Google removes AdBlock for Android from Google Play
venturebeat.com
venturebeat.com
PS: More reason to stick to Firefox, especially since installing non-Chrome Web Store add-ons requires jumping through hoops[1] and even if you do so they won't auto-update AFAIK.
EDIT: I'm sorry. You're right. I got confused about what was removed from where. Apparently I'm not alone in this confusion because as of this edit the top comment for this thread starts with the sentence "the thing about blogspam is that it often generates confusion" and continues with an explanation of the situation[2]. Again, I apologize for my half-baked comment.
[1] http://support.google.com/chrome_webstore/bin/answer.py?hl=e...
Adblock for Chrome is still in the Webstore.
Also the way Adblock in implemented on mobile does introduce security risks: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/02/13/google-has-effective...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/
"Adblock Edge is a fork of the Adblock Plus version 2.1.2 extension for blocking advertisements on the web. This fork will provide the same features as Adblock Plus 2.X and higher but without "acceptable ads" feature."
"As a developer for Adblock Plus I am looking forward to a resolution to this issue which indeed is a serious problem.
Here are our proposals on how to fix this security hole without compromising Adblock Plus and similar apps: (A) Add an additional permission for apps that want to act as a proxy and/or (B) Add an API to Android that is similar to Gecko's nsIContentPolicy and Chromium's WebRequest (access to this API may require the permission mentioned in (A))"
This has nothing do with the blocking ads on the web like people are saying. These instead block ads in things like Angry Birds and other apps.
Adblock for Chrome (the one you are talking about) is different from that of Android. And really, it's no big deal either, Android allows apps outside of Market to be installed without any rooting or modifications to the phone.
Then you'll be pleasantly surprised to know that they CAN indeed autoupdate, and the DIY autoupdate mechanism is very lightweight to setup. And it includes security checks (i.e., will check if update is signed with the same key as the extension etc). I have a personal extension that's served out of S3 which does exactly that.
People that are use to living in Apple controlled walled-gardens dont understand that being removed from the play store doesn't mean much.
Their apps can still be listed in alternate app stores as well as download directly and installed directly (its trivial to install an apk which has been downloaded. Things are especially easy if you have a rooted phone, which I'm assuming most HN Android users do.
That's the major proponent of using Android for me. Just like my computer I am free to modify is and install any software I want.
I'm sure if the App Store even ever approved an Ad Block app it's long gone by now. Can any iPhone users comment on this?
I'd wager 100 HN bucks this is not the case.
If Google or Apple wants to make money with a walled garden and (in Android's case) subsidize our use of the open source result, then I think that's a pretty good bargain. IMHO, our part of that is letting Google play in its walled garden as long as their part (AOSP) is intact.
They appear to be saying that ad-blockers "interfere with [...] in an unauthorized manner the devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party"
Which is baffling, because I as the operator of my web browser is the person who gives authorisation for code (including ad code) to run on my browser on my machine.
I can think of a bunch of stuff that interferes with stuff - readability is an example. Why is it not okay to block ads, but is okay to drop CSS and reformat a page?
I fully understand why people run ad-blockers. I don't use ad blockers, so I know just how awful many ads are.
> [...] I wish people would use it more carefully. What does "carefully" in this context means?
These are genuine questions. I always recommend AdBlock to all my friends and everybody is delighted with it. I would like to have a point against AdBlock, though. Some times people come to me to install "that wired program that removes Ads in youtube"... you know what I mean.
I don't use ad block because some people get paid by me seeing the ad, even if I never ever click the ads. I know I've never bought anything from an ad. I'm unlikely to ever click an ad but it does sometimes happen. (But this just proves to me that I'm never going to buy anything as a result of an ad).
I feel that usually ads ruin the experience for me far more than it would be justified by the $0.003 the site earns, so I can't say I feel bad.
