Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
World's largest ad-pusher seeks to push more ads.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Way to miss the point. It's about Android, not Chrome.
(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?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
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.
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
No, Chrome's store is called Chrome Web Store and doesn't appear to be affected, Adblock et al. are still available.
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.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
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.
...for now.
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).
You do know that Mozilla is releasing their own Phone OS, right? With their own app store.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
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?
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.
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.
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.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Sounds like something that should be OK on an open platform.
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).
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.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
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.
"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.
You can still download them from outside of the play store. That's pretty open...unlike some other platforms.
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.
You do know that Mozilla is releasing their own Phone OS, right? With their own app store.
With Blackjack and hookers?
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.
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.
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.
which is totally what she said
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.
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
Boggles my mind how some educated people still see this all-knowing mega-corporation as nice and friendly.
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.
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I dont read
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!!
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?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
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?
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.
nope, the guy taking over android is in charge of Chrome
google is merging everything under chrome
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".
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Forget the OS while you're at it
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
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.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
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.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Android has a hosts file, located at /etc/hosts as you would expect for any other Linux distro.
Not a sentence!