Google Removing Ad-Blockers From Play

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.

Comments

Bad idea

[Cat_Herder_GoatRoper]

You did not agree to spam when purchased your Android device or did you?

Re:Bad idea

[erroneus]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Adaway it works better in my experience. (I was also an adfree user. But it was occasionally not quite right)

Re:Bad idea

[pla]

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.

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

[_KiTA_]

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.

Wow, I've never actually SEEN someone use the Broken Window fallacy without being sarcastic. Good show, ol' bean!

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a broken window fallacy, though. The shape of that is "destroying property is good, because it stimulates economic flow". This is "it's possible to survive in face of shrinking user base, by targeting those that remain", with an undercurrent of the free rider problem.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

"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:Bad idea

[91degrees]

But they don't even stop you from blocking spam. They're just refusing to actively participate in it.You can install these app from other providers.

Re:Bad idea

[czernabog]

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:Bad idea

[Ash Vince]

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 one. I do this because as a software developer I strongly believe in supporting other software developers for their efforts.

I actually think that if ad blockers are interfering with other installed software, depriving the user who created it of revenue, then that is wrong and should be stopped.Of course if that is not what these ad blockers were doing then maybe google has overstepped the mark, but it does seem obvious functionality to build in to an ad blocker for a phone, even if it is slightly immoral.

Re:Bad idea

[drinkypoo]

In short, people use the platform because of what they can do with it. This will be an inconvenience to people who use the platform because they can block ads, nothing more. If I wanted I'm sure I could build squid with the NDK (it's not the world's most complex program) and use it as a local adblocking proxy. These days that's not even a lot of additional work for a phone to do. If I didn't think I could do that, I wouldn't have bought an Android phone. I'd still be dicking around with a feature phone.

Re:Bad idea

[Charliemopps]

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

[Ash Vince]

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.

Some of us don't worry about ad blocking because we don't use sites that have annoying amounts of adverts (I subscribe to slashdot so don't see any here). If I do browse to a site with an annoying amount of adverts I generally just avoid using it and try and go somewhere else. Sometimes they can't be avoided like on articles linked to on slashdot but to be honest I have started remembering sites I don't want to read content from due to ads and just skip the whole story.

I think I might use an ad-blocker if I still used torrent sites as they seemed to be the worst candidates for adverts from what I remember. (Ok, I am thinking of the pirate bay which is blocked in my part the world now anyway). I also used to use something to block flash on my old laptop as many websites would kill the CPU with a few flash files. That was because it had a crap CPU though.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck that. I don't have time to let every prick who wants a dollar use my bandwidth to load advertisements and then screen through them to see who's well-behaved and who isn't. If you rely on ads, work on getting your industry cleaned up so that ads aren't so fucking annoying that people go to great lengths to eliminate them.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Well duh, that's why we try and avoid it so much.

Re:Bad idea

[1u3hr]

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:Bad idea

[CimmerianX]

Why not both? Attack it both ways. It's not antivirus where you should only have 1.

Re:Bad idea

[hedwards]

Not really, what's going on there is that those people with ad blocking probably had somebody else setting up their computer for them. Which includes ad blocking all those dishonest ads.

Marketing people are basically just human garbage with no particular sense of right or wrong. They're up there withe the typical HR drone and the people at the welfare office that seem obsessed with making sure you're as humilated as possible and don't mind filing fraudulent paper work to keep it that way.

Re:Bad idea

[DragonWriter]

ically, 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?

No, see, when you give something away under a particular license, you aren't entitled to other compensation than that specified in the terms you set when giving it away.

Re:Bad idea

[jc42]

Google, an advertising/marketing company, puts out an OS for phones and tablets and gives it away for free ...

Yeah, right; they give it away "for free" in the same sense of the old ads of the form "Buy X get Y free". Even a typical 7-year-old understands the bogosity of such an "offer". For most of us, Adroid similarly comes "free" when you pay for the device that it runs on.

The original justification for ads packaged with "content" was with broadcast TV, when there was no practical way to charge for reception. But nowadays, the telecom mono/duopolies that control most of the public's access have found ways to enforce bundles, so we really do pay for our gadget, the software, and the reception in a single "service contract". So the original justification for the ads is gone. But the suppliers now feel it's their natural right to include ads in everything, regardless of the fact that customers are being charged for the gadgetry and the reception on a monthly basis.

Of course, this is in the US, where the telecom companies can legally bundle the gadgetry into the service contract, and charge you for the ads by including their bandwidth in your "usage" total. YMMV in other countries, which have implemented various other schemes.

Re:Bad idea

[TheNastyInThePasty]

Most ad supported apps I've seen have a paid alternative without apps. You agreed to spam when you downloaded and opened the app but didn't want to pay any money for it.

Re:Bad idea

[Mycroft_VIII]

Actually the adds themselves are the broken window here. If the user doesn't want them then he's being forced to pay for the bandwidth and so is the ad server and company paying to advertise with someone who now has a negative view of them.

Mycroft

Re:Bad idea

[nmb3000]

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 everyone seems to think that every app in the store should be free and ignore the rest.

Blocking ads in advertising-funded apps is essentially the same as software piracy

Wow, when you go bullshit you go all the way. Does that mean when I disable cell/wifi network on my Android and run an ad-supported app (and therefore see no ads) I'm also being a "pirate"? At the absolute worst, blocking ads is a breaking of whatever bogus End User License Agreement the app thinks you've agreed to, while "software piracy" is simply copyright infringement. Anyone with half a brain (and not paid by the BSA) knows they aren't even close to similar.

Re:Bad idea

[Maritz]

Maybe you still haven't.

Re:Bad idea

[shutdown -p now]

Google does not really give out Android for free. AOSP is free, yes, but that does not include Play Store. All Android devices that ship with Play Store (and other Google apps - Gmail, Maps, Talk etc) had their manufacturer license those from Google, and said license is not free.

Re:Bad idea

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

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.

Smartphones aren't expensive anymore, and someone that takes the time to do a bit of research on phone companies before picking one will be able to find options that also aren't pricy. I paid ~$85 each for the 2 refurbished LG Marquee smartphones I bought from my new cell service provider (Ting), got a $100 credit towards my future bills, and look likely to pay maybe $25/month for both of us put together -- less than we paid for dumbphone service through our previous provider. For the record, my income is ~$850/month each (hers about a third less due to bureaucratic crap) as we're both disabled; it took about a year to save up enough for our phones.

Also, I've seen relatively few high-quality apps that were just a dollar -- the prices I saw averaged around $4-5 with some doubling that -- and it seemed like quite a few of the 99 ones had something shady going on based on the warnings that appeared in reviews.

Re:Bad idea

[Charliemopps]

Because blocking adds or ads, is irrelevant. My typos are also irrelevant. You visited their site, they share what they know about you with others, others share what they know about you with them... eventually they get your contact info. It's unavoidable. The simple fact that you block all of that stuff, means they can claim that they had no idea you didn't want to be marketed to. So all your data is now fair game. Your personal information is not protected by any laws until you're a customer. Ironic how that is.

Play store not the only source

[Teun]

At least Android is open enough to allow installation from outside the Play Store.
Though after the initial availability this change of heart does surprise me.

Re:Play store not the only source

[transporter_ii]

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

[erroneus]

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:Play store not the only source

[rsmith-mac]

A quick look on Amazon and there is at least one ad blocker available

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 really weird developer-unfriendly practices for handling paid apps (primarily how pricing works). Geeks will be fine, but for the layperson this would seem to push ad blockers out of their reach.