A perfect situation for me would be to be able to pay those sites the amount they earn by showing me ads, without me seing them. I'd add a site to a list in AdBlock or some other extension; the site wouldn't show me the ads and ruin my experience, getting the $0.003 (automatically) from me, not the advertiser. Too bad such nanopayments (well, formally millipayments) are far from being simple.
Which is fine. If you're gonna have an ad I can't avoid but doesn't significantly slow down page load, fine with me.
I never understood that logic. If you don't enjoy a website then you shouldn't visit it. That way you will only visit websites that you do enjoy, so you have no reason to use ad block.
If you're browsing websites that you've never visited before then you shouldn't be using ad block at all until you've decided if you enjoy it or not. If you do then you should make a list of each website you visit with ad block enabled and send each of them compensation for the costs they made for your free entertainment.
I chose not to run an ad blocker, but when you have smiley ads that shout "Hello!" at you, or that mosquito ad, well, advertisers really need to put pressure on the creators of those lousy ads to just stop doing it.
Not having AdBlock installed means that you are OK with the Ads and Ads Companies because you are not opting out.
The only downside is that the content creator is not receiving a little amount of money for my visit. That's right. And it's a pitty. But, most of the time, I would not pay parsonally most of the pages I visit with my money, and the fact that the creator of the content gets paid by a Ad company thanks to an arrangement that have done is something I don't care. If you really like the content of a page and you want to reward the author, send him some real moeny, or a beer (I have done it and it's awesome!).
This a thousand times. I dumped my TV in 2006 and since I use AdBlock I don't see many ads - maybe when I go to the shops or at a friend's house. Thing is, I just don't have the urge to go and buy things any more. I've probably saved a fortune.
You enjoy "free" content from someone and you block the only way they make enough money to stay alive and keep giving you this "free" content.
On bigger website with a dedicated sale team most if not all ads are CPM payd per impression.
Edit: Also I don't really buy the "I've never in my life click on a website".
I only have an idea on the numbers in the country I live where I work for an online only news website that makes all the revenue with only advertisement.
I think I'm safe to say that we are talking about websites that are big enough to have a small team with at least one "Ad Sales Rep".
The Sale representitive will go directly to companies and sell ads either by impression (CPM) or a flat rate for a fixed period of time.
Since the amount you can sell a flat rate for a week/day/month is based on your number of impressions/users is basically another kind of CPM sale.
No, really, a lot of people just don't ever click on ads. They don't even really see the ads. There are sometimes parts of websites that I subconsciously filter out because I'm used to seeing ads in that area or they've made that bit look a bit too much like an ad.
For more extreme view-points there's the Boulder Pledge, and some people really do see any form of advertising as a type of spam. Like I say, this is a minority extreme viewpoint, but it does exist.
Most people that say are not influenced by ads actually are even if they don't even notice.
And I'm confident that most of the people that are using adblock are not in that minority.
If you are not influenced by ADS because advertisement has no effect on you so much that you don't even notice why bother blocking them out ?
And I'm confident that most of the people that are using adblock are not in that minority."
Is it not then their choice whether to view advertising? If they know it's likely to affect them, even just in terms of subconscious brand awareness, and don't want that to happen?
"If you are not influenced by ADS because advertisement has no effect on you so much that you don't even notice why bother blocking them out ?"
Popups, popunders, animations, annoying noises, things that get in the way, try to grab your attention.... All sorts of horrible annoyances. Also unintended consequences - I had genuine trouble finding a download button on a website a little while ago because they'd used a bright, perky-looking graphic that hit my mental ad filter. I really couldn't see it for a couple of minutes.
Maybe three times, ever. And not in the last 5+ years.
Advertising of any form provokes an annoyed reaction in me now. It doesn't grow your brand (with me), it doesn't make me think about your product, I don't care if it's cute or hip, it gets switched off or blocked or even just mentally filtered out. And if you do manage to break through my technological or mental walls I'll remember not to buy your products, ever.
I don't have a problem with targeted/useful ads... Hell, lots the posts in HN could be considered advertorials, just the same, I appreciate knowing about more... Where my problem is, I don't like highly intrusive ads, or far too many ads.
