Samsung's AdBlock Fast Removed From the Play Store (androidheadlines.com)

New submitter Alexander Maxham writes with the news reported at Android Headlines that Samsung's ad-blocking Android app called AdBlock Fast "was apparently ousted from the Play Store for violating section 4.4 of the Developer Distribution Agreement, stating that an app cannot disrupt or interfere with devices, networks or other parties' apps and services. (Also noted by Engadget.)

Comments

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Saw that one coming. Oh well at least sideloading works.

Re:Duh

[KGIII]

Heh... Yup.

I guess you could say... That was fast...

B) *walks away* (I've actually seen a couple of episodes of that show!!! Yay! Pop culture reference - I've come out from under my rock once or twice.)

The F-Droid app store allows ad blockers

[Anonymous Coward]

The F-Droid app store allows ad blockers. These are just two:

https://f-droid.org/repository...

https://f-droid.org/repository...

F-Droid only contains free and open source apps. Each of them is fully built from source. https://f-droid.org/

Re:The F-Droid app store allows ad blockers

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung has their own app store ("Galaxy Apps"), which I'd expect this to show up on. Although, I don't actually know if all of Samsung is aware that they have their own app store.

Re:The F-Droid app store allows ad blockers

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but why lol... first 5 app is M$ lol... Anyways, adblocking should remain an underground stuff, an arcane knowledge, a craft that you need to learn. Ads are good things that help small time devs. Also use firefox + abp ffs...

Re:The F-Droid app store allows ad blockers

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a terrible suggestion. Avoid Samsung's branded trackware entirely. Stick to F-Droid and open source adblockers.

Re:The F-Droid app store allows ad blockers

[AmiMoJo]

Note that the version of AdBlock+ on F-Droid is quite old (2013), because newer versions contain binary blobs.

AdAway is great. Shame root is required, but if you don't have/want it there are a number of non-root firewall apps that can use HOSTS files.

Hay, APK, when is your Android version due, and will it need root?

Re:The F-Droid app store allows ad blockers

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be downright illegal, as it threatens the very life source of The Web!!! AdBlocks should be only available through dark web sites and the Ad Police should perform random inspections at people's homes or, more specifically, in their computers. Those who would be found guilty of possessing illegal adblocking software would be hauled to backayrds and shot. Ringleaders suspected of spreading knowledge about adblocking software would be flown to Guantanamo for enhanced interrogation.

Re:The F-Droid app store allows ad blockers

[amiga3D]

Waterboard 'em.

Cats & dogs living together

[Guspaz]

So, let me get this straight: Apple is encouraging iOS users to use ad blockers by adding explicit and specific support for them to Safari, while Google is trying to erase ad blockers from existence...

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[alvinrod]

What's so crazy about it? Google makes almost all of their money from advertising and Apple makes practically none of theirs that way. Is it that difficult to see that one company would rather sell you a cheap device that serves plenty of ads and the other would rather you pay a premium for a device that will block all the ads?

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is an advertising company. Apple is not. Makes sense.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you took stupid pills. As is so fondly said around here: Follow the money.

Apple's customer base want something that "just works" and lacks clutter. They'll pay a premium for this.

Google's customer base doesn't mind advertisements and are willing to put up with them as long as it keeps the apps and devices on the cheap.

While Slashdotters may disagree, these are the facts for about 95% of Android's user base. Most of them don't give a fuck about open source or custom distros, they like getting a cheaper device and free apps.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

The iOS ad blockers are worthless. I get the same AdChoices stuff that covers the entire screen with the blocker on versus off. Android's at least work.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Kjella]

Google's core business is delivering targeted advertising and marketing data, give it away "free" then monetize the hell out of it. They're only opposed to malware and deceptive ads because it hurts their much bigger business of ordinary ads. What on earth made you think Google likes ad blockers? They're all cloud and web apps and put your data online so we can analyze it. And praise Jeebus they didn't get anywhere with G+, if they had Facebook's data too you'd almost have them shoulder surfing with you. Apple? It's the iSphere and you're paying for it but as long as they get a cut they're happy. And they got all sorts of stores like iTunes to sell things themselves, don't need to remind people of the world outside the iSphere. Maybe you're thinking about the part where Google uses open source, but that's just on the client side to break monopolies and get users hooked up to Google services. It's a tool and sometimes there's a common enemy but they're not your friend.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Darinbob]

I'm in Google's customer base, and I want something that just works and lacks clutter, but which is also usable.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Lunix Nutcase]

You're surprised that an advertising company pulls an ad blocker from their app store?

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Guspaz]

Try a different ad blocker, maybe? I've been quite happy with BlockBear. I must admit that it doesn't block all ads, but it catches the vast majority of them.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[alexmaxham]

Well Google makes the majority of their money from Ads (90+ percent of their revenue)

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol no you aren't. Their customer base is the people who PAY them, aka the advertisers. Revenue from devices is non-existant and cloud services like Google Apps is a piss in the ocean.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Jack Griffin]

Is it that difficult to see that one company would rather sell you a cheap device that serves plenty of ads and the other would rather you pay a premium for a device that will block all the ads?

But where is that third option, a premium device with no ads or tracking, that I can do what I want with?

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in Google's customer base

Only if you're buying advertising space. If you're not buying ad space then you're part of Google's product base.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple makes it money from selling you hardware/software/services. Apples approach means they can push for privacy because it does not impact the bottom line

Google makes most of its money from selling adverts. Googles approach means that privacy be damned they need to spy and sell your info.

Easy to see the difference it attitude.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

Design and build one , you may even be able to sell some.

But seeing how hard it is for Microsoft and Blackberry I doubt you will make any money.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it that difficult to see that one company would rather sell you a cheap device that serves plenty of ads and the other would rather you pay a premium for a device that will block all the ads?

But where is that third option, a premium device with no ads or tracking, that I can do what I want with?

The Amiga will rise again!

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[gl4ss]

chrome on android has a popup blocker.

how is that not "interfering with networks" or whatever. it has also "content protection" which is just basically the same thing.

also chrome app store has no such limitation.

so what the fuck google what the fuck

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously Google would never allow that. If the trend sticks they would be screwed.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[wshs]

Google's customer base is advertisers. Android users, which pay nothing to Google, don't mind the advertisements.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

they like getting a cheaper device and free apps.

