, thanks to TFA, I know where to find them: F-Droid. Excellent!!
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that most of the developers of free ad-supported Android apps have a problem with Google removing these kinds of programs.
I agree that the OS itself should be open, but I don't see why the store run by Google has any responsibility to be 'open'. It's like saying Google is being shitty just because they refuse to openly pointing a gun to their own (and other apps' developers) foreheads.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that most of the developers of free ad-supported Android apps have a problem with Google removing these kinds of programs.
True, and the ad networks probably don't have a problem with tracking cookies, exploiting technical and legal loopholes, spam, or "impressions" that come from malware and rootkits.
I agree that the OS itself should be open, but I don't see why the store run by Google has any responsibility to be 'open'
It doesn't have a "responsibility" to, but it was a "feature" that got whipped out pretty often in the mobile OS holy wars.
Now that they've got the lion's share of that market, it looks like they don't have many qualms about tearing out features at the expense of users, in the name of their "grander vision". The abhorrent redesign
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Android is completely open. The Google Play Store is not, and therefore Google can do what they like with it. Developers release free versions of some apps on the premise that they will earn money through ads instead. So really they are protecting the developers from abuse here.
Think a little more before trying to be a smartass.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I'll go one step further, and say websites that are ad-supported are generally bad, and that the incentive advertising has on web content is negative. I could do with a lot less top-ten lists on the internet.
I know there are good sites that have ads, I even used to leave slashdot whitelisted in adblock(though a certain recent event regarding slashvertisement and editor abuse changed that), but the overall incentive is perverse.
Re: (Score:3)
If you block ads, you're an asshole. There's nothing more to it.
If you write ads into your application, you're an asshole. There's nothing more to it.
Re: (Score:3)
I am normally all about open.
But when you create an app that prevents another guy from getting paid for his app there could be an issue there.
You are not the Federal Government. It is not your "job" to take "my money".
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably very few.. Android isn't really locked down, so, they've simply deemed them as unsuitable for their own store. The only difference now is that you need to install an APK (which is easy to do). Or, install another App store.
Also, Mozilla makes a large amount of funding from search royalties via Google. So, it would be somewhat hypocritical to switch to Mozilla (unless they rejected Google's money).
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Pretty much all of the adblock writers put their stuff onF-Droid [f-droid.org] the same way the emulator writers did after that big sweep a while back.
Honestly, I kind of saw this coming. It's not a big deal, really; on Android you don't even need root access to sideload apps and alternate app stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and I'm sure there's very little street crime in a totalitarian police state too. Doesn't make me want to live in one.
Re: (Score:2)
Android isn't really locked down, so, they've simply deemed them as unsuitable for their own store. The only difference now is that you need to install an APK (which is easy to do). Or, install another App store.
Yeah, try installing 3rd party apps on an iPhone sometime without going through their store. Just one of the MANY reasons why I went with an Android phone. No one company is ever telling me what software I can and can't put on my own damn computer.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably very few.. Android isn't really locked down, so, they've simply deemed them as unsuitable for their own store. The only difference now is that you need to install an APK (which is easy to do). Or, install another App store.
Or just refuse to use apps that keep popping up obnoxious ads all the time. Google wants developers to get paid via ads, because it lines Google's pocket, too. However, a developer can, and many do, charge a fair price for their app and there aren't any ads involved.
Personally, I believe developers should be paid for their work, so blocking ads deprive them of that. However, as the customer, if I don't like the payment method (ads), I can take my business elsewhere, and do. Developers respond to supply and demand like everybody else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Google is the incosistant way the Play Store is policed.
Look at e.g Snes emulators. (Snesdroid was the original yongzh did pretty much all the initial ones (He open sourced his code at some point) / Snes9xEx is from a pretty honest guy (It was removed once he never contemplated reuploading it).
There is still loads of paid snes emulators. (Probably mostly based on the work of the above 2 people.)
Google are not the company they once were. (I did actually believe they didn't do much evil for a
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... let's just glance at the situation:
Google, an advertising/marketing company, puts out an OS for phones and tablets and gives it away for free and then allows users access to a repository system where free apps and games are often supplied... for free.
I'd say it was implied.
That said? I do not feel obligated to donate my bandwidth for free. I run AdFree which is a hosts file modifier. It's fairly effective.
I'll just have to get updates from non-market sources.
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
You've missed one important part of that equation...
Yes, Google gives all that stuff away in the hopes of making money on advertising revenue. But advertising to people who really don't want it (to the point they would actively block it) costs money.
