18 ms·

Amazon follows Google and Apple and bans system-wide ad blockers on app store

310 points by ameshkov 8y ago

paulie_a 8y ago
Maybe they should focus on the quality of ads, because currently they are complete garbage. And privacy invading.
- kinsomo 8y ago
  > Maybe they should focus on the quality of ads, because currently they are complete garbage. And privacy invading. I prefer low quality ads because I can be more confident that they won't effectively manipulate me. I like to avoid the influence of pure product-propaganda on my decisions.
cheeze 8y ago
Why should Amazon care? Because Amazon is a large advertiser?
- ronsor 8y ago
  they do have product ads that can be placed on a website
- moate 8y ago
  Care about what? Someone using an adblocker? Because they're in the business of selling things, and many of the "things" they sell monetize via ads. It's an indirect way to killing their rev. Also, yes, Amazon does lots of retargeting/ad purchasing, so it means they're wasting those dollars as well, again killing their rev. There's no reason for them to support ad-blocking (other than like, being opposed to massive corporations doing nefarious things, but how could THAT thinking infect a massive corporation)
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  Amazon offers discounted products if you're willing to accept ads on the lock screen.
- ameshkov 8y ago
  At least because of this: * https://developer.amazon.com/mobile-ads https://developer.amazon.com/mobile-ads * https://aws.amazon.com/mobileanalytics/ https://aws.amazon.com/mobileanalytics/ Not as large as Facebook or Google (at the moment ~5% of top Android apps connect to their servers). Apparently, they are going to grow.
  - hendersoon 8y ago
    Yes, that's exactly it. FireOS is a fork of Android with all Google's stuff pulled out, and Amazon wants their piece of the mobile advertising pie as well.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Presumably Amazon wants developers to continue to support their devices. That becomes much harder to do if, given that the market already does not favor apps which charge up front, they are seen as aiding the only other (semi-?) reliable form of raising revenue.
Spivak 8y ago
> They need to realize that it is your device, your personal data, and it is you who should be in control. The idea is sound but it doesn't apply to Amazon, or Google's stores. They're under no obligation to host any app in particular and it should be expected that apps that bite the hand that feeds them would be quickly removed.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  I wonder if there should be a similar law to the “right to repair” automotive laws, but for general software installation or removal for other devices? If a company both controls the production of the device and the sole means by which a user can install software on the device, then maybe the company should be legally obligated to host some app, or jump through hoops to get approval to ban an app, or the app can go through an appeal process to argue if the ban is anti-consumer. I’m not saying this applies to Google or Amazon right now, under the current mechanisms for installing software on devices. I’m sure it’s a complicated issue. But I think it’s a fair and important question.
  - hendersoon 8y ago
    It indeed does not apply to Google or Amazon, as both Android and FireOS allow sideloading. It does effectively apply to Apple/iOS, as it doesn't. (With a bunch of caveats.)
  - on_and_off 8y ago
    I completely agree, although it would only apply to Apple right now.
    - JackCh 8y ago
      That's only true if you limit your focus to phones. There are a lot of other consumer electronics that only let you download software from their appstore. Game consoles are a big one (as I understand it, purchasing physical media from 3rd party stores isn't an exception to this because in order for a company to publish their software for these platforms on physical media they must still go through Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's approval process.
zenovision 8y ago
So, my next smartphone will be iPhone, even if I prefer open source. AdBlockers are just too important. Not only they protect your privacy, but they also stop some malware programs that use ads for spreading. And don't Google & Amazon already make 30% from app sales?
- ameshkov 8y ago
  Hurry not, Apple did the very same thing last year: https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/15/apple-reportedly-shifts-app-store-policy-to-stop-adblockers-outside-of-safari/ https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/15/apple-reportedly-shifts-app-s...
  - NeutronStar 8y ago
    Applefans forgetting that Apple does as much BS are the best!
    - dang 8y ago
      Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, such as sports-team-style BigCorp flamewars.
  - tinus_hn 8y ago
    That’s not about adblocking but about using vpns for a purpose that is not a virtual private network. The general adblock system works in Safari as well as other apps that use web views though.
    - Aissen 8y ago
      It's exactly the subject of this article. They even say so.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      > as well as other apps that use web views though Actually, they only work in the specific case of SFSafariViewController. This isn't available for any old webview to implement.