If that's what they like then they should buy a Windows phone instead. It has decent hardware, courtesy of Nokia, good software out of the box and is available at door buster prices from the major carriers. Also, the user base is so small that advertisers and developers of "crapps" couldn't care less about the platform which is a nice plus. Finally, because Microsoft cannot stop supporting Windows phone without hurting their ecosystem, they will continue to support it for as long as it takes, maybe a decade or more, as they have done with XBox even thought that also loses money year after year.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[no1nose]

Get an iPhone.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

It is however Google's attitude when it comes to their ad propagation, mediation and management which is doomed if they keep it up. (I know they make tones of money I'm not talking about today).

If you sign up to Adwords they sell your data to a bunch of 3rd party trawlers that pester to buy their terrible SEO products. Google has a separated, slow, unfair, censored, and sometimes downright malicious attitude towards their AdSense publishers. Where sometimes they'll withhold your funds and you need to sue the money out of them (which they simply buckle and pay you out because they know they'll lose).

And you can feel sympathy all you want to the regard that yes many people do try to rip Google off. However, in Google's backward way to mitigate this they end up burning so many good bridges in the process. Fact is. Google cheapens and dampens the Ad market world. And with companies like Amazon, AOL and Twitter creating mediation products that match if not out do Google. Google is overdue for a fundamental change in how it does business.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

If you just site where you are for another 5 minutes someone will be around to escort you to the re-education centre where you will come to understand that there isn't a third option and never will be., that one person can only see one option at a time and once they've chosen they can never change.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[GuB-42]

Buy a good Android device with an unlocked bootloader and use an AOSP based ROM with no gapps. Use Firefox mobile with your favorite blocking extensions as your browser. Use permission control to restrict apps that are a bit too curious. There you have it : premium device, no ads, no tracking. It may not be enough if you wear a tinfoil hat but nothing is good enough for tinfoil hats.
According to XDA, Sony seems to be the recommended brand because they are developer friendly and produce nice devices. Nexus have good support too. Also don't buy your phone through your carrier.

It is not as easy as buying a phone off the shelf and there are some downsides but you have understand that what you are asking is not what most people want. People want tracking because it allows plenty of nice features (like Google now), they like free stuff and ads are an effective way of financing free stuff, and they just want things to work out of the box rather than control all the details.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[gweihir]

Google is an ad-company (and maybe an NSA front, who knows), while Apple is a devices company.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how the Firefox developers currently seems hell-bent on doing away with Adblock as we know it by removing its underpinnings and, more recently, moving in the direction of removing the ability to say "NO" to cookies, I'd be a bit hesitant to endorse them.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[AmiMoJo]

Google's customer base doesn't mind advertisements and are willing to put up with them as long as it keeps the apps and devices on the cheap.

Then why are there so many expensive Android phones sold? The latest Galaxy S model costs the same as an iPhone.

Since there are such a wide variety of Android devices available, you can't really characterize the billion+ owners by price bracket. Also, cheapskates are often the ones who appreciate ad-blocking the most, since if you pay there are usually less ads anyway.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[amiga3D]

An Amiga phone! Hell yes!

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[amiga3D]

People don't mind ads until they take over your phone. I hate when viewing a site having an ad pop up to cover what I'm trying to read. That doesn't inspire me to buy anything. I tend to hate the people doing it to the point that if I note what they're selling I vow never to buy it. Getting in my face is the wrong way to sell me anything and I wonder what kind of people actually buy stuff from those shitstains using that kind of method.

Re: Cats & dogs living together

[Samantha Wright]

Let's phone up Gateway and see how that's going...

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, google is fine with ad-blocking browsers because they don't 'interfere with other apps'. So that's hardly 'trying to erase them from existence'

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[CastrTroy]

But Google Owned Motorola when I bought my phone. So I did pay Google for the phone and the OS that came with it. There's also the Nexus phones that you can order from Google's website. Sure, some other company makes them, but I'm sure that Google gets a cut of sales.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[malditaenvidia]

You just wait, Palm will put their BeOS purchase to good use any day now.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[malditaenvidia]

Make me.

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[malditaenvidia]

Don't want to invoke you-know-who but is there a way to use a hosts file with either android or iOS?

Re:Cats & dogs living together

[andymadigan]

You're using the wrong blocker. Try 'Distilled'.

Re: Cats & dogs living together

[amiga3D]

Man, I could have gone another year without hearing about those idiots! To hell with Gateway.

Re: Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

Google actually spends a good deal of money on R&D, unlike Apple (proportionally speaking). I'll wager Google will be ahead of Apple in 10 years in size and profits, due to being strongly diversified. Maybe 5 years.

Re: Cats & dogs living together

[Anonymous Coward]

BS! The actual differences between droid and apple are negligible. Meaning people on both sides just want their shit to work. Seriously, apple fans just want to be seen as having the 'cool' phone, whereas droid users don't gaf.

Open Source

[110010001000]

This is why Android isn't really Open Source in spirit. It is as closed as Apple is. Corporate controlled is not Open.

Re:Open Source

[Gaygirlie]

This is why Android isn't really Open Source in spirit. It is as closed as Apple is.

Hardly. Even on a non-rooted device all you have to do is tick "Allow untrusted sources" in the settings and then you can install stuff outside of Play Market as much as you like. Play Market is closed, yes, but it's also a separate thing and not required for using an Android-device. iPhones and iPads and the likes, as far as I know, require doing a lot more than just ticking a single box to allow installation of things from outside of Apple's AppStore.

Re:Open Source

[110010001000]

Oh yeah, all you have to do is this and that. That is why I say "in spirit". Android is about as open as iOS. Linux is Open.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu is Linux.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

AOSP _is_ open source. There exist projects which only base on AOSP and build it for your device. You then can decide whether to install the play store app, or whether you want to install alternative app stores, all independent from google. They all run on the android platform. Yes, most of android devices ship with the play store, but you still have the option to completely ignore it.

Android is not as open source as iOS. iOS is completely closed, and there are no good pure-open-source alternatives. Android is rather as open source as desktop computers. They ship with windows (most of them do), but still you have the option to install fully open source operating systems on it (like linux).

There even exists an only-open source app store: F-Droid. They only allow apps which solely have open source dependencies on their store. All apps that rely on one of google's proprietary on-phone services are forbidden. This even disqualifies many apps that are in theory open source, but which require some of google's on phone services (most prominent example is the signal app, developed by twitter).

Re:Open Source

[110010001000]

No it isn't in spirit. Ubuntu is just another corporate piece of junk.

Re:Open Source

[hypergreatthing]

Except there's not only the play store, but it allows 3rd party apps to be loaded as well as competing stores like the amazon store.
While i don't agree with Google Play's policy, there's at least a choice, which is the world of difference between Apple and Google.