I do belive that advertising agency have not kept up with the new Technology and are playing catch up (as many other business are) and that the actual ad business model should probably be changed and right now is not what it should or will be.
However, I think the advertising industry grossly exaggerates the importance of advertising.
The trouble is, it's impossible to ask, "Does advertising work?" and get a conclusive scientific answer. There are usually far too many other factors in play to be able to look at a company or product and say, "X failed/succeeded because they didn't/did advertise." Is X successful because they advertise? Could they have been more successful if they'd invested their ad-campaign funding elsewhere? Did Y fail because of lack of advertising or simply because they tried to sell a rubbish product? Did they even fail because they devoted too much of their budget to advertising, not leaving enough to properly develop their product?
I also think people should be able to run whatever they want on their phone, but I do understand the Android model of "apps should not touch one another", and pulling apps that don't follow that from the app store is at least somewhat understandable. You can always side load...and if you're running adblock, you're probably more ok with things like that. On the other hand, just getting an app that sets the equivalent of a hosts file should be ok for an official app store...
The real solution for adblock in particular is for Mobile Chrome to add support for extensions. Or use Firefox which already has support.
The idea is that as you visit a specific page (say, the NYT) and read their content, they can dictate that they want it read the way the serve it.
I'm not saying I agree with that (I might, though), but that's they way one can read this Google dictum.
>I can think of a bunch of stuff that interferes with stuff - readability is an example. Why is it not okay to block ads, but is okay to drop CSS and reformat a page?
It's probably not OK, too, in Google's eyes. Just not as popular, so it's still tolerated.
Yeah, I can't believe that logic or that the "do no evil" people can seriously claim it's wrong for you to run your own choice of code on your own computer. When you make data available to someone, there is no obligation for them to use it how you want (except to not redistribute as per copyright law). That's how data works. If NYT really doesn't like it they should render their pages to .png or .mp4 and display that (although it doesn't change anything fundamental, just makes it harder for users to find code that customizes it).
Well, that depends on the law of any given country.
For one, they could give the data with a specific licence -- "you can only view it on our site, with our theme and ads". One could even argue that you have a moral obligation to at least see their ads, as they are what pays them for the content you consume.
But the mere "that's how data works" I see as fatalistic. Data works the way we make it work. We should not let technology dictate to us if content creators should be compensated or not.
>>We should not let technology dictate to us if content creators should be compensated or not. Technology shapes the enviroment in which we thrive. Every law, including copyright law, should be adapted to it in time, or else it will cause much suffering, and then there will be rebellions against it, forcing the lawmakers to adapt the law to the new realities. Content creators will do well to think about sources of compensation, which benefit from the easier/instant copying and computation possible now.
There are actually two people who give authorisation for code to run on your browser: You and the code's copyright holder. Most web sites will say, "we authorise you to run our main content as long as you also run the ads". Running AdBlock means that you are running code in a way which is not authorised by the web page copyright holder.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/rights/terms/terms-of-se...
Additionally, you left out this from your quote "(except as provided in Section 2.3 of these Terms of Service)". Section 2.3 says "You may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on the Services for personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein". All an adblocker does is download some of the content and decline to download some of the downloadable items. That's permissible under Section 2.3.
Sadly, what you say is true and websites can add the no adblock requirement to their TOS. Then they can sue users who use adblock for unauthorised access (hacking!) or copyright infringement(running code that modifies their content). The next step will be to make a Blogging Industry Association. BIA can then approach ISPs for a "3 strikes followed by re-education" business deal.
The positives apart from the windfall in revenue - as governments/atittudes change BIA can push for imprisonment and bonded labour in lieu of the quantum of infringenent(based on number of pageviews with adblock on or based on bytes). Some countries will be even ready for stricter punishment. BIA then (with the help of sister organisations) can get into the lucrative prison industry.
