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.
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.
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!
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
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.
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 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!
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"?
...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).
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.
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
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.
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.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
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.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
Sounds like something that should be OK on an open platform.
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.
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
Boggles my mind how some educated people still see this all-knowing mega-corporation as nice and friendly.
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.
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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!!