Re:Open Source

[MightyMartian]

It strikes me that "in spirit" is just a sort of goalposting shifting term, very convenient to trot out when you feel like you might be losing an argument, but having absolutely zero utility for describing anything at all.

Re:Open Source

[110010001000]

Yeah yeah, but for the majority of Android deployments Android means AOSP+Play Store. Don't kid yourself.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

AOSP is missing a hell of a lot more than the play store.

Re:Open Source

[110010001000]

There is no choice: it is controlled by a single corporation. Google, Inc. Android is not Open Source in spirit.

Re:Open Source

[110010001000]

It isn't goalposting. I put it in my original post you corporate apologist.

Re:Open Source

[vux984]

Oh yeah, all you have to do is this and that.

"This and that" is tick one box, that is present in the settings.

That is why I say "in spirit"

And you are wrong. If they were the same "in spirit" they wouldn't GIVE you the option to load apps from anywhere else on a silver platter.

Android is about as open as iOS.

No, android is a LOT more open than iOS.

Can I opt to use an alternative app store like fdroid or the humblebundle store on android? Yes, I can. Its officially supported. Can I do that on ios? No way, not without literally breaking ios.

Can I buy a game for android directly from the developer, on his website, download it and install it? Yup, I can do that if i want to. Can I do that on ios? Nope.

Can I download the source for android modify it and flash it to my device with the full support for doing so provided by the manufacturer (although obviously they'll no longer support the operating system I install). On some devices from some manufacturers: yes, you can. With Apple, on any device -- no. The software cannot be downloaded and modified, and no they do not support allowing you load any customizations you might make at all, period, ever.

To say they are the same even "in spirit" is simply... lying.

Re:Open Source

[jedidiah]

> Oh yeah, all you have to do is this and that. That is why I say "in spirit". Android is about as open as iOS. Linux is Open.

all except for that inconvenient detail that you just glossed over.

They allow for alternate sources of apps. The method of allowing this is so simple that even a blithering idiot (or an Apple user) can manage it.

Conceptually, it's pretty similar to adding a PPA to Ubuntu.

Re:Open Source

[preflex]

Yes, most of android devices ship with the play store, but you still have the option to completely ignore it.

No, you don't have that option as long as it's installed. Play store will update apps on your device that it didn't install. Install Firefox from F-Droid, and googleplay will update it. There's no way to remove it. The only way to get rid of Play, is to install a ROM that doesn't have it pre-installed.

Re:Open Source

[sexconker]

The Play Store and other Google core apps are not free, not open source, etc. They're to be bundled with Android, the locked-down, not free, not open source mobile OS. OEMs have to pay Google to get access to these apps as well as pay Google to get access to Android.

You have the option of downloading it illegally from someone who dumped it from their own phone, got it from "somewhere, wink wink", etc. Alternatively, you can download a custom ROM with it baked in from someone who did that step for you. I DGAF about downloading it illegally, but let's not claim that AOSP+Google's apps are a free and open option.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no choice: it is controlled by a single corporation. Google, Inc. Android is not Open Source in spirit.

this shitposter sure loves to repeat himself. silence that mouth by eating some cock.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

The only app for which this is true is Firefox however. All other apps on F-Droid are built by F-droid itself. Firefox isn't built by f-droid team out of multiple reasons, and is only kept inside the store because of its popularity, and the lack of alternatives.

But yeah, as long as the play store is installed, google essentially has root access over your phone, as gapps are (almost) always installed as system apps, and those apps can trivially become root to do stuff.

Re:Open Source

[110010001000]

Oh yeah, all you need to do is tick one box (which is hidden deep in the settings). Give me a break. Only 2% of Android users know this setting exists. And Google knows it. That isnt in the Open Source spirit and you know it.

Re:Open Source

[110010001000]

OH yeah, because my grandmother can add a "PPA to Ubuntu" whatever that is. 98% of android users don't know what sideloading is. Give me a break.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Android is not Open Source in spirit.

You keep saying that... but repeating yourself does not make you right.

Re:Open Source

[NotInHere]

AOSP follows the "cathedral" approach of open source. gapps are closed and proprietary, that's true, and most apps require one or another gapp. Google has managed to get most apps rely on their services one way or another, even though they published most of the OS as open source. This can't be said for microsoft, or iOS (yeah, the compiler, browser engine and the kernel are open source, but what else?), so kudos to google for this.

Yes, Android is proprietary, but I still like that almost the whole OS is open source. Anyways, I wouldn't want to use the proprietary components anyways, e.g. their maps app, which sends the position I am interested in to google's servers. I use osmand, and have the full map on my device. I don't need to send google my position every time I look at the map, or tell google which route to drive, or etc. Or take the GCM service, which is good in thought, I don't deny that, but I don't trust an advertising company to run it, I prefer to have a free choice over this.

I'm comfortable with the fact that these apps are proprietary. I don't want spyware on my device. I don't want it to be integrated into the system and my ROM creator doesn't care to remove the spyware features. Its already now pretty common among CM users to download gapps onto their phones, even though its illegal, imagine the pressure from the community if the devs removed a spyware component from the open source part that rendered 90% of all apps unusable.

Re:Open Source

[NotInHere]

Probably your grandmother can't click "next next finish" on the usual windows installer either.

Re:Open Source

[green1]

You realise that if you try to install something that would be blocked by not having this checked, the dialog box that pops up actually links to the place in the settings to change it, right?

If you can't find it then, you have no placed operating any piece of technology built in the past 30 years

Re:Open Source

[Dan541]

The open source community love everything Google.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Its sad when someone so young looses their imagination.

Re:Open Source

[gstoddart]

Give me a break. Only 2% of Android users know this setting exists. And Google knows it. That isnt in the Open Source spirit and you know it.

But you know what? Likely only 2% give a fuck about "The Open Source Spirit", have no interest in that, and don't want some screeching yowling loon telling them it's not open source enough.

So, before you keep going all RMS and howling about how it's not pure enough for you ... do kindly remember almost nobody else cares.

The rest of the world just rolls their eyes, tunes this shit out, and reaches for Candy Crush and Facebook.

Neither Google nor Apple are in the business of making phones to appease the rabid open source people. You may have to live with that fact.

Re:Open Source

[NotInHere]

I prefer the option being "default deny" rather than "default let users execute whatever shit they find on the net". On windows, there are tons of sites, with varying reputability, and even the larger ones offering you to install you some bloatware of theirs. On android you only have google (note the "only have", google is an ad company after all). I consider this better for the average person.

