Hacker News Reader

Comment by TsukasaUjiie | Hacker News Reader

Ive found the longer android has been around, the less likely I've been to need to root it. This doesn't seem like a bad change?

View on HN

Do you want ads? Because that is his we get the horrible ads On our favorite apps.

Do you think that the devs that put hard work and time into building your 'favorite apps' don't deserve to be compensated?

With a paid version of the app or an in-app purchase, sure. Sadly, some devs only have an ad-supported version. Apps that waste my screen space and download quota with ads just aren't worth it. Either the ads go (with AdAway) or the app goes.

I'm not arguing that ads aren't annoying! It's just an incredibly entitled way of thinking. Perhaps ads are the only source of income for that particular developer. Why not just use something else / get on with it / write something yourself?

Also - downvote if an answer is offensive or inappropriate, not because you disagree with an opposing point of view!

It's not an overly entitled way of thinking when it comes to a device I own that uses a data package I pay for. I don't actually run an ad blocker in my web browser, but on mobile, where screen size, battery life, and data usage constraints are very real, I can't stand them. If I couldn't remove the ads from an app I would definitely find something else.

As for the downvote, you're right, but it wasn't me. I don't have that ability yet.

I appreciate your concerns regarding the data package/battery etc., but if you look at it from the developer's point of view rather than your own, it IS entitled to think you have the right to strip out their income stream because it doesn't suit you. But hey, different strokes for different folks :-)

Downvote comment wasn't directed at you in particular!

Looks like you are under threat to use ad-supported apps. Guess what you can't exercise a choice and then blame people.

It takes a lot of efforts to become and Android developer and create content in general. You should respect that.

Is this really that common any more. Prior to the 3rd version of IAP, paid app schemes were less common, but nowadays I find most add supported apps have an unlocked version on Google Play or an IAP to remove ads.

Your best bet would be to contact the developer and try to see if they would offer such a thing. They may even be willing to make a one-off exception for you.

The "hard-work" that it took to create the fart app? Or the one that just provides you with a button to turn on your phone's flash LED? Adding advertisements to these things is just a money-grab (especially putting ads in apps targeted at children).

If I personally created such an app, I would have issues trying to morally justify putting ads in it.

If I personally created such an app

Then personally create those apps. Problem solved, no? If, however, you are installing advertiser supported apps and then trying to justify it by declaring its simplicity, you have absolutely no moral ground to stand on. You are just another thief making justifications.

You're making general assumptions about me not supported by the post that I made:

> You are just another thief making justifications.

I posted an objection to the "hard work / starving developer" statement, and now I'm apparently a thief for even suggesting that I find advertisements in those apps to be morally objectionable.

I personally do not own an Android phone. Am I a thief for suggesting that I dislike people creating these 'simple' apps and slapping them full of ads?

You also seem to think that people are not allow to speak their mind, which is an attitude that I do have moral objections to:

> Then personally create those apps. Problem solved, no?

What about when the App is full of ads (e.g. "Your phone is full of virus! Download App to clean it here!") that are meant to trick the user into clicking them? Is that also morally defensible because someone "worked hard" on it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com