Are you saying that you don't need the permission of the copyright holder to view a web page?
Google removing Adblock Plus, even though they allow unobtrusive ads (like most Google ads)? Firefox won't do that.
And Chrome, the once so fast browser, has been hogging more and more RAM with every version. I'm going back to Firefox now.
I used to use Firefox for years, but moved away when they made mistake after mistake. As another story recently said, Mozilla needed a kick in the butt. I think they've felt it, and it's time to move back now.
I've already switched by browser's default search to http://duckduckgo.com, and honestly haven't noticed a difference, although alot of my searches are already on more domain-specific sites like stackoverflow.com so I bypass generic search engine.
Now, it could be time to switch back to firefox from chrome, esp. if google decides to scroogle AdBlock Plus from the Chrome Web Store too.
Also remember that, though the package has been removed from the Play Store, Google has taken no measures to prevent you from downloading and installing the APK directly from the author's web site (and the same goes for the Chrome extension if it gets pulled). (They are not leveraging their control over the platform; just the distribution channel they host).
I don't expect for-profit companies to support things that has no value (to them) other than harming their revenue stream.
If lets say they start prosecuting people for building these tools for personal use, etc... Then I would be concerned.
Everyone else in the world get their tethering as an inherent consequence of having internet on their phpne. You can't get internet without tethering the same way you can't get internet without facebook.
So it's very like a chinese resident saying "I'm happy that facebook and youtube access require VPN, I like being rewarded for paying attention". Which would be a major WTF.
If users can't block ads they hate through AdBlock on Chrome, they may switch to a different browser or OS. That's not good for browser/OS creator... In addition, people who use AdBlock probably click on ads mostly by mistake (as do I and lots of my tech-aware frinds). Hence there is almost no revenue in showing those ads anyway.
I agree with you that if an organization sees something they control as working against them they will usually try to kill it. I disagree that AdBlock is actually working against their revenue stream... at least I don't see any evidence in this whole thread, mostly speculation.
What worries me more is hypocrisy on the part of Google. They frequently claim that users come first, when in fact Google's profits come first. Why all the drama about users then? :)
GhotiFish 2016.
At the moment.
The wast majority of websites with ads get paid per clicked ad or per sold unit/registration. They don't get paid a single dime for visitors that do not click on the ads (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation_methods). The big exception is video and video sites where commercials has a different purpose and economic model (branding mostly).
That means, if one never click on ads on a website, it's equivalent to running ad-block on your browser. There is no moral superior choice by allowing ads to run on the screen. When we do, we are just fooling ourself into believing we are "contributing". At worst, we get a worse impression of the website and thus won't encourage others users who would click on the ad to visits the website.
However, I doubt this has anything to do with economics and all to do with the ap-market and it's image. Google want to encourage new developers to code for the Google Play market place, and thus anything that might scare away developers is a threat.
By professional websites I mean website that will have a team of people working on it that are depending on the ad revenue.
You are correct in saying that those kind of website are a extremly small subset compared to the many small website with a couple of google adsense banners, but are probably the website you read,consume and block the most.
But not all Professional websites is news sites. Nor is every professional website using the CPM model just because they got a team of people which are depending on the ad revenue. They commonly use the other form of compensation model which one can read in the above Wikipedia link.
CPM model is an rare/antique model outside publishing (news) sites. While looking around for statistics, I can't even find anyone that mention CPM alongside with PPC and PPS. PPC looks to be the dominant model, with PPS taking almost everything else. (https://strategyplanone.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/pay-per-cli...)
Look at this data, for example: http://www.adexchanger.com/online-advertising/iab-2011-onlin...
"Performance pricing" (CPC and CPA) was 65% of all online ad spend in 2011, but if you remove search from that, it goes down to 20%. CPM (per-impression) pricing is around 33% of all online ad spend.
Block ads if you want, but you should be aware you are depriving publishers of revenue if you do so.