Re:Play store not the only source

[LordLucless]

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:Play store not the only source

[Andrio]

Yeah this really isn't a big deal. A while back some popular emulators were pulled from the Android store. What did I do? I just went to the developers website and downloaded from there. Just a direct download of the apks. No root or anything required.

That's what I love about Android. It actually feels like a PC in my pocket where I can do whatever.

Re:Play store not the only source

[drinkypoo]

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:Play store not the only source

[alen]

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

[czernabog]

if Google does turn to the dark side,

We're way past that point.

Re:Play store not the only source

[buxomspacefish]

That's what I love about Android. It actually feels like a PC in my pocket where I can do whatever.

Is that a PC in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

Re:Play store not the only source

[crabbz]

Some apps from the play store require you to be signed into your google account to check their license. If you remove your google account from the device then after a few days the app will complain that it can't verify the license. I've had it happen a few times. Logging back into the play store, which adds the google account back, generally fixes it. I don't think it is true for all apps, looks like it is up to the developer if they want to check the license through google play or not. I don't know if removing the play store app itself has the same affect. I suspect things will work as long as you're logged into your google account.

Re:Play store not the only source

[synapse7]

Who wants to be dependent on an app store? Reading all the replies you would think people forgot software use to come in a box. Being able to download software is great but I sure as fuck don't want to be dependent on a single source.

Re:Play store not the only source

[horza]

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:Play store not the only source

[jedidiah]

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:Play store not the only source

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It's not really that they cripple your phone if you uninstall the app. When you uninstall the amazon app, it removes the drm service that verifies the app was "properly purchased". So, any apps bought through the amazon store won't run anymore. Yes, it still sucks, but not as much as GP makes it sound. I imagine it's like uninstalling steam and then complaining that you can't run steam apps anymore.

Re:Play store not the only source

[TheCRAIGGERS]

Personally, I prefer it when a developer gives me a choices between a free, ad-supported version, and a paid app. Sometimes, for whatever reason, they choose not to do this. (The original Angry Birds comes to mind, not sure about the rest. I believe I read they made a lot more money this way than the iOS version.)

I'm not saying it's morally right or wrong to deprive them of their income, only that in many cases, it's not just people wanting "free software and no advertising". Maybe they just want software.

Re:Play store not the only source

[knarf]

I disable everything Google on my phone by default. When I need access to the play store I enable the relevant services (vending, gsf, google login) to disable them right afterwards. There is no problem with non-working apps on a device on which Google services (including the play store) have been disabled. There might be problems if those apps rely on license verification services performed by the play store and/or Google services but as I tend to only use free software I have no problems in this regard.

Yes, there is a lot of free software available on Android.

No, I don't play games on the thing so I have no idea whether there are free (software) games for Android. There might be. Or not.

tl;dr - apps work on Android devices without Google services.

Re:Play store not the only source

[meta-monkey]

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:Play store not the only source

[CimmerianX]

I'm right there with you buddy. My co workers look at me strange when I tell them I don't use google contacts, or gmail, or calendar, or latitude, or anything google. I back up my own contacts, I don't sync my calendar, I run my own email server. They ask me why even have a google phone if I don't trust google? Well, if there was a phone that didn't have so many ties to a specific company, I'd own that one. Right now, if I want mobile email, decent connectivity, and some specific applications, my choices are apple or google. I can't wait to have a look at the ubuntu phone.... hoping it will save me from all of this. But they will probably require the same "logon to ubuntu services to run your phone" shit.

Re:Play store not the only source

[tlhIngan]

At least Android is open enough to allow installation from outside the Play Store.

Problem is, that openness is also what leads to malware attacks on Android.

The first few comments after "new malware for Android" is usually "only if you're not using the Play store". While it's true that there has been malware for Android found in the Play store (some even using Android not as a vector to steal data, but as a carrier so plugging your phone in with the app installed infects your PC), the large majority have been for apps not obtained via the Play store.

The checkbox is effectively worthless now - if you install apps from Humble Bundle, Amazon, or now, want an ad-blocker, that checkbox is unchecked, which disables any protection the Play store offers (since Android cannot differentiate apps from trusted non-Play store sources and apps obtained from sketchier sources).

Re:Play store not the only source

[LordLimecat]

As far as is possible with app stores, it forced some choices there that I'm sure Google didn't in any way want.

Yea, Im sure it was completely by accident that they left in the ability to load apps from third parties.

Re:Play store not the only source

[houghi]

No root needed for this app, but you need it for others.

I understand that they would not want it possible by default, but making it as hard as possible is not a good thing.

Why can I buy my PC with any OS on it and select the admin password and have the right to mess it up, but I am not allowed to do the same thing with my phone?

Re:Play store not the only source

[shutdown -p now]

Well, if you want security that is fool-proof against user negligence / ignorance, walled garden is really the only choice.

As it is, sideloading being there but being opt-out is still the best compromise available. Most people who install games from the Humble Bundle or adblocker know what they're doing and what the implications are, in any case.

Re:Play store not the only source

[Emetophobe]

There's an open source marketplace called F-Droid which has an ad blocker called AdAway. It's open source, but it requires root.

Re:Play store not the only source

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

People prefer repos/"app stores" because they're centralized, removing the need to search all over the web for a particular application or type of application, and far less unlikely to have infected installers compared to software obtained individually online by potentially-bogus sites. While I can tell the difference, my parents certainly can't, and when I'm trying to quickly just get things done (due to time constraints, tiredness, etc.) I definitely am glad that Linux & Android offer massive repositories.

The one thing that really worries me about people relying on Android repositories in particular is that there's no easy access to older versions of software like there is in Linux. If a device manufacturer refuses to upgrade its version of Android and teams like Cyanogen don't pick it up, it doesn't take terribly long for the pool of available software to start rapidly shrinking regardless of how capable the hardware is.

Re:Play store not the only source

[Compaqt]

I feel your pain, bro.

I think our only respite will be from the el-cheapo Chinese companies whose only desire is to pump out millions of pieces of cheap hardware and don't really care about snagging you on "services".

Surprise

[cffrost]

World's largest ad-pusher seeks to push more ads.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to miss the point. It's about Android, not Chrome.

Can you use Android without the Goog?

[Compaqt]

(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:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[Spad]

Sort of

No

Yes

No

It depends

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[EdZ]

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:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[qaz123]

Yes you can use Android without having a Google account but many google services will be unavailable for you. Like google play, synchronization etc . You can just transfer apps (apk files) on your phone

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[erroneus]

You can!

You do, however, have to be aware of what not to do.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[zwei2stein]

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:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[InEnacWeTrust]

(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?

The phone you buy comes pre-loaded with the Google Apps (calendar, gmail, Talk....). Those require a google account indeed, and may require you to set up one when you start the phone for the first time (through a non-skippable Wizard). But the phone is perfectly usable without ever actually using those AND with a bit of rooting, you can remove them.

Open Source being what it is, community built versions of Android ship without the google apps included (because Google forbids the distribution of those proprietary apps), so you have a perfectly usable phone without any link to google. You have to be careful while chosing your phone, though, not every phone is supported with the same level of quality (hint: these days, the Good Guys (tm) who provide some driver and low level library source are Sony with their Xperia T, V, Z, ...)

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[BrokenHalo]

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:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[PSVMOrnot]

(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, easy as pie. If they are apps that are distributed solely via Google Play then, no, not easily.

You can however install them on another android device and use something like APK Extractor to copy them to install on your phone. I keep one of my old android phones for this purpose

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. I haven't had to at least. I would warn you though that if Google have this information from another source (i.e. Google wallet or whatever they call it) I wouldn't put it past them to 'helpfully' fill it in for you

Also, do free apps also get your personal information?