The evil marketing firms of the world can still survive in a world with AdBlock et al... They just need to cast a more narrow net - Target those who, for whatever reason (old? stupid? Researchers studying the behavior of bottom-feeders in a shrinking ecosystem?) don't block ads - And leave the rest of us the hell alone.
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yes, Google gives all that stuff away in the hopes of making money on advertising revenue. But advertising to people who really don't want it (to the point they would actively block it) costs money."
Almost all apps have a pay-for ad-free version, and if you can afford a smartphone and a phone control, you can damn well afford to pay a buck or two for the paid version. Yes, some people are so tight-assed that they'll do anything to avoid paying a buck for an app, and such people will probably go to the effort of sideloading ad-blockers etc, but I see no reason whatsoever that Google shouldn't make it harder for the average user to block ads. Blocking ads in advertising-funded apps is essentially the same as software piracy, and there's no reason why they should make it easy. Ad blockers that only block ads in the browser might be a different story.
And before you ask, yes, I do use an ad blocker for my desktop web browsing, however a) I do disable it on sites such as slashdot that I want to support, and that behave sensibly as far as the level and nature of advertising, and b) I don't generally have the option to pay a buck or to to get rid of the ads.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
but I see no reason whatsoever that Google shouldn't make it harder for the average user to block ads.
Reason: It's opposite to what the user wants.
Re: (Score:3)
Almost all apps have a pay-for ad-free version
Absolutely not true. I've had many, many times that I've went to find an app for something and only found ad-supported ones with no paid version available. Contacting the developers about it usually results in "we're thinking about it" or "we prefer staying ad-supported only".
Developers need to realize that when you put out an ad-supported program, some of your users are not going to see those ads. It's part of the risk of using that (failed and parasitic, in my opinion) revenue model. Unfortunately eve
You never heard of Android until a marketing compa (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ironically, it's usually the people that hate the adds the most that they are most effective against. I work with marketing people, I see it and am astonished by it every day. People that opt out of marketing campaigns are usually the hottest leads.
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how the parent is using the Broken Window fallacy. That appears to have to do with destruction, and thus the forced expenditure of resources for replacement not having a net benefit for the economy because the resources would have been spent anyway, elsewhere. The parent is talking about the preservation of resources, which would not have been spent anyway and will likely be spent elsewhere. It's about the dead opposite.
If you're referring to google, they are seeing a lack of revenue, not a forced expenditure, which again, doesn't match the Broken Window fallacy. Ad blockers are breaking their revenue chain, not forcing more spending. They'd be the equivalent of plexiglass eroding the glazier's market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh... let's just glance at the situation:
Google, an advertising/marketing company, puts out an OS for phones and tablets and gives it away for free and then allows users access to a repository system where free apps and games are often supplied... for free.
I'd say it was implied.
That said? I do not feel obligated to donate my bandwidth for free. I run AdFree which is a hosts file modifier. It's fairly effective.
I'll just have to get updates from non-market sources.
I had assumed this was about ad-blockers that blocked in application adverts. In that case you HAVE agreed (at least in principle) to seeing adverts based on the fact that you chose to install a piece of advert supported software on your device.
Personally I see very few adverts on my phone, as I only use software that lets by chose between and advert supported "free" version and a paid for version. I use the ad-supported for a few minutes to see if it does what I want, if it does I purchase install the paid
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google, an advertising/marketing company, puts out an OS for phones and tablets and gives it away for free
Specifically, Linux. Which is the result of the freely given work of thousands of people around the world, beginning with Linus in 1991. Google uses it to run their servers, "for free". Shouldn't Google serve up ads for Linus on every page?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh fer... (Score:5, Insightful)
You still have a choice in phones and their operating systems, yes? What 'shoving' is taking place, exactly? Where is the 'evil' in offering another platform option?
You don't like Android's "free + ads", go try iOS, Windows Phone, Firefox OS, Ubuntu Mobile etc. Maybe try a less-restrictive app store, or (heaven forbid) just sideload an ad-blocker. Android still offers you those choices too.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't like Android's "free + ads", go try iOS, Windows Phone, Firefox OS, Ubuntu Mobile etc.
It's not free+ads, it's free-freedom. Also, iOS and WP are even worse, and the other two don't exist yet. And Tizen is eating glue in the corner.
Re: (Score:2)
OK OK...
Maybe it's not a walled garden with a 24/7 security battalion at every window [Apple's iOS]...
Sounds more like a couple of parks side by side with a 3 foot high fence meant to keep toddlers safe from running into the street and getting smashed.