For better statistics, lets pick advertising companies that only offer banner and text ads (like ad-word), or which has clear way to separate them. We also want the number of sites that use each type of model and not the total revenue for the ad company. I am not the least surprised that video streaming, sport channels, and news papers has a much larger revenue source for ad companies than say all other type of websites combined. Feel free to point to statistics that proves this wrong.
Sad that they didn't include a Revenues by pricing model for each of search and banner specific market. The second thing I would have very much liked to see which markets sold the space.
What I would like to see is a kind of browser extension that automatically donates a (very) small amount to every site I visit per page view. In return, the site would not show me any ads. Safety would be a concern though.
Of course this would not be good for Google at all, so they might want to block such an extension too...
A small fee for hiding ads will not generate a small revenue stream but, at the same time, decrease the value of your adspace.
And selling a consistent and growing userbase is easier that keeping a consistent and growing revenue from ads-free subscriptions.
If I visit a web page that has an ad then that might net the website owner $0.001 (or something along those lines, I have no real figures). I would personally have no problem paying $0.002 per page view to get an ad-free site. No subscription, just pay a very small amount per view or get ads.
From my point of view, which is probably naive, the website owner would rather have $0.002 instead of $0.001 per page view.
Actually transferring fractions of a cent is of course difficult, but there are ways to work around that.
The best way to do this would be a webservice where you can put some money and affiliates website can check if you are logged to that service and charge you trough that while not showing you any ads.
There are alot of thing to check: - The user has to set an amount of money he is willing to pay per Day/Week/Month. - Decide what to do when the cap is reached. Showing the ads, alert the user that they have reached their cap or both. - Different websites can charge a very different sum per impression based on the scope, location,topic and number of ads in one page.
It's not an easy thing to do, with not an easy solution but It might be an interesting startup idea.
On many of my sites, I earn at least 12 cents per pageview, on average, and sometimes as much as 50 cents.
Because I don't charge our users, I don't have to deal with customer service, payment processing, and many other things related to collecting money.
While I haven't ruled out letting subscribers pay us in the future, it would add a huge layer of complexity to our business.
Additionally, if subscribers where to pay $.0002 per page view, guess who would get all of the money? The credit card company! And I definitely don't want to be in the business of figuring out how to do micropayments.
Advertising is simple, it works, and actually provides value to users when done right. Furthermore, as a publisher, I have the right to build a sustainable business.
People who remove ads are directly attacking the ability of any publishing business to exist. Not cool.
It's weird to see people comparing it to Firefox and how it would not block ads. AFAIK chrome still does that, but just not on Android. Or am I wrong?
I suspect that they won't do this to the web store, as there is a fundamental principle in that a web client determines how to render something. That is... the client (browser) can choose to obey or ignore any markup it receives... the end user actually controls the rendering (sizing, fonts, contrast, which elements to display or hide).
But apps on an app store have no such principle. In fact the underlying assumption is that they are locked down and that the app author has that authority and not the end user.
With that in mind, I wondered how long it would take for AdBlockers on the Play Store that blocked adverts from loading in other apps would be tolerated by Google.
Personally I used to use AdAway ( https://code.google.com/p/ad-away/ || https://github.com/dschuermann/ad-away ) and you can see the hosts file they use here https://github.com/dschuermann/ad-away/blob/master/AdAway/sr... , but then I skipped even that step.
Now I just root my phone and replace the hosts file with the one found at: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/
I wouldn't say that AdBlockers are all bad, one of AdAway's features is that you can load hosts lists to unblock domains that were removed from DNS in countries like China: https://smarthosts.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/mobile_devices/h...
Edit: Although now I'm curious... have Google gone so far as to prevent people from loading something like AdAway from an untrusted .apk like the one AdAway host at https://f-droid.org/FDroid.apk ?
Unit ad revenue (so-to-speak) continually falls. The income of business reliant on advertising drops, they cut costs, and the quality of content suffers. The focus on link-bait and trying to get a viral hit or SEO, overtakes the imperative to provide something that people actually want. It is not a sustainable model for most businesses.