Re:Open Source

[MightyMartian]

I can download the source of Android right now, and I can run commercial software on a "spiritual" Linux distro. So you're just talking rubbish, the kind of rubbish kooks who irritate their families at dinner.

"Do we have to invite him over, all he ever talks about is the righteous purity of open source..."

Re: Open Source

[Bing Tsher E]

Android has Firefox, and Firefox had Adblock Plus. I use an Android phone and I refuse to run any browser but Firefox on it. And I NEVER log on to Google's services in Firefox. Real Firefox isn't even available in iOS.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why Android isn't really Open Source in spirit. It is as closed as Apple is. Corporate controlled is not Open.

What utter bullshit. You can side load applications and use alternative repositories, you can load custom firmware and you have access to the OS source code allowing you to come up with your own if you have the skills.

Please provide links to all the above for any iOS device. We're waiting. Oh, you can't, because you're just a 10%er Apple shill.

Re:Open Source

[phantomfive]

So, before you keep going all RMS and howling about how it's not pure enough for you .

Even RMS doesn't seem to care about the setting being 'difficult to find. Especially since you can install your own version of the OS. His biggest worry is that some drivers are binary blobs.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

So much this i own a Samsung Galaxy S3 from 2012 and i run a Custom ROM with the newest Android (6.0.1).
Yes official Support ended year ago. So what. I can still run the newest OS with the newest gapps.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

just fuck off and keep chomping on zombie jobs rancid cock!

you are an idiot troll
 

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

> Android is about as open as iOS. Linux is Open.

sudo pacman -S samsungscrap
error: target not found: samsungscrap

Oh no! Linux isn't open because the package manager doesn't have samsungscrap in the repos because of licensing/patent/trademark issues. Oh wait I can just install the package myself, but by your standard that makes archlinux (and debian et al.) not open in spirit.

Re:Open Source

[KGIII]

On android you only have google (note the "only have", google is an ad company after all).

*cocks head quizzically*

I gave up Android a while back but I'm not yet senile and I've got an Android tablet almost within reach. I don't think Installed one single app from Google on my last phone except for Opera. The tablet has Opera and Firefox. I have, however, installed apps from a lot of other places that were, quite specifically, not Google.

If you want to install something off the 'net that you found on some sketchy site, unless I'm forgetting, it actually prompts you to enable installing stuff from 3rd parties. Err... I kind of only know this because I'm that oddball that doesn't actually go installing a whole bunch of things but I've come across a few apps that looked interesting and weren't in the store.

I reread your post a few times, trying to see if I was missing something, and I'm pretty sure I'm not. Also, I don't really agree with you - as tempting as it is. If a user wants to shoot themselves in the foot, I guess it's just easier to let them do so. Taking away the idiots access may also take away the access from the smart person. I'm really not sure that reducing things to the lowest common denominator is the ideal solution? But, that's another point entirely.

I'm pretty sure, positive really, that I've more than Google as an option on my Android tablet and on my old phone. It's like a box. Tick the box and you're good to go. If you try to install something and that box is not ticked, it'll happily take you to that box in the settings so that you can tick it. Once ticked, it seems to stay ticked.

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody made that claim. AOSP (or CM or...) without Google's apps is the free and open option.
And it makes for a fairly usable smartphone (probably similar in app availability to Windows Phone?).
It's not worth it to me, but some people do that.
If that's not good enough, then you can just as well say there is no truly free or OpenSource OS for PCs because most programs only support Windows.
Note that you are actually probably right anyway though that for real hardware no Android is truly OpenSource: They basically all depend on binary blobs for drivers, especially GPU, video processing and camera. That is an issue, especially since those are usually so poorly written they won't work on the next version of Android and are full of security holes. It is not exactly Google's fault though.

Re:Open Source

[ausekilis]

Android is about as open as iOS.

Can I download the source for android modify it and flash it to my device with the full support for doing so provided by the manufacturer (although obviously they'll no longer support the operating system I install). On some devices from some manufacturers: yes, you can. With Apple, on any device -- no. The software cannot be downloaded and modified, and no they do not support allowing you load any customizations you might make at all, period, ever.

To say they are the same even "in spirit" is simply... lying.

You're comparing "freedom" with "openness", and there is a difference.

Yes, you are free to install whatever you'd like from wherever you'd like on Android. I wouldn't go so far as to say "re-flashing the phone with a different Android" is supported. In fact, doing so voids any warranties with the manufacturer and as you mentioned I couldn't bring it into a T-Mobile store for a fix. In many cases there's a bunch of hoops to jump through to even get to the point of installing Cyanogenmod. So sure, there's some freedom there.

Openness, however, is really lacking. Google has a stranglehold on the market with their Google Apps (Play, gmail, movies, music, etc...). I've rooted my phone and attempted to remove those google apps I don't use, such as calendar and gmail, and each time my phone checks for an update those apps are reinstalled. I vaguely remember some being uninstalled remotely somehow on another phone, too. I'd also argue that when most people see the "Install from a non-trusted source?" dialog, they'll cancel out of whatever they were trying to do. Have you seen the source for any of the Google Apps? No? then they aren't 'open' are they?

Re:Open Source

[KGIII]

Heh... Normally, I'd let ya be but I actually decided to scroll back up here to fuck with you.

See, I read some more of your posts and you're drooling on yourself in public. You rant and rave about corporations. You rant and rave about open source. Well, son... Today is the day you either learn to be humble or you decide to go off in a fit of rage.

Allow me to post a link...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Allow me to quote from that link:

The Free Software Foundation was founded in 1985 as a non-profit corporation supporting free software development.

Emphasis added, emphasis mine.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org...

Heh, there's the corporate charter. Let me get you the salient text...

(an Oregon nonprofit mutual benefit corporation)

Emphasis added, emphasis mine.

Shall I find the articles of incorporation for the folks behind BSD?

'Snot that I'm gonna disagree that Android is Open Source in many, many ways. (See prior posts in this very thread.) It's that your spouted spittle flecked gibberish is a bit silly when the very things you sit there and claim to stand for and appeal for are the same things you claim to hate. I'm afraid that trying to have them both makes you look a bit silly. If you want to know what a corporation is, you need but ask and I'll take the time out of my schedule to explain it to you.

If you don't know the meaning of words, you probably ought not use them in front of people until after you've looked them up. Corporations are not bad things. Corporations are just things. Are you using software or a computer to read this? You're a corporate apologist! Your posts, supporting open source? That's you - being a corporate apologist.

When you say, it's not open source "in spirit" that's just you picking one corporation over another. Yeah, that's a good corporate apologist. I hope you enjoy the taste of leather while you're down there kissing that corporate boot that is the FSF! Bend over and take it for the Linux Foundation - you corporate apologist!