Not to my knowledge. Only the paid app get your info afaik.

Any hints or links re: using Android without the all-seeing eye?

Builtin app replacement recommendations?

The first thing I tend to do with an android device is root it, and install a custom ROM. Typically Cyanogenmod, but sometimes others. I would recommend you have a good look to see which devices have the best developer community before you buy.

Second, if you don't have an exchange server available, set one up yourself on a machine you tend to leave on in your home network. That will provide most of the functionality you'd be missing by not having a google account tied to your phone. (If you are feeling adventurous you could set up a VPN and have secure access to this anywhere.

Apps wise, go grab one of the OpenStreetMap apps, which will have you covered for maps and route planning. Grab something like EStrong File manager so you can access network shares. And finally, grab something like ConnectBot, so you can ssh into your machines.

I think that pretty much covers my setup

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[rapidmax]

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:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[drinkypoo]

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:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[SixGunMojo]

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

Not exactly. I don't know if this is a Sprint thing or not, but if I'm on data and not wifi i can have my apps billed to my sprint account. However I don't know if this applies to in app purchases as I don't use them.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[sd4f]

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 delete. Phone manufacturers also do this, but often they provide useful software as well. Carrier bloatware is rarely useful, they put it in like as if they're laughing at you for giving them money.

I stopped using an android phone, because, it was very buggy. This isn't indicative of android on the whole, but i got annoyed with android because, there are so many pitfalls that can catch out a new unsuspecting user, like me. I pretty much bought the worst possible device available; carrier branded samsung galaxy s, which almost daily needed the battery to be pulled to reboot. The bloatware couldn't be deleted and what killed android for me was, it just needed some updates to solve all these software issues. Phone was no longer supported a little later than a year old.

I didn't buy the phone to have to root it and find better firmware, while some people enjoy that, i just wanted what i paid for. If you want a reliable phone, first and foremost, any smartphone may take a bit of getting used to, mainly due to the single day battery life, but a phone which couldn't reliably make or receive calls was unacceptable for me, happy to be rid of it now.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who new privacy was a feature which had to be added? Or hacked in.

Basically everyone that understands Google's business model.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[Bearhouse]

Great post. I would add one thing, both iOS and Android are very similar; you do get considerable added value if you create an account, and use it to sync etc.
As an example, the other day my wife needed something, and I was able to install an ap on her Android phone, remotely via web using playstore. Transparent process for her - just a few minutes later she had another icon on the desktop.

For the careful, nothing stop you from usng a 'dummy' account. Like many here, I suspect, I've got a ton of google accounts, for different uses. Same with Apple.

If you want, you can of course use 'independant' sync options like Sugarsync and Evernote, although they are naturally also open to security vulnerabilities.

As always, it's the facility/utility vs. security trade-off.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[knarf]

See my earlier post in this thread.

Can you use Android without serving yourself up to Google?z

Yes, you can. It isn't even that hard. For best results you'll want a rooted phone, preferrably with a source-available Android distribution on it (eg. AOSP, CM or any of the others. If you don't know there acronyms just look them up. If that is to much work you're in the wrong place).

Is it true that you have to have a Google account to start up your phone?

No, just say 'No' when it asks you to 'make it Google'.

Can you (easily) install apps by just downloading them to your computer and then transferring to the phone?

adb install name_of_apk from the command line is the fastest, easiest way. There are probably gui wrapper for this purpose but why make it more difficult than it needs to be?

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 don't. I have never entered any financial ID on an Android device.

Also, do free apps also get your personal information?

Apps get what they are allowed to through the permissions they require. Some apps want more permissions than they conceivably need to perform their appointed duties. Those are the apps you don't want.

Any hints or links re: using Android without the all-seeing eye?

Disable Google services, enable them on demand. Install a firewall (droidwall). If you want to go the full monty you can install an app to limit permissions given to what you think your apps need. This can break those apps and makes life more complicated than it needs to be. Just don't install any apps which require more permissions than they should, eg games don't need access to 'personally identifiable information' like your address book.

If you are so inclined I'd advise you to get yourself acquainted with the process of building Android from source. Set up a build system and do a few builds for your device(s). This way you can make those devices do exactly what *you* want. Google Services ('gapps') are not part of a source build, these have to be installed separately. Treat them with caution, only install what you really need, and disable them when you don't need them.

Disabling apps on a rooted device is very easy:
# pm disable org.name.of.app

To enable them, just replace 'disable' with 'enable'. This can be done as often as required, the effect is instantaneous.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[Fallingcow]

samsung galaxy s

Haha, the Galaxy S, worst thing to ever happen to Android. My S 4G is, likewise, a piece of shit that I hate using, and has guaranteed that I'll be buying an iPhone soon. I can't name a single thing I like about this thing, and if not for barely-usable GPS and web-browsing features I'd have switched back to my "feature phone" with its slide-out texting keyboard and no apps worth mentioning, because that was a better phone than this.

I might, might consider a 4.x Nexus device—Android is quite a bit better in the 4 series—if they'd get rid of the stupid always-on-screen menu buttons. Part of what I hate about my Galaxy are the touch-sensitive menu buttons under the glass which I'm constantly hitting by accident, and now they made that part of the OS itself? There's no way that "feature" was prototyped and tried out on actual users before being greenlit.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[Compaqt]

>Who new privacy was a feature which had to be added?

Yeah. That's why I had always believed the best platform for people like us was Nokia. Free maps, Linux-based OS, Qt-based API, no ad-based revenue model, therefore no need to violate your privacy.

Unfortunately, they went off the deep end with Elop and M$, so we're stuck trying to stick fingers in a dike to stop privacy leaks.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[fa2k]

Warning: progressively more off topic rant.
Which ROM was it that worked for you? I'm about to give up on Android because of privacy issues, but there aren't many credible alternatives. I think iPhone actually has much better privacy, at least if iCloud sync can be disabled, but the open/closed difference is more important for me than privacy for now (even after this story, which only affects the Google store). On the new version of Android I can't even add local contacts. I'd have to set up an Exchange server if I didn't want to share my contacts with a US company (I have nothing against US companies vs. other companies, just pointing out the limited choice). [I just thought of an app idea, to make a "Local PseudoAccount" app that acts like an online account, but stores everything in an encrypted SQLite file on the SD card. It would only solve one minor privatcy problem though]

Sometimes I feel that I am now officially "old" (at the age of 26) for caring about this stuff. The next wave of technology may be to use accounts in huge centralised databases for all computing needs. If we're going to have a sci-fi future, that may indeed be the way to go, and in sci-fi they don't usually address who runs the infrastructure and has access to the data. For this reason I have considered to just give up and spew my data over all kinds of services and use Facebook connect, etc,etc.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[fa2k]

Sometimes I feel that I am now officially "old"

Ten minutes later I got an ad for "Avoid running out of money during retirement" .. I wonder if Google is getting that good ;)

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[mlts]

Sorta
Yes
Yes
No
Depends. Droidwall helps a lot. So did LBE Privacy Guard, but it hasn't been updated in ages, and doesn't support 4.1 or 4.2.
Use CyanogenMod or a custom ROM.
Depends on app.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[sd4f]

I went to a nokia lumia 920. Windows phone has its problems, but overall, i'm very happy with the phone.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[thegarbz]

Can you (easily) install apps by just downloading them to your computer and then transferring to the phone?