49bc 8y ago
Last time I looked at a “system-wide” adblocker, it was just a vpn service with proxied your traffic (not just DNS) through a who-knows-what server. That seemed really sketchy to me, and I doubt most users knew the implications of it.
- hendersoon 8y ago
  They are actually local VPNs looping back to your device. That's the only way to change DNS servers when on cellular data. Until Android P, which will finally allow that.
  - kinsomo 8y ago
    Would it be possible to skirt these policies by having a system-wide ad blocker that's only partially configured? Either the user has to modify their systems settings to use the local VPN or take some action to load or enable the blocklist.
- ameshkov 8y ago
  You may have looked on a bad one. System-wide blockers on both iOS and Android do use the VPN API, but the idea is to intercept your outgoing traffic on the TUN interface, emulate the TCP/IP stack, and filter it locally, right on your device.
  - 49bc 8y ago
    How do you know which one the app is doing? From my perspective the vpn was “on”
    - hedora 8y ago
      Not perfect, but you could connect to wifi, and look at the connections the phone makes. Of course, it could change its behavior if it detects a cellular connection...
      - 8y ago
pweissbrod 8y ago
Bans like this seems to increase the opportunity/value for "alternate" app stores outside the recommended vendor, offering things that the vendor wont. EDIT: Point is that many apps receive a ban because they conflict with the interest of the phone vendor, but they can still be of great use to users.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Why would I want to put my apps in a store that is also going to aid users in bypassing my means of revenue?
  - xfer 8y ago
    Then you should sell your app not user-data.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      I wish I lived in a world where that was the more feasible route. Sadly as it is, ad-supported is much more effective than the traditional model of paying for software.
diafygi 8y ago
Don't system wide ad blockers rely on using a VPN to block ad traffic? Wouldn't that mean that you could just install the OpenVPN app and use a special ad-blocking proxy?
- adtac 8y ago
  If you're going down this route, I strongly suggest PiHole.
scarface74 8y ago
How hard is it really to run your own VPN from home, connect to it from iOS and have your home VPN block ads? https://github.com/BobNisco/adblocking-vpn https://github.com/BobNisco/adblocking-vpn Why trust a third party that can monitor your traffic?
- make3 8y ago
  downloading the global ad blockers from the web (instead of the app store) is a more practical option
  - scarface74 8y ago
    As long as you don't care about your privacy. Everything going through a third party VPN is yet another app that has access to your data. With the built in web and web view ad blocking framework on iOS, the ad blocking app doesn't see your browsing history. It installs a JSON file that Safari uses to know what content to block. It's not a complete system wide solution but it does protect your privacy.
    - kitsunesoba 8y ago
      Yes, I’m positive that the security/privacy risk is the reason why Apple banned VPN based ad blockers. There’s no way for Apple to verify that VPN apps aren’t siphoning off data, making the whole thing a gamble and huge PR disaster waiting to happen (“Apple found to have allowed internet siphoning apps on store for years”). Loss of blocking ads in apps is a casualty, not a goal. If it didn’t mean a revolt from countless app devs I’m sure they’d be perfectly happy to implement something similar to Safari’s content blocker system for the entire OS.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Exactly. What does Apple have to gain from not blocking advertising? It makes no money from adverting. Blocking advertising not only hurts it's major competitor but would also force apps to monetize via actually getting people to pay for apps. They would get a cut from the revenue. Apple makes no money from free advertising supported apps.
on_and_off 8y ago
That's an unpopular opinion but I am ok with that. I would rather pay for the apps I use (with money, not eyeball time) than continue this course to the bottom.
vaishaksuresh 8y ago
In my home network, I run https://pi-hole.net https://pi-hole.net on a Raspberry Pi that is plugged into a USB port in the wall where it can't be seen. Almost all generic ads are blocked and those that do get through can easily be blacklisted. No need for any help from Apple/Google/Amazon. I wish I could somehow make it portable.
- subway 8y ago
  Don't worry, the marketers will get to you soon enough. Google has already wedged themselves in as the "gold standard" dns provider. My gut says eventually Apple/Google/Amazon will start forcing blessed devices to use their own name services. For the good of the user, of course. Ahem.