Yeah... Kind of sorry but I couldn't just let that slide. It's okay, we've all posted drunk and stupid on Slashdot. You corporate apologist! ;-)

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

I scrolled back up and figured I'd take a few minutes to get some actual citations. We'll find out from their reactions what kind of person they are. I did so in a nice manner but I pointed out that they're an idiot. I just couldn't leave it alone - I'm like a kid with a dollar in a store that still sells penny candy. Yup. I've the restraint of a five year old. What'd I do? Well, I figure you might miss it as few people refresh and reread threads. I pointed out that FSF and the Linux Foundation are both corporations - as in legal, incorporated, corporate bodies with bylaws, charters, articles of incorporation, paperwork, and everything that makes them a corporate entity. I'll link it, if you want to see it, and post this as an AC so I don't raise my post count.

http://mobile.slashdot.org/com...

Yeah... The corporate apologist was bugging me specifically. So, I had to do it. Yes, I know... I'm about as mature as a five year old. I just have a bigger body, more toys, and they let me drive. It's pretty dumb to be railing about corporations when talking about open source. Being incorporated is what gives them the tools they need to get things done. It's a bit like the folks who rail against copyright while forgetting that copyright is what enables the GPL. Copyright is what stops someone from taking the Linux kernel and locking it down on a released product. Corporations are what enable a group of people to stand with one another as a single legal entity with certain benefits, penalties, responsibilities, and protections. Corporations are not bad, idiots and assholes are bad.

'Tis obviously KGIII

Re:Open Source

[amiga3D]

It's a sad fact that you are correct. It applies in fact to almost everything in life. Most people, as long as you let them alone to do pretty much as they please, care little about anything going on under the surface. We see this with things like the "Patriot Act" and the Trans Pacific Partnership. Nobody cares unless they can't see their favorite show.

Re:Open Source

[gstoddart]

Well, and just as important to remember ... people have no interest in having their cell phone or internet browser be politicized to this level. It's annoying.

People just don't give a damn. It's hard to save some energy to care about real things instead of getting dragged into some bullshit screed about how Android doesn't embody the Open Source Spirit.

The problem is a lot of open source advocates ratchet it up to extreme levels, which are not unlike the crazy guy on the street corner telling us the end is night ... at a certain point, it just becomes melodramatic and irrelevant noise.

Equating open source zeal with some of the really scary stuff happening in the world is a little loopy, and mostly comes off like someone off their meds.

Re:Open Source

[rizole]

What's 2% of 7 billion? I'm not good at maths but I bet it's a bit more than fuck all.

Re:Open Source

[lgw]

What actual point are you making? Is there any device you can describe where a non-technical user can install software without using he default distro and without being more likely to get malware than what they were seeking? How would that even work?

Re:Open Source

[TangoMargarine]

On the contrary, a good imagination loosed on the world is a good thing.

Re:Open Source

[amiga3D]

True, but then it's all part of the same thing. Some are just more extreme. I watch the national debt clock climbing away and wonder if it'll hit 100 trillion in 3 years or only 2. Everyone sees it climbing but they don't worry about it. The world keeps spinning though, it always has.

Re:Open Source

[vux984]

I wouldn't go so far as to say "re-flashing the phone with a different Android" is supported.

I qualified that as being supported by SOME manufacturers/devices, which it is.

. In fact, doing so voids any warranties with the manufacturer and as you mentioned I couldn't bring it into a T-Mobile store for a fix.

Actually those select manufacturers have committed that reflashing the OS does NOT void the warranty. But yes, naturally you can't take it to T-Mobile to troubleshoot a problem with syncing your email. If you swap out the OS you take ownership of that. But those manufacturers have committed to dealing with buttons that fail, batteries that fail, and other hardware warranty issues. Worst case you may have to flash it back to a stock OS to demonstrate that its not a software issue.

I'd also argue that when most people see the "Install from a non-trusted source?" dialog, they'll cancel out of whatever they were trying to do.

That's the right decision for Grandma and the VP of marketing. If they doesn't know f-droid from myHappyLuckyTotallyNotAScamStorePlusPlus then they shouldn't leave the google play store.

Have you seen the source for any of the Google Apps? No? then they aren't 'open' are they?

I haven't see the source for Portal either, which runs on linux. That doesn't make linux non open. Android is not google apps, and you can use android without them. I ONLY use the google app for maps myself.

You're comparing "freedom" with "openness", and there is a difference.

I don't deny that android as an ecosystem, especially from the perspective of the major corporations behind it is not ABOUT openness per se. Corporations are motivated by marketshare, profitability, revenue, etc... I get that. I get that they aren't ABOUT openness as a concept. Even RedHat isn't really ABOUT openness, its just a means to an end.

Nevertheless Android is still MUCH more open in actual practice. And even in spirit, it is far less hostile to openness than Apple is even if openness isn't the primary consideration driving all decisions.

Re:Open Source

[blivit42]

Hmm... this is interesting given his previous 2012 Slashdot response when asked if he owned a mobile phone:

"RMS: I certainly do not! A cell phone is Stalin's dream: its movements are tracked, and it can be converted (through the universal back door) into a listening device."

Re:Open Source

[phantomfive]

Yeah, there are other aspects he dislikes about Android, and he is supporting some open-source hardware projects, but "complicated UI for allowing third-party software" is not his concern lol

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't call it "open source". Call it Free Software.

Re: Open Source

[malditaenvidia]

You can't avoid logging on to google's services on android, no matter which program you're using. They know where you live.

Re: Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it's illegal to download it, just to install it in violation of terms of service/agreement.

What is the specific clause in the terms for end users?

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Then stfu gstoddart! There's nothing you say we give a fuck about when you screech and yowl you mongoloid babboon!

Re:Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

gstoddart you create irrelevant noise each time you speak here and what people don't give a damn about is your moronic mongoloid scribblings nobody can decipher as you attempt to write the english language destroying it. Please, stfu, ok? Thank you.

Internet service disruption?

[Mitreya]

app cannot disrupt or interfere with devices, networks or other parties' apps and services.

Oooh, ooh, can an app mess with my internet connection by loading many ads? So anything that uses the device bandwidth excessively could also be banned now?

Re:Internet service disruption?

[Citizen of Earth]

Android 6.0 has a feature that allows the user to deny applications specific system privileges, thereby disrupting or interfering other parties' apps and services. Therefore, Android itself needs to be removed from the Android marketplace.

Re:Internet service disruption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this disallows virus and malware blockers too. Can't be interfering with those "apps". Ethics and lost money don't matter.