All your other questions were answered satisfactorily. But for this one you don't need to do anything fancy to sideload an app. Locate an app (normally .apk file) download it. Open it. Done. In order for this to work you need to tick "Enable unknown sources" in the Android menu, a feature which every phone has.

No need to use a computer for fancy sideloading. It's actually quite simple.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[strikethree]

Hm. If you buy a smartphone in America, it will be tied to a certain carrier. If you buy an international version of a phone (highly recommended) then it will still have stock "firmware" on it. Either way, yes, you do have to have a google account (you can create one just for that purpose) in order to "start" your phone the first time.

If you buy an international version and verify that you are buying from a company that does not lock their bootloaders (Samsung currently, or any Google Nexus phones), then you can install a custom "ROM" or "firmware" on it before ever really using it. If the bootloader is locked, there is usually a way to get around that but be prepared for some "work".

The closest you can get to a pure (compiled from source without manufacturer or carrier additions) ROM is Cyanogenmod. Available at www.cyanogenmod.org/

If you install Cynogenmod and do NOT install Google Apps (aka GApps), then you can use your phone without ever creating a Google account. That of course also implies no Google Play store but you can install apps from other repositories and they will work fine. If you add GApps and do sign up for the Google Play store, you are not required to add your credit card info but you are prompted for it. No biggie, just decline.

Once you choose an international model of phone to purchase, I would highly recommend going to forum.xda-developers.com/ and reading the FAQs and such concerning the specific model that you are looking at BEFORE you buy it. It is... enlightening. You will get warnings about any pitfalls etc concerning rooting, unlocking, SIM unlocking, etc so you will know if you need to avoid that model of phone or how much effort will be required to get it into the shape you want it.

In short, there is a way to use an Android based phone without giving in to the All-Seeing-Eye but it will require some work on your part since the default path is to expose yourself.

Good luck.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[drinkypoo]

Which ROM was it that worked for you?

Well, you have to keep in mind that my phone is an antique. I've lost too many PDAs to screen crackage in my pocket to want to buy portable devices whose price is best measured on the investment scale, so I have an Xperia Play. FWIW, I have loaded AuroraPlay 0.6 on it with DoomKernel v14. This means I'm running 2.3.4 with almost all of 2.3.7. I could upgrade to ICS or JB, but that's supposed to break the playstation emulator that came with the phone and I haven't got ready for that yet. As well, my phone has only 512MB RAM and one core, so I'm not really eager to use more resources on the OS. This ROM comes very clean, has a very small system partition, and a very fast boot of only a few seconds once cached due to odexing.

Re:Can you use Android without the Goog?

[Dextrously]

Thanks for the info. Google Play just lost another customer in me. I'm using f-droid now as well. Also just purged my phone of any other extra Google anything services. I used PDroid to lock down all the rest which I couldn't outright remove.

I have purchased a few apps from google play store, but they still seem to work with it gone. However, having AdAway removed is just so.. sneaky and underhanded. I don't trust app developers implicitly, AdAway was a basic protection against rogue apps using my power and bandwidth without permission, now Google is going behind my back and attacking the developers of these protective apps so they don't have to deal with me directly?

Lately Google has been upsetting me more and more with their direction. Over the past year I have been slowly trying to phase out anything Google from my life. I just don't trust them anymore.

I can't wait for Firefox OS.

"Don't Be Evil" My Arse

[blarkon]

At least we know why they gave Android away for free - it was so they would have a route to shove mobile advertisements down our throats.

Re:"Don't Be Evil" My Arse

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron. "Don't be Evil" doesn't mean "do nothing and let the business model be destroyed". Again, Moron.

Re:"Don't Be Evil" My Arse

[ikaruga]

Or you could just use alternative stores.

Re:"Don't Be Evil" My Arse

[Thud457]

Back before the crisis of the Eternal September, people used to put stuff on the web because they wanted to share knowledge with the rest of the world. You moneygrubbing corporate buggywhip hucksters are welcome to BUGGER OFF any goddamn time you like.

Re:"Don't Be Evil" My Arse

[pchan-]

"Don't be evil" is the greatest marketing line in the history of technology because so many doe-eyed nerds wholeheartedly believed an advertising company has their best interests in mind.

Re:Good

[lesincompetent]

That agreement applies to chrome's play store too i think. It's always play store.

I have a very effective ad blocker

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called paying for apps.

And what did you expect?

[coder111]

Of course they did. This threatens their business model. A corporation will do ANYTHING to defend its cashflow. Any corporation, even Google. You want to play in their walled garden- you have to do it by their rules.

I'm quite glad Android is not completely closed, and projects like F-Droid exist:
http://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:And what did you expect?

[xiando]

I trust that the software at http://f-droid.org/ does not do bad things, I do not trust the Google appstore the same way. This is why I removed all the Google spyware my phone came with, including GoogleServicesFramework.apk... the downside is obviously that I can't use the Google Play market but who cares

Re:And what did you expect?

[czernabog]

A corporation will do ANYTHING to defend its cashflow. Any corporation, even Google.

It's time to drop the "even" when referring to Google.

Re:And what did you expect?

[ohnocitizen]

There's more than a few variations of the argument "it's expected!". Does that mean it is also ethical, and not newsworthy?

Re:Good

[gidoca]

No, Chrome's store is called Chrome Web Store and doesn't appear to be affected, Adblock et al. are still available.

Oh fer...

[Namarrgon]

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:Oh fer...

[drinkypoo]

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:Oh fer...

[ohnocitizen]

Does anyone else not find this argument compelling? Oh, you spent $200 on an android phone, and can't switch without paying full out of contract price? That's totally cool, you still have choices! People aren't free to keep switching phones every time a given maker decides to change something a user might find detrimental. Also, most users don't want to void their warranty or take any risk by loading another, potentially less functional OS onto their phone. So "go try iOS or Ubuntu Mobile" isn't practical advice, since iOS means purchasing an iDevice, and Ubuntu Mobile means losing functionality and voiding your warranty.

Re:Oh fer...

[Namarrgon]

Then sideload. It's pretty damn easy.

Point being, there are choices - lots of them. All choices have downsides and upsides, and you have to weigh which is best for you, but the more choices there are, the closer you can get to your ideal situation. Android happens to offer more choices than many, but not using it is also a possible choice.

If you like an app buy it

[r6_jason]

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.

Re:If you like an app buy it

[Psiren]

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:If you like an app buy it

[mabhatter654]

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:If you like an app buy it

[Psiren]

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:If you like an app buy it

[betterunixthanunix]

That is like saying that getting my car serviced by a local mechanic instead of the dealer is "theft."

Re:If you like an app buy it

[LordLucless]

You better watch out, buddy. The cops are coming round to arrest you for stealing because you took a dump during an ad-break.

Re:If you like an app buy it

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I don't know but they may earn some money just presenting the app.

Re:If you like an app buy it

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Er, presenting the ad.

Re:If you like an app buy it

[Dogtanian]

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.

Maybe they would, but you're a single data point and only count if you can show you're part of a group large enough to be worthwhile catering for. They're not going to write a non-ad version of the app specifically for you (well, not unless you pay them silly money (^_^)).

Re:If you like an app buy it

[aaaaaaargh!]

No, it's not theft.

I can install and use whatever software I like on my telephone, including ad blockers. No justification required.

Re:If you like an app buy it

[remus.cursaru]

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.