  - secabeen 8y ago
    I think that's unlikely, as there are too many internal services within corporate networks that will never show up in the global DNS. Google would rather people use Chrome at work.
  - imglorp 8y ago
    That's okay if you run your own router. Point your device to that as default gateway, then the router can catch any DNS connections and do pi-hole style lookup mapping. Pfsense is one good example.
    - subway 8y ago
      That's a hard game to win in the end. Odds are the new and improved name services you're required to use won't really look much like DNS today. Initially they'll be implemented as DNS over HTTPS, with devices being shipped preconfigured to favor those HTTPS endpoints over name servers provided by the local network. From there the traditional DNS bits will eventually be removed in favor of whatever proprietary mechanisms defined by Google/Amazon/Apple. The only way to use Google/Amazon/Apple services will be by bootstrapping from hardcoded list of bootstrap ips in their product, secured by a similarly hardcoded CA certificate.
PaulHoule 8y ago
I am moving towards the much more radical solution of blocking advertising supported sites entirely. I am not against advertising in general. It doesn't bug me that there are ads for car dealerships on TV, but the flood of personal injury lawyer ads damages the perceived legitimacy of the government and social system. (As well as the many other ads that are not aimed at getting people to spend their own money but instead to get benefits such as the "Medicare Advantage" scam.) Web advertising and other distractions (pop ins, "will you let this site make notifications?", Taboolah, Outbrain, "This web site uses cookies...", 20 email messages a day about IBM Cloud outages that didn't affect me, "GDPR is here and our policy has changed...") are immediately harmful in terms of cognitive load (lowers effective IQ,) stress, mistakes, missed appointments, opportunities, bills not paid on time because you had to delete 200 spam messages and accidentally deleted something important. That and the phone that never stops ringing with somebody who wants to lower my interest rates... I think long term you are training your brain to not accept the cues that "something is important". After 20 or 30 years of that who knows what that will do you? (Whenever I show my wife something from a porno site she can't see the content in the midst of all the lurid and animated advertising.) It is like Milo Yiannopoulos; it looks like communication but it is better to think about it as noise, static, or nerve gas.
- malmsteen 8y ago
  Ad pays for ur free high quality internet
  - downrightmike 8y ago
    What world are you in? I have a Cox cable and AT&T bill for just internet/data.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      That bill pays for bandwidth. It doesn't pay a cent for content.
  - PaulHoule 8y ago
danmg 8y ago
I couldn't think of a better advertisement for AdGuard.
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
Anti-competitive practice makes anti-competitive perfect.
air7 8y ago
IMO there's a moral problem with ad blocking, which is that it's basically stealing. Like it or not, many popular websites and services online gain income from advertising. By using them while blocking their ads you're basically getting something for nothing by gaming the system. It's probably against their ToS (but who reads that right?). It probably says: We serve ads. If you don't like that don't use this site. One might say that ads are distracting, annoying, resource heavy, and sometimes downright malicious. I think so too. However that is essentially the "price" of ads, and this price is known in advance. Blocking ads for these reasons while continuing to use the sites is not unlike eating at a restaurant and leaving without paying because you think their prices are exorbitant: It might seem morally justified but it's theft because the prices were known in advance. I think one of the main reason people don't dine-and-run (yet install adblockers) is that it's hard to do a moral wrong so close to the source, e.g seeing the waiters, being there in person, risking an unpleasantness drama, etc. (This is well known psychological phenomenon which name I can't recall.) In contract installing an adblocker is fast and feels totally unrelated to the 2nd party. It makes it easy to feel like you're fighting the bad guys (ads and the terrible ad-tech) and forget whose revenue you are withholding for your own benefit. Personally I resisted installing adblockers for a long time though eventually I caved in (ad-tech got really bad). I honestly don't know what the solution is.
- manfredo 8y ago
  I don't agree. If someone got a magazine, and before reading it they cut out all the ads are they committing theft? If I mute my radio while ads play, am I a thief? I'd bet that most reasonable people would say no. The content providers serve the ads, how end users interact with them is up to said users. Ad blocking, in my view, is analogous to muting your radio. The content provider delivered the ads, how the user interacts with them is up to each individual.