Re:Internet service disruption?

[GuB-42]

Oooh, ooh, can an app mess with my internet connection by loading many ads? So anything that uses the device bandwidth excessively could also be banned now?

If it does it in the background than yes, probably. Google banned several apps that were a bit too aggressive running in the background because it interfered with the "doze" feature.
However, as long as you stay confined within you app, anything goes. There are ad blocking browsers on the Play store, there are also apps that abuse your bandwidth in the foreground, for ads or anything. What is forbidden is for an app to act on another app. And while Google may be a bit partial regarding this rule, it doesn't only apply to ad blockers, for example, they kicked out apps that did multi-window because it changed the way apps were rendered.

Re: Internet service disruption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google, you just got lawyered.

Android != Play Store

[Anonymous Coward]

Pull yourself together.

Re:Android != Play Store

[110010001000]

Android==Play Store >> Instances of Android Deployments.

Re:Android != Play Store

[MobyDisk]

Running an Android phone today, without relying on the Google stuff, is really hard. No store sells such a phone (except those cheap phones that replace it with the Amazon equivalents). You usually have to root the phone, and the manufacturers won't honor the warranty. You risk some hardware not working, not getting updates, etc.

Face it: The hand held phone industry is 100% vendor lock-in. They aren't like PCs where you still have Linux if you want to control your machine. Heck, even Windows and OS X don't try to lock you down the way Android, iOS, and Windows Mobile (or whatever it is called now) do.

Re:Android != Play Store

[110010001000]

100% correct. Android is not Open Source in spirit

Re:Android != Play Store

[NotInHere]

Except for the part that alternative ROMs usually update their ROMs longer than, hardware vendors. Not without reason it's called "aftermarket" firmware.

They aren't like PCs where you still have Linux if you want to control your machine.

If your phone is well supported by a third party ROM vendor, the situation is IMO actually comparable to the PC world. Most of the stuff you want to run won't work (like MS office, the Adobe tools, or games), but the basics _do_ work.

The existence of alternative (open source) ROMs is only on Android. Not on iOS, nor windows mobile.

Probably there is one difference: In the PC world a far larger percentage runs "truly" open devices (where the full application/OS layer is open source), than on android, which has a strong inclination towards gapps. Google basically moved the border closer to them, and getting many open source developers write for their platform only.

Re:Android != Play Store

[KGIII]

Probably there is one difference: In the PC world a far larger percentage runs "truly" open devices ...

What's kind of worrisome (and I do mean legitimate worry) is that there are an increasing number of people who push for the elimination of the general computing device - i.e. the desktop and much greater choice in the software that runs on it.

I think I've posted enough so that I needn't expound on my being an open source aficionado and not an open source zealot. As an example: I don't really care that someone uses Windows and I'm glad they have that choice - I don't even think that all software should be open source, I think a person should be able to pay for closed source software if they want to.

That said, open source has done a hell of a lot for the industry and for enabling people, regular people, to do great things. I don't know who I'm quoting, and it's not verbatim, but somebody recently said something like this: "Android is Linux after they've taken the kernel into the basement and performed a vivisection on it while raping it with a garden hose."

For 95% of the users, there's not a damned thing open about their phone. While they may not care, or even know, it means as many people are starting to rely on their mobile as their only compute device that the influence had by open source software is going to be lessened. People are giving up their choices, they're not maintaining those choices by keeping desktops, they're giving them up. "It's good enough."

I'm kind of old... (58) So, I might not be here but what will the scene look like in 15 or 20 years? What will the industry look like without the zealots having influence to counter the abuse potential or outright abusive behaviors? What choices will the user have, what will they *really* have for choices? No, not tomorrow - not next year, but twenty years from now.

I'm not a futurist and I don't really do the prediction thing but it's worrisome. I read a lot of comments. Many, many folks seem to be pushing for this and the adoption of this trend is amazingly fast as far as tech goes. What happens when the desktops become rarities and require arcane lore to operate? What about if they become too expensive for the average person to afford as they become specialist items? What about when they're only used by developers and not much else but black boxes exist?

There are a lot of worrisome trends. The trend to return to the days of dumb terminals and leasing time on someone else's hardware is another one that I find concerning. They've got a supercomputer in their pocket but want to run their office suite in the browser, on someone else's hardware, and paying for their slice of time. That looks remarkably familiar. What's the landscape going to look like in 15 or 20 years?

Re:Android != Play Store

[MobyDisk]

So how do we fix this? Is this important enough to drop our current projects and go "Okay, we need this." I don't contribute to much open source (I have 2 young children) but maybe this cause is a worthy one.

Re:Android != Play Store

[KGIII]

Well, part of it is cultural. People are moving away from general purpose computing. Is that because they never took advantage of it before? Is that for some other reason or reasons?

Maybe open hardware? That's a trend that folks are working at but it's not as realistic as I hope. No, I'm not expecting end-users to jump all over open hardware necessarily. I'd expect others to do things that enabled others to utilize their freedoms more.

Be vocal but not obnoxious? "There's no need to store your photos in the cloud. You can host them on your old computer at home just as easily."

It's bigger than open source software, I think. Hell, a lot of it is (currently) running on open source software. People have managed to take open source software and find a way to *reduce* their freedom - voluntarily. Or, in the case of businesses, for the sake of saving a percent of a percent by using the "cloud." Yes, yes I'm aware that a cloud can be hosted locally. We called that a server room.

We've got enough compute power, in everyone's pocket, to do great things. Yet, here we are, using them as dumb terminals. That's sort of okay, what about when you want to make something?

If I see one saving grace, and this may seem odd, it's that I'm seeing more devices come with a keyboard now - or at least with that as an option. It has usually been an option, just not always utilized. I'd like to hope that the keyboard may turn things around. The keyboard may change it from being a consumption device to a creation device.

If they're a creation device then that might be the drive that keeps the general purpose computer, in the home, alive. I'm open to suggestions... I'll be buggered if I know the answers. I don't know how to fix it but I can tell you that my wrist is well and truly screwed. I really don't know how to fix this. I can't think of a magic fix - it's also cultural and no software seems to fix that. I can't even blame it on Facebook, Twitter, or even the kids today, the kids don't know any better.

Re: Android != Play Store

[IBME]

You can root and still be warranted moron.

90% of Google's Revenue comes from Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anyone really surprised they'd take down an ad-blocking program from their store?

Source: https://abc.xyz/investor/news/earnings/2015/Q4_google_earnings/index.html

Can't Scroogle the Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is an advertising company. Effective ad blockers will never be allowed on a platform they control, end of story. I'm surprised this made it onto the Play Store to begin with.