You may pretend to hold the higher moral standards, but that doesn't make you right. On the other hand, forcing down the users throats you crap is nasty and I chose to refuse it. You are charging me for removing an annoyance that you intentionally put in your app in the first place? Thanks, but I can do that myself for free. If I don't have the freedom to use your app, paid or free, on MY DEVICE in whatever manner I see fit then screw your app, screw you and screw whatever platform you're using to do this to me. Ain't that simple?
If this harms you as a developer, maybe you didn't chose the right strategy in the first place or maybe your app just doesn't worth $0.99. Try publishing on iStore, a jailed user is already proven to be more obedient.
And... stealing? How is that working out exactly? I'm stealing something that you didn't possessed? Just because someone is supplying me an product doesn't mean I'm required to watch whatever ads are embedded in said product: I can change channels during ad breaks, I can skip the ad pages in a printed magazine and for damn sure I can put an ad block on my devices.

Re:If you like an app buy it

[remus.cursaru]

1) The developer made the ad version possible, as a way of making money without us paying for it.

You are now paying NOW, with MONEY, DIRECTLY for the app, but you are paying with time and bandwidth(money!).

2) Stealing deprives the victim of the original. This does not do that.

Stealing means removing something that one possessed. It isn't the case. Hell, one isn't even entitled to get money for an ad that I should have seen because said one wanted so.

Re:Good

[BasilBrush]

...for now.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Good

[man_of_mr_e]

You do know that Mozilla is releasing their own Phone OS, right? With their own app store.

Just pushing people to find alternatives to Play

[runeghost]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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:GNU forks of Android and Play needed

[Anonymous Coward]

- 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.

The Google Play Store has never been open source, so you'd need a GPL implementation of an Android app store from scratch. Sounds huge and difficult and infeasabl--wait, sorry, I meant that these guys already did it

Re:GNU forks of Android and Play needed

[drinkypoo]

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...

Re:GNU forks of Android and Play needed

[drinkypoo]

I have discussed it on G+ with an AdAway developer already :)

I am not angry about the situation, but as my first exposure to F-Store it is less than inspiring

Re:GNU forks of Android and Play needed

[rastoboy29]

http://f-droid.org/  for half the win!

Screw You!

[whisper_jeff]

Screw you Apple and your walled ...

What?

Oh...

Awkward...

Re:Screw You!

[zidium]

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.

Re:Screw You!

[zidium]

Let's see...

On my Mom's computer, I'm constantly having to do virus scans; about every 3 months, she ends up with something bad.

On my Mom's Android, she never runs into anything.

I think in her case (and millions other), the Android fenced park is protecting her from getting "smashed".

Comparison to Apple and other vendors...

[elashish14]

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:Comparison to Apple and other vendors...

[gl4ss]

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:Comparison to Apple and other vendors...

[alen]

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

Re:Comparison to Apple and other vendors...

[drinkypoo]

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:Comparison to Apple and other vendors...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just looked at them and can't see any qualitative difference.

And what's your gripe about launcher pro? Yes, it's a class of applications that is absent on AppStore - you must use the Holy Home Screen as Jobs intended and like it, together with the Holy Mobile Safari and other unreplaceable Apple provided built-ins (unless you're a pagan jailbreaker, then you can have pretty nice alternatives on your iPhone, if you want to)

Re:Comparison to Apple and other vendors...

[tepples]

So for which platform should an application developer develop applications while saving up a Mac to replace a PC?

Re:Comparison to Apple and other vendors...

[elashish14]

It does seem evil but apple is forcing a fair and profitable ecosystem for developers to get paid

Profitable, yes. Fair, no. Apple imposes a lot of (at best) questionable rules on what developers' apps are not allowed to do (too lazy to look up a comprehensive list, but e.g. web browsers). Google imposes their set of rules as well. But here we have a clear example of why it's good to have alternatives - to suit users and developers who value their privacy in ways that Google does not care to protect.

Should Apple have the ultimate deterministic right in what users are allowed to run on their phones? I do not think so. Vertical integration has never done anything to support anyone that wasn't in control of the process, and I sincerely doubt that allowing third-party app stores would in any way harm Apple, outside of perhaps introducing some reasonable competition in the available app stores on the platform.

Consider things this way - if it were not for the fact that Google allows third-party apps and app stores, then what options would there be for users who value their personal information be kept private from advertisers? Why should users in this category, and many others that Apple and Google may not cater to, be relegated to alternative platforms that have many other disadvantages?

Re:Comparison to Apple and other vendors...

[elashish14]

You own the phone. If you choose to jailbreak it or if someone starts a project to wipe and erase the flash storage and put some variant of Android on it instead, so long as it doesn't mess with the carrier firmware or cellular network connectivity, and so long as the process of creating that alternate software doesn't involve breaking any laws, then you can do exactly what you propose.

I feel that expecting users to jailbreak their phones is a bit too extreme in order to have full property value of their product, especially given that this often results in voiding the device's warranty and can cause severe damage to the device, particularly if the user doesn't know what he or she is doing. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that it should work this way out of the box.

That's not the same as forcing Apple to let you do what YOU want on THEIR operating system. It's not an undisclosed secret. People know what they're buying.

As I stated at the end of my other post, giving vendors too much control over the platform results in users being left with less choice. If Apple and Google have too much control over their platform, then it isolates users who have more specific desires, relegating them to platforms that aren't as developed - BlackBerry, Windows, FirefoxOS, Ubuntu. Just because you know what you're being forced into doesn't mean you've been given a fair choice between vendors.

Re:Good

[kthreadd]

Sounds like something that should be OK on an open platform.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

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 while at least that negatively affected me).

That's cool...

[L4t3r4lu5]

I just unchecked the box that said "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" in ABP, and dropped all of the exceptions from Ghostery and NoScript. Now I'm back to no advertising at all.

What About App Developers?

[mrpacmanjel]

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.

If you want to ad-block something fine but remember you may be hurting the app developers too.

Re:What About App Developers?

[drinkypoo]

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?

[tlambert]

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.

Re:What About App Developers?

[Xest]

Honestly, I could care less. I'm a developer but to me if you have to rely on users behave to make it worth your while then you've got a flawed business model and have no right to complain when it doesn't work.

To me it's just plain stupid relying on ad revenue, or complaining about piracy, good enough apps can be sold as is and even with piracy factored in will be profitable. If you produce good enough apps and don't have an entitlement attitude ("but the world owes me 3x what I'm making from this, it's piracy's fault!" bullshit) then there's no problem.

It's only the selfish greedy whiners who think the world owes them that are bothered about lost ad revenue or piracy. Those people need to accept that their product just isn't commercially viable, and, if they made it their full time job, need to accept they failed at business and should just get a 9 - 5 job like anyone else.

People like Notch get it, he doesn't care about piracy nor does he care about ad revenue because he's made his millions by simply producing something good enough for enough people to pay for to make it worthwhile regardless.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still download them from outside of the play store. That's pretty open...unlike some other platforms.

Re:Good

[Luckyo]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that Mozilla is releasing their own Phone OS, right? With their own app store.

With Blackjack and hookers?

the killer ap

[epine]

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 from the mountain of crap.

Re:the killer ap

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, I destroy my liver to temporarily reduce my mental capacity, oftentimes by significantly more than "10%". I don't know what you're drinking, though...

Re:the killer ap

[fche]

That is an interesting way to put it.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Pretty much all of the adblock writers put their stuff onF-Droid 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.

Almost all of them require rooting

[gelfling]

So it's not much of a loss either way.

Re:Good

[somersault]

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.

In Other Words

[turkeyfish]

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.

Re:In Other Words

[drinkypoo]

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.

So close, and yet so far. You can't shop only at the Play Store unless blah blah blah. But Android doesn't force you to shop at only one store. Your carrier can do that, but most of us still have a choice of carriers, as well as the option to buy an unlocked phone.