  - bad_user 8y ago
    > If someone got a magazine, and before reading it they cut out all the ads are they committing theft? While cutting the ads you'll get such a good look at them, ads companies will be thrilled and beg you to do it :-) > If I mute my radio while ads play, am I a thief? The behavior of people watching TV or listening to radio is well studied. Here's some facts: 1. even if you change the station, you'll still see or hear some ads, especially if you want to get back to what you were watching, as people keep changing back and forth — and those ads are for brands mostly, therefore it's enough for you to see Coke's logo for you to pick it in a store as the "safe" choice 2. many TV and radio stations synchronize their ads breaks So are you committing theft when skipping commercials? If you use automation for it, the jury is actually still out and there have been several lawsuits already. Also skipping ads might be legal still, but there are always legal loopholes. For example circumventing DRM is not legal and it's only a matter of time before media networks wise up. And note there have been other doomsday scenarios in the past. For example the rise of VHS was a similar event, allowing people to record shows and skip ads. But even so, ads kept being efficient and publishers and media networks survived. However this time the automation has reached a level unprecedented in history. What do you think will happen if companies start going out of business due to ad blockers? They'll start lobbying of course and lobbying works.
adblockuser123 8y ago
System-wide Adblocker at the Apple App Store that doesn't exist according to the article: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id69121579?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id69121579?mt=8 Creates a fake VPN that does the filtering
myf01d 8y ago
I use ad blockers since forever, howver I just find it extremely mean and unethical that a company like Adguard makes profit by depraving others from their lawful profits by blocking ads. Ad blocking by its nature should not be commercialized.
- always_good 8y ago
  Brave (browser) is even worse. Except they get bonus points for inventing their own coin which only exists to make the creator money, along with replacing ads with their ads.
gwbas1c 8y ago
I don't mind advertising... I just object to how advertisers screw things up. Moving text while I'm reading. Hijacking the page and navigating away. Auto-playing loud videos. (These problems are really symptoms of poor design in JavaScript) All I want is a good ad blocker for my mobile browser!
- milcron 8y ago
  Firefox for Android supports full extensions, so you can install uBlock Origin or even uMatrix.
  - gwbas1c 8y ago
    Yeah, but then I'd have to use Firefox for all my browsing. Tabbed browsing on Firefox is abysmal. I also like going back into my browser history. It's like Firefox was only designed for viewing porn.
    - milcron 8y ago
      >I also like going back into my browser history. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Firefox has browsing history, if that's what you mean. There is a different product Firefox Focus which erases your history when the browser closes, maybe you're thinking of that.
cmsimike 8y ago
I am running pi-hole at home and push out that pihole DNS to my VPN clients and my phone is always connected to my VPN. I never trusted any of these phone platforms to do anything in my best interest anyway. Related, I cannot wait for the Librem 5
s73v3r_ 8y ago
I mean, you could just not use apps that rely on ads for revenue. I personally like getting paid for my work, and being able to buy food and pay rent.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kazagistar 8y ago
  There are many other other ways you can do that, so I simply cannot find a reason to care for your "plight". I hope the ad industry burns in flames and everyone who works in it finds other, better things to build then garbage no one is willing to pay for.
michaelbuckbee 8y ago
I don't know anything about AdGuard in particular, but the general category of "Adblocker that is a really a VPN that really just loads a DNS server to block ads" is really problematic as: - cause lots of weird networking issues (impacting perceived stability) - are often "Free" b/c they are swapping in their own ads and malware [1] - are just in general a poor way of loading a hosts/dns file that in many cases they don't even own (they're just pointing to a freely available one) 1 - https://www.cloudwards.net/worst-free-vpn/ https://www.cloudwards.net/worst-free-vpn/
- ballenf 8y ago
  I used adguard and still do without any issues. Maybe there are weird issues, but they are vastly overwhelmed by the immense data and processing savings from no data siphoning happening. Adguard was/is a paid app that didn't substitute any ads nor collect data.
ryandrake 8y ago
At home, I just block ads and the DNS level. Run dnsmasq, send all known ad serving domains to 0.0.0.0, and have DHCP point clients’ DNS to your dnsmasq server. Done! Site-wide ad blocking that works on all clients and platforms, without a VPN and without permission from any vendor.