Please, people, forget advertising. Provide something that people want, and charge a small and reasonable price for it.
I pay for a news app, it's a small subscription, it's great, I'm happy.
Back to Firefox we go.
Given that Google's core business is advertising, not shiny new technology.
You exist in the market as it is, not as you wish it to be. If you can't find a way to make it pay (if that is your priority/a requirement) then you'll fail and someone else will try. If no one can think of a way to make it pay, then we'll lose such sites until someone can.
Which is fine. Better that than ads.
And we'll go back to having a greater proportion of hobbyist sites. People doing it for the love of it rather than the money. That's fine.
I think advertising is a terribly crude way to make money from a website, as well as being cultural and aesthetic pollution. I think we'll look back on this period when websites were ad-funded with embarrassment.
Of course, I can't think of a better idea.
But if the use of ad-blockers increases then many many sites will go pop (the really good ones - the ones that people are actually actively willing to pay for - will survive of course) until some clever sausage eventually thinks of a better idea. And that will be great. Good old free market at work.
This is often threatened, occasionally attempted, and rarely continued after the resulting precipitous traffic drop. "Content" is not rare. If a particular producer can't figure out a remuneration technique that doesn't annoy consumers, she'll find her lunch eaten by competing producers who can.
Here is 4.4. What exactly does AdBlock infringe?
"4.4 Prohibited Actions. You agree that you will not engage in any activity with the Market, including the development or distribution of Products, that interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party including, but not limited to, Android users, Google or any mobile network operator. You may not use customer information obtained from the Market to sell or distribute Products outside of the Market."
http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/adblock-plus-secret-takedo...
Perhaps the key thing is that people who are most bothered by ads are the ones who never click on them and then install adblockers, so that the loss of these users does not represent much revenue loss.
That would kill these revenue streams. Google has been fighting the Microsoft business model for years giving freebies supported by ads.
Huh? So much for baseless FUD. Ad-blocking is much different than adding an extra header for voluntarily respecting someones privacy. Incase you din't know, blocking ads involve removing the content or terminating connection to the ad-server altogether. No, Microsoft or any big players don't have a reason to or is that stupid to do so.
http://clarityray.com/Content/ClarityRay_AdBlockReport.pdf
Almost a year old though. Anyone has newer data?
Perhaps using "Google Analytics Opt-out Browser Add-on" would be a more relevant now, https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout
I can't check at the moment, but is it available for android's chrome?
AdBlock Plus “interferes with or accesses another service or product in an unauthorized manner,” which Google says is a violation of section 4.4 of the Developer Distribution Agreement so it has been removed from Google Play.
If I'm completely honest, I'm actually ok with a model where we, the technomages, are able to install Adblock anyway and the muggles have to deal with an eyeball-tax. >;]
You could debate whether removing Adblock constitutes an evil act, but at the end of the day _someone_ has to pay for those shiny new services and gadgets.
Removing ads from a website is no different than pirating software: You're getting the product without paying for it. Publishers deserve to make money from their work.
You have no right to be in business. If you want to be in business you have to earn it. Pissing off your customers to the point that they take extra steps to make your content readable is a fail on your part.
>Removing ads from a website is no different than pirating software: You're getting the product without paying for it.
Total bullshit. I have a web browser. It lets me point at the web and consume content in any way I want to. If you don't want that put your stuff behind a paywall. So long as it's on the open internet it's my choice how I view it, not yours.
Piracy isn't remotely comparable and shame on you for saying it is.
The author took some liberties with his conclusions which explains some of the comments below.
Here is a more informed post: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/13/breaking-google-has-...
First: Adblock for Android was purged from the Play store. Adblock for Chrome is still available.
As to why it was removed, it is said that it is in violation of section 4.4 of the Play Store Developer Distribution Agreement:
4.4 Prohibited Actions. You agree that you will not engage in any activity with the Market, including the development or distribution of Products, that interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party including, but not limited to, Android users, Google or any mobile network operator. You may not use customer information obtained from the Market to sell or distribute Products outside of the Market.