Re:Good

[killkillkill]

There is a difference between "open" and "we'll store files provide bandwidth and maintain the installation interface for you"

Don't be evil

[czernabog]

Boggles my mind how some educated people still see this all-knowing mega-corporation as nice and friendly.

Re:Don't be evil

[Intrepid imaginaut]

At least microsoft is an actual software company. Google is a marketing company. That it's managed to covert the normally marketing averse geeky masses into followers just means it's a very good marketing company.

Minor impact, really, blown way out of proportion.

[rodrigoandrade]

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

[bill_mcgonigle]

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

[water-and-sewer]

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:Just a guess

[Richard_J_N]

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.

You never heard of Android until a marketing compa

[raymorris]

I'd be willing to bet that you never heard of Android before Google, the marketing company, bought it. So Android marketing worked on you. If you're glad you have Android, marketing worked FOR you.

Re:Obama cars. Plus "in a debt crisis, put people

[hawkinspeter]

However, getting rid of old cars can provide a benefit in terms of fuel efficiency and better exhaust emmissions, so it's a tad more complex than the typical broken window fallacy. I personally doubt that the benefit outweighs the cost of building/buying the new car, so your point still stands.

Re:Good

[Looker_Device]

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:You never heard of Android until a marketing co

[sd4f]

I'm glad i don't have android. samsung didn't work for me :(

Re:Good

[Looker_Device]

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:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If you block ads, you're an asshole.

Really? Why?

Google, you have not thought this through

[fredan]

I, as an ISP, is running NXDOMAIN.

That means that my users can not see your advertisement regardless of what you do, since it's blocked on the DNS level.

Re:Google, you have not thought this through

[fredan]

Don't worry. They have to opt-in to be able to use this (ie. change ip-address to the dns servers manually).

Re:Good

[Dcnjoe60]

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:Good

[TheCRAIGGERS]

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:Minor impact, really, blown way out of proporti

[drinkypoo]

And if you can root your phone, you can certainly enable sideloading and say fuck you to Google Play.

I dumped the amazon market (and any apps I got there, like say the cute little photoshop thingy) because it kept shitting on my Nook Simple Touch. I'd have to FC it all the time. Now I have an Xperia Play but I'm still not adding it. You can say you don't need markets, but it sure is nice to get updates easily. So now I've added F-Store and I hope it doesn't shit itself...

Re:Good

[KritonK]

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:Good

[Dogtanian]

Yeah, and I'm sure there's very little street crime in a totalitarian police state too.

There probably is- they're just unlikely to let anyone report it freely. (Were you to try to do this, it's likely that you'd be in a *lot* more trouble than the actual criminals).

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

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?

Just sideload it.

[plazman30]

This would be a bigger deal if you couldn't sideload apps. If you're savvy enough to want an adblocker, then you're usually smart enough to root and sideload.

Ok

[MBGMorden]

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

[arfonrg]

Aww, forget the Blackjack.

Re:Obama cars. Plus "in a debt crisis, put people

[arfonrg]

The pollution and energy consumption required to manufacture the new cars out weighed the pollution and energy savings of using the old cars throughout their useful life.

Re:Good

[Desler]

Yes and carriers/OEMs will love being able to take it and lock it down since Mozilla will have zero power to stop them.

Re:Good

[Lazere]

I think that statement stands pretty well. I'm thinking Mozilla would be more than happy to allow adblockers into the addons section for Firefox Android.

give 'em an inch, they'll take a parsec

[Thud457]

If you publish ads, you're an asshole. You should be put in an iron coffin with spikes on the inside. There's nothing more to it.

There, FTFY.


Advertising is killing the web.
Every time I have the misfortune of having to use some benighted browser without adblock, I'm amazed at the amount of sheer CRAP that is forced in peoples' faces on the web. Let alone the goddamned exploits. What a useless waste of bandwidth.
That's what finally drove me to drop webOS and install Cyanogenmod on my touchpad. Guess I won't take any updates until they come to their fucking senses.

I'm certain sir Tim agrees with me fully.

Re:give 'em an inch, they'll take a parsec

[i kan reed]

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:give 'em an inch, they'll take a parsec

[chrismcb]

Is everything that uses ads bad? Radio, TV? Your newspaper and magazines? Or is it just free content websites?

Re:give 'em an inch, they'll take a parsec

[i kan reed]

Well, I certainly don't listen to ad-supported radio(NPR) or watch ad-supported television(netflix and purchased streams). As to the others... What are newspapers and magazines(like from a gun?)?

I'm moving from WebOS to Android shortly

[SCHecklerX]

I assume it's easy to just install an adblocking hosts file on android? That's how I do it on my Pre3 at the moment, with an ifup script that updates it when the phone detects it is on my home network.

Re:Good

[Fallingcow]

Is there seriously anything required for Chrome that isn't in gingerbread?

Man-hours ($$$) to maintain a fork for 2.3 Android.

2.3 APIs and OS behavior are pretty damn different from 4.x.

Re:Hello Barbara Streisand

[Richy_T]

I was about to post the same thing about the Streisand effect. Though I already use AdAway. Works pretty well though it blocks a site one of my apps (that I wrote) uses for real data. Easy enough to whitelist though.

Re:Good

[somersault]

I block ads in browsers. I'm just saying it's Google's service, it's their rules. Same as Apple do what they want in their walled garden.

I've no idea who Desctructoid even are, so I think it's a bit weird to try and make me out to be a hypocrite with that.

I think a lot of myself in some respects, less in others. Again I'm not even sure what in my post would lead you to say that.

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

Is there seriously anything required for Chrome that isn't in gingerbread?

Man-hours ($$$) to maintain a fork for 2.3 Android.

Uh no. That's a reason why an ICS application wouldn't have a gingerbread counterpart, but not a reason why you couldn't have Chrome on gingerbread. Gingerbread applications work fine on ICS, so I say again unto thee, why couldn't they put Chrome on gingerbread? From what I hear I'm not missing anything anyway, but the question remains.

Re:Good

[alen]

nope, the guy taking over android is in charge of Chrome

google is merging everything under chrome

Re:Good

[Nerdfest]

Adblock Plus on Android does not 'require' root. It blocks ads on wifi without it, and uses a proxy for the rest.

Re:Good

[Dishevel]

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

[Acaeris]

Chrome was specifically written for ICS (Possibly Honeycomb but that was a pointless release anyway). It makes use of elements added by ICS that aren't available in Gingerbread and they weren't going to backport those elements when the whole point of Android was that you should of been able to update it for a lot longer than manufacturers actually bothered doing it. It's this reason I got a Nexus after having the original Galaxy and only being able to get Gingerbread when Honeycomb came out and then getting no other updates.

If you're running Gingerbread, you'll probably be able to find a Jelly Bean rom to use that isn't reliant on your phone manufacturers whims. If that's not an option, I'm sorry. You'll just have to make do until youcan upgrade :/

Re:Good

[DragonWriter]

Just the other day there were people railing against Destructoid for complaining about ad blockers. Now, apparently as long as Google is involved, it is OK to allow ads to protect developers.

Or maybe the internet isn't just you and one other person, so that the fact that you saw someone on the internet railing against Destructoid and then later saw someone defending Google's position on ad blockers doesn't mean those two "someones" are the same person (or group of people).

Re:Good

[Fallingcow]

That's a reason why an ICS application wouldn't have a gingerbread counterpart, but not a reason why you couldn't have Chrome on gingerbread.

It's not a reason you couldn't. It's likely a reason you don't.