VPN, SSH tunnelling

[Anonymous Coward]

Best remove all of those apps too then, as they to disrupt in a similar way.

AdBlockPlus Browser still available

[J053]

I don't know what Samsung's ad blocker is doing differently, but Eyeo's Adblock Browser is still available in the Play Store. I have it on my Nexus - no problems, and it makes browsing much nicer. The Android version of Firefox also supports ad blockers. But, people gotta hate on Google.

Re:AdBlockPlus Browser still available

[drinkypoo]

In the case of adblock plus, it's that it functions as a proxy and can prevent ads from being shown in applications (in some cases.) Probably the same here.

Re:AdBlockPlus Browser still available

[Tony Isaac]

Maybe the difference is that the AdBlock browser doesn't "interfere" with other apps. It is its own app.

Unfortunately, the browser isn't a very good or very fast one. I quit using it after a couple of days because it was faster to just browse with ads.

Re:AdBlockPlus Browser still available

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise. The AdBlock browser is HORRIBLE at scaling. Try zooming in or out on a website and you're asking for a heap of poorly-rendered pain.

Thank god, i'm sick of paywalls.

[musixman]

I'd rather have ads then paywalls. Youtube is now trying it with the "red" program & if that's the case say good bye to a free internet.

Re:Thank god, i'm sick of paywalls.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you say such a thing?

Make a new Youtube.

Re:Thank god, i'm sick of paywalls.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly right and he says it since he is obviously an advertiser.The internet worked before it was monetized and it will continue to do so.

Will Tizen allow AdBlock ?

[jcdr]

Could ba a good argument against Android.

Re:Will Tizen allow AdBlock ?

[Jack Griffin]

So what is the alternative? Apple is too strict, Android is too loose. In desktop land we have Windows which sits in the middle of Apple and Linux, but unfortunately this is not a viable option in mobile land.

Re:Will Tizen allow AdBlock ?

[cbhacking]

Windows 10 Mobile does still exist (well, it's technically pre-release right now, but it's easy to get on Windows phones and some even come with it). It's a solid OS that provides a degree of balance between Android and iOS on openness (easy sideloading - easier than Android these days, even - and more permissive than Apple on what an app is allowed to do). There are even new phones with the OS still being announced; it's not as if it's been abandoned.

Its main problem, of course, is application availability. Microsoft (and W10M users) is hoping that developers will embrace the Windows 10 Universal app platform, but Microsoft may ultimately need to complete the work they began to get Android apps working on the platform, which they demonstrated partial support for a few months ago and then removed without further ado.

Re:Will Tizen allow AdBlock ?

[Jack Griffin]

Its main problem, of course, is application availability. Microsoft (and W10M users) is hoping that developers will embrace the Windows 10 Universal app platform,

I think they've missed the boat on that one. I'm working on a big project that includes a new App (not my team, but I'm across the work). Due to the effort/costs involved, the rule our devs have adopted is only Apps for platforms with at least 10% market share. Which makes sense from a cost/benefit point of view, but if everyone has a similar view it means the likes of Winmobile and Blackberry are dead in the water.

LOL WAT

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a SHITLOAD of apps on there that interfere with other apps all the time.
Hell, there are god knows how many process and system optimizers out there.
Google being Google as usual.

I don't even mind ads as long as they aren't abusive.
I blocked all youtube ads because fuck that noise. Those pop-over ads can get 10 kinds of fucked.
Not to mention the pre-ad ads. Only Google can be both shitty and nice at the same time. It is like stabbing you with an anaesthetic-coated knife.
All plugin ads are also disabled by default since they are all click2play.
JS ads as well. Too abusive. I will never enable them until a sub-spec is created exclusively for ads that limits the bullshit they can do. (similar to how web workers have a sub-spec without all the HTML, DOM and other stuff on top)
Pop-[anythings] are an obvious.
Abusively flashy GIFs. ANY video ads outside video sites, any audio ads outside audio sites.

Everything else, I am fine with. Text ads. Static images, Low-FPS simple GIFs. Video on video, audio on audio.

disrupting or interfering by design

[fahrbot-bot]

... an app cannot disrupt or interfere with devices, networks or other parties' apps and services.

I imagine these rules are meant to apply to unintentional/unknown actions, not ones by design for which the user specifically installed the app to perform. Otherwise, all those call/text/spam blocker apps (like Mr. Number) need to go, 'cause they're interfering with things too...

Re:disrupting or interfering by design

[BradleyUffner]

... an app cannot disrupt or interfere with devices, networks or other parties' apps and services.

I imagine these rules are meant to apply to unintentional/unknown actions, not ones by design for which the user specifically installed the app to perform. Otherwise, all those call/text/spam blocker apps (like Mr. Number) need to go, 'cause they're interfering with things too...

Google made the rules, and they are the ones that say the ad blocker is breaking them. I'm pretty sure they are the definitive source on what the rules were "meant to do".

Re:disrupting or interfering by design

[Alumoi]

Unfortunately Google doesn't think ads are just like spam.
You and me and any onther thinking being knows it's not true, but for Google and other big corporations it goes like this:
ads = unsolicited marketing coming from paying individuals
spam = unsolicited marketing coming from non paying individuals.

So, where is the apk?

[argee]

Where is the APK? Play store is not the only app source for android devices.

Re:So, where is the apk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chihowa knows

"Actually, APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience in this context. Of course, your phone has to be rooted, which isn't the case with Firefox + adblock." - by chihowa (366380) on Saturday May 16, 2015 @11:40AM (#49705641)

Re:So, where is the apk?

[NotInHere]

I don't really know how to convert the #49705641 to a visitable url. I'm trying http://mobile.slashdot.org/com... but comments.pl seems to require both sid and cid. Is there a way around this?

Re:So, where is the apk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Found it with about 10sec of googling (I don't vouch for it.. use caution)
https://apkpure.com/adblock-fast/com.rocketshipapps.adblockfast#download ..though I'm already happy with AdAway (again, google it)

Re:So, where is the apk?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need them both.

I tracked down the apk comment and the og comment though for you.

http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8381739&cid=50999857
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7422943&cid=49705641

SEE PEOPLE AC CAN BE HELPFUL. Now, back to trolling.

Re:So, where is the apk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your google-fu is poor danielsan: On www.google.com Query

chihowa site:slashdot.org

To find his registered account name, then search his account by the date of the post May 16 2015.

