Hacker News Reader

> How so? By rootless-ly changing proxy using an exploit that was patched in 4.2.2

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.

Yes, it looks like from the link that they are kicking out every adblocker. I can't see any explanation for how what you describe "disrupts, damages, or accessses in an unauthorized manner" anything. Seems like a purely greedy, evil move by Google to me (and I try really hard to be a Google fan too....).

You can't see how it disrupts anything?

It steps in-between two third-parties:

The person who developed an app that shows ads, and the people who bought the ad space.

Indeed. This demonstrates Google is committed to delivering audiences to advertisers rather than letting users control their devices. Never give root to your users...

You can absolutely control your device.

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.

Are you saying that Google should help police user behavior for app developers? That sounds contrary to the "open" argument.

Installing from APKs keeps you open.

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.

Android is open. Google Play is closed.

Yeah, but no app developer is explicitly saying that.

> 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.

What do you mean they're not explicitly saying that?

They develop an app - often for free, and as-designed it shows ads.

How is this at all ambiguous?

Then they release it to users who have control over their devices and can modify how their device displays the app. Users are under no obligation to ensure that the app runs as-designed, and if it's not explicitly disallowed they should be free to modify how the app runs. They could modify it to show another language, or put tape over part of the screen to hide some content, or they could download a tool that modifies their hosts file to alter how the app runs.

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 absolutely control your device.

> You can download apps, or not download apps.

How is that absolute control? only having control over installing apps?

...or you can install Cyanogen mod. And mod the crap out of it.

It doesn't step between anyone. It takes content that was delivered to a person's computer and post-processes it (or changes the settings of the machine). What I do on my machine with content I access should be up to me, and if content owners don't like it, they have the choice of negotiating a different deal with me before serving me the content. I view adblock as the equivalent of paying someone to paste paper over newspaper ads before you read it. (By the way, I don't use adblock or any similar stuff.)

More correct analogy: You are allowed to pay someone to paste paper over newspaper ads before you read it. You are just not allowed to hire such a guy inside the shop selling that newspaper, as per that shop's policies. Feel free to hire anyone outside the shop.

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).

The analogy does make sense, but I don't think that Google's stated policy applies under any reasonable interpretation. If they changed to a policy like "we don't allow apps we disagree with", then fine. But to ban these apps on the grounds they gave is disingenuous in my opinion.

Well, you could apply your own words here... if don't like it, you have the choice of negotiating a different deal with them before using the Play store.

My point is I think they're breaking the terms they set out.

> post-processes it

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.

They did negotiate a deal with you:

Here's content you can use, if you view our ads.

How is this remotely unclear?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never agreed to any such deal on the vast majority of websites that I visit.

I truly don't understand how this can be described as a 'purely greedy, evil' move. Some of the money that those ads generate go to independent developers looking to make income from their hard work, many of whom use this site. The more people that see the ads, the more ads Google sells, and the more money both Google and developers make.

Personally, I think it's selfish to block ads on applications and websites.

> 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.

>Some of the money that those ads generate go to independent developers looking to make income from their hard work, many of whom use this site.

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.

Wow! That proxy-bug means that the author of every app is able to read all of my network traffic! Its really amazing what kind of glaring security holes Android devices have. And how little media attention is spent on it. Is it still so, that on Samsung devices every app has full memory access? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4931944)

They patched the Exynos bug: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/16/3883238/samsung-exynos-sec...

Interesting. The article sounds like only a few devices have been patched.

This was in January. Updates and patches are usually rolled out staggered, that is, not every device gets the update immediately. That helps in not overloading any servers and also helps in finding potential problems before every customer is affected. So I'd guess by now they should be all patched.

>> That helps in not overloading any servers

Pure apologism.

Yep. No excuse for delaying security updates by anything other than a bare minimum. There's other ways to spare your servers if that's the real problem.

Updates take a while... devices should be updated by now... or in the case of most devices more than 3 months old... ever

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)

>The thing about blogspam is that it often generates confusion.

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.

Look at the commenters history. They only ever post on stories that are negative towards Google, and only ever post comments defending Google and often use generic attacks like 'blogspam'.

http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=yanw%20blog...

http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=yanw+FUD...

Hmm, that is a very suspicious comment history.

Oh look! -It's a Google fanboy apologist! Obviously, this is a good thing because it lets all Android users enjoy The Full Open Web, now that it's been Opened up a bit more.

Open is Good. Google is Open. Google is Good. Open open open.

TBH I wouldn't mind them blocking AdBlock Plus for simple reasons of harming content creators. If people don't want ads that's fine, they don't have a right to view my content.

I know HN isn't, but it should be, on the sides of creators.

If this was such a huge problem, the content creators could certainly use an alternative method of displaying ads within their app.

"TBH I wouldn't mind them blocking AdBlock Plus for simple reasons of harming content creators."

Under this logic they should block photo, audio and video capture apps...

If you want to be paid for your content charge for it. If you put it open on the web then I have the right to consume it how ever I like. That's kind of the point of the web...

The point of the web is to share knowledge.

Advertising pays for knowledge to be created and published.

No one ever insinuated that Google is completely open with Android. That would be a ridiculous claim. However, I think it's hard to argue that the ecosystem is more closed off than iOS or Windows Phone.

Until Firefox OS and Ubuntu for Android get a foothold, your argument is just not very compelling.

I beg to differ. Plenty have tried to say that. In fact in pretty much every attack (yes attack, the threads feel very orchestrated) on iOS, one of the principle benefits touted is that Android is open. Even Rubin tried to declare it 'open' with his now infamous tweet (https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429). Let's keep those goalposts static.

>> No one ever insinuated that Google is completely open with Android.

You must not visit the same tech websites I do then...

Did you just delete your earlier comment and reposted it as this ^ one? Please don't do that.

Did a summary instead of replaying to multiple comments.

Just post another one. There are no comment caps :)

Before you spend a lot of time on this person, I would check their comment history...