Gingerbread applications work fine on ICS

Hell, sometimes an app that was fine on 4.x will exhibit bugs on 4.y.

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

It makes use of elements added by ICS that aren't available in Gingerbread

How odd that Firefox seems to work fine with what's in Gingerbread.

If you're running Gingerbread, you'll probably be able to find a Jelly Bean rom to use that isn't reliant on your phone manufacturers whims.

I can install CM, but it's flaky in many respects on my device from what I can tell, so I'm not going to.

Not broken windows

[DragonWriter]

Never seen it? Obama uses it regularly. For example, he argued that destroying people's cars would help the economy because they'd buy new ones. He called it "cash for clunkers".

That's not broken windows. The economic growth was postulated to come from subsidizing purchases directly. The property destruction was not designed to improve the economy, but to improve the environment by destroying highly polluting cars. The two were linked, but the essence of the breaking windows fallacy isn't the mere association between an action which destroys property and economic growth, but the causal nexus between the act of destroying property and economic growth.

Re:Not broken windows

[raymorris]

The property destruction was not designed to improve the economy

True, but Obama said it was, at least several dozen times.
August 6, 2009 Statement by Barack Obama on Senate Passage of Cash for Clunkers Extension:

The American economy will continue to get a much-needed boost. ... Businesses across the country – from small auto dealerships and suppliers to large auto manufacturers – are putting people back to work as a result of this program. I want to thank Leader Reid and the members of the Senate who moved quickly to extend a program that benefits our recovery.

You are right in that it was not DESIGNED to improve the economy, but it was SOLD as an economic boost. When it was designed, it was acknowledged that it would cost the economy couple billion to try to have cleaner cars. Obama pitched it using classic broken windows.

Re:Good

[tompaulco]

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.

Priced apps are not available in all countries

[tepples]

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.

Provided that you 1. live in a country where Google has made priced apps available, and 2. are old enough to have a bank account of your own allowing electronic payment.

How does sideload automatically mean botnet?

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Sideloading is a terrible idea for pretty much everyone, even the people who think they know what they are doing. You will become a part of a botnet.

Could you please explain your reasoning behind why this is true? I get most of my apps through Google Play Store, but I have sideloaded a few, such as Amazon Appstore. I imagine I'd have to sideload anything that allows the user to create and share simple apps, as that'd violate the non-compete in the Play Store distribution agreement.

Re:Good

[Spottywot]

Having installed adblock plus for Firefox on my unrooted Nexus 4 I have found that it does not work as well as the equivalent plugin for my desktop browser. Having read through the various reviews, it seems it does work better on a rooted device.

Who funds the production of Free games?

[tepples]

Who funds the production of "a few games" that are distributed under a license for free software and free cultural works?

CDMA2000 w/o CSIM is typical in USA

[tepples]

If you can, avoid getting a carrier branded phone.

A lot of people in Slashdot's home country can't because of how CDMA2000 service works in the United States. There's typically no removable CSIM; the carrier has to program the subscriber information directly into the handset, and carriers tend to refuse to do that on unbranded phones.

Re:Good

[TheNastyInThePasty]

Forget the OS while you're at it

Scroogled

[goombah99]

This reminds me of the extraordinary lengths that the RIAA goes to sustain a technologically endangered bussiness model. Google, which gives away the razor and sells ads on the blades, is threatened by ad blockers which are cheap and easy to implement. Only by simply denying that technology can google's bussiness model work.

On the one hand, I'm happy to get free stuff in return for ads so I'd like that to make google enough profit to continue. On the other, denying inevitability creates conflict. What makes this a hard choice is that, like the tragedy of the commons, sometimes market restrictions are required to create a liquid vibrant market. But at some point it changes to unnecessary restrictions to preserve an outdated business model (see RIAA). Google is in the early stages where ad based services are a good thing. But at some point those services will be cheaper and easier to proved under some other bussiness model and meanwhile in the absence of those google will be turning the advertising revenue know up to 11 and preventing those from taking off to last a bit longer.

Microsoft has a point with its scrooged campaign. THe fact that MS is not a saint doesn't mean they can't speak truth.

Re: Good

[Desler]

Locked boot loaders. Updates at the mercy of the OEM/carrier. Crappy proprietary skins placed on top. Did you miss all of that?

The only reason things aren't worse is Google actually has been gaining leverage over the carriers. What leverage is Mozilla going to have? Yep, none.

Re:Good

[geminidomino]

Most people won't go around other android stores or internet sites searching for software, they're fairly happy with google play.

One has to consider that part of the reason they're happy with play store (as crap as it is after the 'upgrade' from Android Market) is that google wasn't pulling crap like this. We've been touting it as an advantage over the iphone since day one.

Yeah, they can always sideload it or get it from aptoide or amazon or whatever, which makes pulling it from Play seem even more pointless.

This just has a disturbingly fruity, Cupertino-esque smell about it. Kind of like removing USB Mass Storage support for SD cards.

fine, fix permisions while you are at it

[Nightjed]

I dont mind this move, its perfectly understandable, what i'd like them to fix is the stupid way permissions work, now everything asks for access to everything, enough is enough if they want to keep growing as a platform they need to give the user more control by default or theyll keep forcing us to take root further to reclaim our ownership over our own freaking device

Re:Good

[mlts]

I'm guessing they got complaints, so had to do something in order to keep the ad providers happy, as well as the developers who get revenue from admob and other providers. Had Google not done at least a token effort, there are plenty of other places the app writers can go (Tizen is waiting in the wings, Windows 8 is extremely mature, and there is always iOS where Apple can almost guarantee people will see ads slung at them.)

The nice thing about Android is that if Google blocks the apps on their store, there is always sideloading. I can use a QR code or click a link, and go from there.

I don't think Google is really evil, except they are responding to pressure put on them, as the consequences for not doing something (developers and possibly phone makers taking their business elsewhere) would be a lot worse than having users tick a check box and grab their goodies from a different source.

Alt market

[Wokan]

Maybe we need a market called something like Unplayed for stuff Google won't carry.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurr durr someone insulted Google. I better put on my internet fanboy cape and defend!!1

Developer, singular?

[tepples]

Who funds the production of "a few games" that are distributed under a [free] license

presumably the developer's day job

Developer, singular? Most programmers tend not to be skilled graphic artists, at least not to the skill level that even phone gamers have come to expect from professionally made games. To put acceptable art in a game, as I understand it, you need to hire someone to draw it, which means you need to plan for some source of revenue.

Re:Good

[UltraZelda64]

If you try to shove ads in my face, you're an asshole--and damn right I am going to use some form of ad blocking to eliminate that unwanted, distracting bullshit. When I want something, I am more than capable of doing the research to find the product that really is likely to be the right one for me.

Advertising tries to make you 'think' a company's product is better with no real facts or comparison at all, and when these things do exist, you know it is paid bullshit and propaganda with no sturdy, believable basis. Sorry, I just don't work that way. Advertisers, fuck off.

Re:Good

[Luckyo]

But you are a techie, as you're reading a techie website. It's safe to assume that most if not all techies are in fact aware that there are ad blockers for android.

Streisand effect is going to be pretty minimal in this case.

Re:Good

[Luckyo]

That depends. One way of blocking ads is to simply block known advertising network servers. Vast majority of small app makers use a third party advertising network. I'm not sure if android has something equivalent to windows hosts file, but I imagine one way ad-blocker for applications would work is by routing all network traffic directed to the known ad network servers' addresses to 127.0.0.1.

Other option is to firewall the application off the internet completely (if it doesn't need internet access to work).