Simple http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Ha! I loved APK's Howard Stark Analogy to Captain America's shield on how hosts is "stronger than steel and a third the weight" against browser addons. He's right. Hosts are lighter but stronger and faster too.

Re:So, where is the apk?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not our APK! APK made a program. It does more than addons for less for more speed, security, reliability from 1 file you have http://www.start64.com/index.p...

Re:So, where is the apk?

[NotInHere]

Thanks for the help, and have fun!

Re:So, where is the apk?

[BradleyUffner]

That's not our APK! APK made a program. It does more than addons for less for more speed, security, reliability from 1 file you have http://www.start64.com/index.p...

Sounds legit guys.

Anti-Virus apps in violation of Sec 4.4?

[Anonymous Coward]

So technically, Anti-virus apps should be banned from the Play Store because they "disrupt or interfere" with a virus-containing app? lol

Remember

[cfalcon]

The "interfere with other apps" is because a good adblocker can block ads not just in your browser but everywhere on the box- they can deny web connections cleverly, so apps can't refresh their ad-pile.

On ios, none of these adblockers exist (well, maybe with a jailbreak)- the content blockers function in the ones that use safari to render (so web pages).

Android also offers other ways to get things like this on your phone.

It's just two radically different approaches. Google can behave like a general purpose computer with some fighting, but then you are worried about the standard drama of adminning your box. Apple fights this hard- it takes a jailbreak to actually do that kind of thing there, but they aren't hostile to ad blockers in the same way, even creating a class of application that can deny connections just for it.

Lol, shocking

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Who could have guessed that Google, a company that exists primarily to serve ads, would have a problem with something that blocks ads?

It's shocking and was completely unforeseen.

Re:Lol, shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

You like adblocking? Why get down on APK for then? He's built the best adblocker, online speedup and protection from 1 native file you already have in his hosts program. Unquestionably so doing a lot more from a lot less resources consumed. Even others besides myself will tell you that http://slashdot.org/comments.p... quoted. Are you a webmaster, almostalladsblocked fan, advertiser or malware maker/botnet herder? They're the only ones that would say what you have about somebody creating a solution that's better than any other single one out there for all those things at once with less no less.

Re:Lol, shocking

[future assassin]

But what is it of Googles any business what I block on my phone or what traffic shaping I do ? Sure the play store is theirs but then they can fuck off and let me remove all google related stuff from the phone with out having to root it.

Re:Lol, shocking

[Alumoi]

But what is it of Googles any business what I block on my phone or what traffic shaping I do ? Sure the play store is theirs but then they can fuck off and let me remove all google related stuff from the phone with out having to root it.

Your phone, their OS. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Or grow some balls, root your phone and erase everything Google. Better yet, install a pure AOSP build with no gapps.

Re:Lol, shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why get down on APK

I think the folks who are haters mostly don't like his method of promotion, which involves a giant screed that can flood a thread. I see less of that now- he'll pop up a few times a thread, not a zillion.

There's some reasons to dislike host solutions too, but hosts solutions have a great deal of merit. I'm also pretty sure the host engine is Windows only. But those are minor details overall.

Re:Lol, shocking

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

But what is it of Googles any business what I block on my phone or what traffic shaping I do ?

None, from what I can see. What's your point?

Sure the play store is theirs but then they can fuck off and let me remove all google related stuff from the phone with out having to root it.

Then root your phone or get a different brand or whatever you like. I'm not stopping you.

I'm just pointing out that it should come as no surprise to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that a company whose raison d'être is to serve ads would have a problem with something that blocks ads.

Re:Lol, shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't object that much if I'm allowed to run ghostery, click&clean, and ublock origin while using chrome.

Re:Lol, shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

JustAnotherOldBlowhardBULLSHITTER why'd ya lie about working for Microsoft? Care to prove that statement? No? Thought not. Must be an "NDA" that you signed with yer fantasyland fake name here online, right? Hahahahaha (the bullshit and foam spewing from JustAnotherBLOWHWARD's piehole will ensue - stay tuned, keep yer seatbelts on everyone! Hilarity will ensue, guaranteed!)

Re:Lol, shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk's detractors are advertisers, webmasters profiting by ads from advertisers, inferior competitors and malware makers who haven't validly technically disproved apk's points on hosts to date.

Re:Lol, shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

JustAnotherOldBLOHWARDLiar's a webmaster. Ask him. He doesn't mind AlmostALLAdsBlocked as it doesn't work against his paymasters at Google, Microsoft, or Amazon and he hates hosts since they do block those ads too.

Re:Lol, shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

JustAnotherOldBLOHWARDLiar's a webmaster. Ask him. He doesn't mind AlmostALLAdsBlocked as it doesn't work against his paymasters at Google, Microsoft, or Amazon and he hates hosts since they do block those ads.

real reason it left....

[Anonymous Coward]

it lacked the common element of google app store items... hidden spyware and malware and fifty popup ads on every app launch.

Re: real reason it left....

[Bing Tsher E]

"Every" is a word you are obviously not qualified to use.

What's left out

[eWarz]

What's being left out is that Google is NOT blocking an Adblocker, (this was quickly covered by real tech news sites, some of which *gasp* actually reached out to Google to fact check before blindly parroting 'news'.) Instead, they are blocking Adblockers that violate Google's terms of use. (modifying system files, interfering with other apps, etc.) You are perfectly welcome to build, publish, and even sell ad blockers. You aren't permitted to break functionality of other apps.

Re:What's left out

[Anonymous Coward]

Shirley you're joking. A call/text/spam blocker breaks the functionality of phone/messaging/mail app which is to make/receive calls and send/receive/display messages, even unwanted ones.

What's an app for then?

[mugurel]

I thought the very purpose of an app is to interfere with devices, networks or other parties' apps and services.

Firefox

[danbob999]

Available in the play store, and supports ad-blocking extensions.

Google Play allows some adblock browsers

[Anonymous Coward]

Adblock Browser for Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.adblockplus.browser&hl=en
Ghostery Privacy Browser: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ghostery.android.ghostery&hl=en

Just use Adguard or Adblock Plus

[LichtSpektren]

The fact that they're not in the Google Play Store shouldn't stop you.

It is - check it... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: It's safe/code verified @ source too + antivirus checks galore - MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

&

MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per a VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Installer-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

-

* "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

APK

P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

"The image this title brings to mind is a mighty military commander who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" -> https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!

(Accept NO substitutes)

...apk

anticompetitive

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck google, the most anti competitive company in the history of man

the real question.

[Anonymous Coward]

So why does ad blocker need access to my phone and camera? Is it for developer work or is it malevolence.