How so?
By rootless-ly changing proxy using an exploit that was patched in 4.2.2: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=40506
Pure apologism.
I swear, between this, Reader, and iGoogle.. I'm pretty disenfranchised... I may have to go with FirefoxOS, WinPhone or iThingy for my next cell purchase (just got my N4 & N7 a few months ago too)
How do you reckon that this is blogspam? That's not just a general term you can toss at any post that you find lacking. It has a specific meaning.
I'm not certain I buy this explnation. AdAway (a alternative FOSS adblocker) was also kicked out of the store for a violation of section 4.4 and they do nothing like use a proxy exploit. They simply let you customize your .hosts file and explicitly require root.
It steps in-between two third-parties:
The person who developed an app that shows ads, and the people who bought the ad space.
You can download apps, or not download apps.
If an app developer says, "Hey, you can use this app if you let me show you ads!" you can agree to that or not.
Google is committed to letting an app developer offer you that deal, and they're taking a step towards making sure you hold up your end of the bargain.
If a farmer's market set up shop in your town, and little kids stole the merchandise all the time, you'd want them to hire a security guard, wouldn't you?
And you can still install from the APK. So, you're really just whining that Google doesn't THEMSELVES make it easy for you to bypass the ad market.
Removing this from the Play store merely makes it inconvenient.
Google is trying to make a convenient API for app developers to earn money by showing users ads.
Seeing an ad is an inconvenience to users, granted. They have several options: APK install, pay for the premium version of the app, find a no-ad competitor to the app, or just don't use the app.
> If a farmer's market set up shop in your town, and little kids stole the merchandise all the time
I've found that comparisons between physical theft and digital "theft" are always going to be flawed due to fundamental differences between the two domains.
They develop an app - often for free, and as-designed it shows ads.
How is this at all ambiguous?
Point being, you can't count on ads being shown to all of your users as you can't guarantee control over their devices. If you don't like that, then don't make apps that rely on ad revenue.
> You can download apps, or not download apps.
How is that absolute control? only having control over installing apps?
i.e. Google is fine with downloading AdBlock independently. They just won't allow it in Play store which is closed (unlike the OS, which is open).
Or, in the case of the hosts file, blocks connections to IPs that may be malicious.
My ability to block ads in that way is a consequence of a key design decision of the network, one which we're far better with than without.
Here's content you can use, if you view our ads.
How is this remotely unclear?
Personally, I think it's selfish to block ads on applications and websites.
I tend to agree, but that's the user's choice. Google can't come into your house to make sure you read the ads on the newspaper page.
If the developer chose a model of making money that pisses of their users so much they go to the trouble of getting other software that does literally nothing but stop the developer's annoying monitorization model maybe the dev should work on a less offensive way to make money. After all, they've shown that users are invested in their app in some way, there must be a way to turn that into revenue.
Open is Good. Google is Open. Google is Good. Open open open.
I know HN isn't, but it should be, on the sides of creators.
Under this logic they should block photo, audio and video capture apps...
Advertising pays for knowledge to be created and published.
Until Firefox OS and Ubuntu for Android get a foothold, your argument is just not very compelling.
You must not visit the same tech websites I do then...
The same goes for the Chrome Web Store, it's not the only place you can install Chrome extensions it's just the best place to get them. Again, I hope Google doesn't remove AdBlock from the Chrome Store but if they do I really couldn't blame them. I'm not sure why we should expect a company that makes 99.9% of its revenue (not an exaggeration) on ads to willingly distribute ad-blocking software to customers who are likely not paying for any Google services.
This is different than what would happen if Apple did the same thing on iOS. On iOS you can't install apps from third-pary sources without jailbreaking your device, which puts your warranty in jeopardy. So while I agree Google may be abusing the term "open" with regards to their policies, Android as an Operating System is as open as ever.