Encryption would do nothing to help against this.

Re:Good

[Luckyo]

That is actually false. Google has been blocking software routinely from Play store for various reasons. It's just that these reasons have been generally far more lax then Apple's, and they still are.

Re:Good

[mapkinase]

So what exactly those ad-blockers to do if they are not related to browser?

I am confused.

Re:Good

[chrismcb]

Why is someone an asshole for putting ads into a free app?

I implemented a superior solution some time ago

[stoploss]

I never liked the HOSTS file approach to blocking ads, even on Android.

Instead, what I did was to setup a VPS with dnsmasq that is configured with entries from the latest ad-server namelists; now all my devices and machines can hit a single, poisoned DNS that is simple to maintain. As a bonus, it reduces latency because I also have httpd configured with mod_rewrite; the poisoned DNS entry in dnsmasq is the IP of the httpd instance which returns a single-byte-of-content, HTTP-200 (OK) response for any URL that is requested. Furthermore, most webpages reflow nicely if they get a basically-empty HTTP 200 response for a resource request, which makes this approach superior to the standard HOSTS file implementation that points back to localhost (ie. there are no "server is not listening" error messages in iframes, etc).

I cron'd the VPS to pull multiple ad-server namelist sources daily, update the poisoned entries in dnsmasq, and kick the service.

Solved once, solved everywhere.

Eat that, ad networks.

so what?

[Burz]

A very pernicious aspect of the smartphone market is that platform developers like Microsoft and Apple have drifted toward anti-Web attitudes and practices in an effort to give primacy to their tools (I suggest reading some of the /. commentary from when Apple banned adblockers). So the app markets for these platforms has been marred by an "apps not sites" tension that is often unnecessary.

It is very bad for the web if an advertising dichotomy is created between web and native apps. Its a signal that mobile app developers should give up on the web. It hardly matters that users can choose alternative app stores to get OS-level blockers, because authors will fear a majority who might not bother to switch.

Re:Good

[geminidomino]

Yeah, but most of those have actually been *good* reasons. Malware and the like. This one's just self-serving.

Android privacy is achievable

[stoploss]

Use a CyanogenMod, AOKP, or AOSP ("vanilla") ROM with OpenPDroid injected into it. Check the screenshots for the PDroid Manager app (configures the OS-framework hooks) to see what I mean.

Yes, you usually have to inject it yourself using the auto-patcher utility, but OpenPDroid solves all your privacy concerns (and far better than any iOS solution can ever do).

So, this solution requires the ability to use a command line (and install cygwin if you are a windows user); however, you're unlikely to ever find a mainstream device OS that is as privacy-secured for the user as you are able to achieve with OpenPDroid.

If you are really paranoid, also use DroidWall to prevent certain apps from having access to the network via iptables rules.

Re:Good

[SirSlud]

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:Good

[SirSlud]

Good thing nobody is forcing you to install software written by assholes.

Methodology?

[stoploss]

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.

Interesting, how did you verify this? EtherApe?

Personally, I just loaded DroidWall blacklisted the kernel and the GPS process and called it good. Didn't bother to check further, because I rarely enable GPS anyway.

OpenPDroid takes care of the rest for me. I just block apps from being able to access my GPS or network location. Sometimes I like to have fun: I have OpenPDroid return false data to individual apps... "Why yes, I *am* at the Tunguska Event site in Siberia, and—wow!—my phone number coincidentally is 123-456-7890! What special promotions do you have for me today? Oh, you want to access my camera? Sorry, it's mysteriously offline right now.".

Re:Good

[geminidomino]

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 of the app store into a cluttered mess of mass media kruft; crippling or outright omitting external storage to push this "cloud" garbage; and now this.

     

Re:Good

[lostmongoose]

If you think your app is worth money, sell it. If you don't think people will buy it but still want people to use it, either release free w/o a catch (ads) or keep it to yourself. Ad supported "free" is a gift that keeps on taking form the user in the from of mobile data usage to retrieve those ads. Sell it for a fair price or give it away. Anything else, aside from not releasing it at all, is sleaze and designed to back door monetize your users.

Re:Good

[bibliophage]

Call me a sell-out, but I disagree. Static ads that don't move or play sound or (try to) infect my computer are acceptable, and when I've identified a site I like that polices their ads for crap like that, I will allow ads.

CORRECTION: Organizing a team of developers

[tepples]

presumably the developers' respective day jobs

How do you recommend putting together a team of amateurs, including at least a programmer, artist, and composer, none of whom expect to get paid, to work on a single project?

Expected production values

[tepples]

It sounds like you've never played a single free (really free, released by the developer for the purpose of _helping people have fun_ and nothing else) game in your life.

My point is that amateur games tend not to have the comparable production values to major-label paid games, and people accustomed to professional production values are unlikely to buy a device if it supports only the Free games on F-Droid. How well did devices like the GP2X, GP2X Wiz, GP2X Caanoo, and Pandora, devices designed specifically for running amateur games, sell in the west?

Re:Good

[DMUTPeregrine]

Android has a hosts file, located at /etc/hosts as you would expect for any other Linux distro.

Re:Good

[DMUTPeregrine]

I know of one site on the entire internet with a policy towards ads that I find acceptable. That site is krebsonsecurity.com. He doesn't use flash ads, and manually reviews what ads will be shown to prevent malware ads from appearing. He has caught several such ads in the past, often after he posts information about criminal scam rings and such.

If you're not willing to take the effort to prevent malware being served by the ads on your page, then I'll take the effort to do so by blocking all ads.
If you're not able to distinguish malware ads from normal ads, then I'll take the safe path by blocking all ads.
If you do ensure your ads are all legitimate and aren't overly annoying (no sound) then I won't block them.

Re:Good

[Darinbob]

Hmm, I've never even seen ads on Android. Maybe I don't use it enough.

Re:Good

[somersault]

I would have even done it for Microsoft. The guy was being a retard.

Re:Good

[thegarbz]

Not Android itself but many of the free apps are actually ad supported. Paying for those apps normally either simply removes the app or provides a few additional features.

Re:Good

[thegarbz]

Let me offer a flip side here. I offered a suggestion to the developer of an app I used for a few features and the discussion of why not create a paid app without ads came up. They only offered a free app with ads.

They said basically that Google's Play store only supports payments for apps in select countries. Add providers on the other hand offered no such restrictions.

Re:Just pushing people to find alternatives to Pla

[strikethree]

Droidwall. It is not an ad blocking application but it can be used to block ads. it is a firewall of sorts for your handset.

Regards

Upgrade from "lite" to "pro" version

[tepples]

Advertising should be opt-in, controlled by the user at any time.

At any time, a user living in a supported country can buy the paid version of a given application, which in the vast majority of cases contains no ads.

Plan

[tepples]

If you can't afford to do that, then you've got to come up with a plan to get there.

I was trying to explain one such plan: develop for Android until you've saved up the $1200 startup cost for iOS. Or are you implying that that plan is the wrong path?

free gratis

[krischik]

Probably because free is not gratis (lat. grtia => for a thank you) . Free usually is a trick.

Re:Good

[RockDoctor]

I knew what ad-blockers are before this.

I didn't know whether or not they were available for Android. I'd never bothered to research the issue. I get slightly irritated by the various adverts in my applications, but it hasn't been enough irritation to do anything about it. Thus far.

But now I do know. And if the adverts get sufficiently irritating (developers - are you listening?) - boom - away they go.

And if the ad-blocking itself is blocked ... well, I can go back to using a dumb phone. It's cheaper and much, much less hassle.