- makecheck 8y ago
  The problem on iOS and other mobile devices is that, when not using WiFi, you don’t have any place to put such a block. I find iOS content blockers work decently but it is still possible to have an overwhelmingly better experience on the desktop due to the multiple crap-blocking mechanisms available.
zeta0134 8y ago
I use a VPN service that happens to include an ad blocking feature. I wonder if that will be blocked too? It's PIA, which is very popular. Of course the feature goes unused; I simply refuse to install an application that includes advertising code. Instead, if available, I pay for the ad-free version of the app. Bonus points if that's the only option. The play store helpfully points out most advertising built into apps, so this is pretty easy to do. Combined with Firefox for Android which lets me run uBlock Origin, I have a completely ad-free mobile experience.
danpalmer 8y ago
There seems to be a lot of misinformation about Apple’s stance in this thread. Apple explicitly allows and provides APIs to develop content blockers. Apple does not allow content blocking through custom VPN implementations, seemingly because these a) introduce a performance impact, b) may be confusing for users as it’s abusing the point of VPNs, and c) may allow more easy abuse, as VPNs can do a lot more than just block content. This is what the article linked as evidence for Apple’s policy covers, and the statement provided by Apple, while not especially clear, does match up with this. I think the title should be reverted to remove Apple, as they do allow ad blockers on the store (I personally use 1BlockerX https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/1blocker-x/id1365531024?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/1blocker-x/id1365531024?mt=8 )
- annabellish 8y ago
  The linked app is a Safari-only adblocker which doesn't cover apps, so I feel the title is pretty accurate. There have been full system ad-blocking solutions developed for iOS and apple refuses to host them, it's a statement of fact. `a` is permitted for other apps; `b` is, as far as I know, not a criteria anything else gets judged on; and `c` is the point of having a curated store, because any app "may allow [...] abuse".
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    Indeed, Apple is significantly worse in this regard. Both Amazon and Google devices allow you to install system-wide ad blockers from other sources.
    - djrogers 8y ago
      Amazon does not allow you to install anything from other sources without hacking the device.
      - brewdad 8y ago
        Sure they do. My Fire HD tablet has a simple option in Settings-->Security & Privacy-->Apps from Unknown Sources. I have a number of F-droid apps installed. I also have the Play Store hacked in, but F-droid only required downloading the app from the web. Standalone APKs can also be installed.
JTbane 8y ago
I'm a big fan of AdAway on F-Droid, which blocks using the hosts file. It does require root, however.
reph 8y ago
nice post. printers driver : https://www.dr-driver.com/ https://www.dr-driver.com/
calimac 8y ago
Bring on the Side Loading Websites to instruct users how to turn off security measures to allow it. Amazon is Roe V Wade to ad blockers. encouraging abortions in back allies! People will find a way to block annoying invasive ads and tracking.
TekMol 8y ago
How can an app block ads system wide? I would have thought that apps are sandboxed. Just less strictly then websites. Can an app intercept the network communication at will? Can an app call any operation system function?
hokkos 8y ago
I use AdGuard and it is great. It is not only ads that I happily block, but all the analytic, it is unbelievable all the requests that are made by apps, even when not using them.
_bxg1 8y ago
For those on Android, here's a great one that's open source. Get it on F-Droid, XDA, or build from source: https://github.com/julian-klode/dns66 https://github.com/julian-klode/dns66
userbinator 8y ago
The only way to consume content the way you want to on locked-down devices is to basically MITM your traffic and run it through something like Proxomitron[1] or Proximodo[2]. I continue to find it ironic that the very same technology, often detested in discussions here, and present in the middleboxes that companies use to block/filter/inspect the traffic between their networks and the Internet, can also be used under your control to enhance your computing experience. I believe that everyone should have complete ability to modify the traffic that flows to/from the devices they own, and this is something which those who strongly support making connections "more secure" and harder to MITM often fail to consider. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxomitron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxomitron [2] https://github.com/amate/Proxydomo https://github.com/amate/Proxydomo (Japanese)
mortdeus 8y ago
I think ads are just fact of life nowadays and not necessarily a bad thing. Ads shouldn't be annoying nor should they be creepy. Like for example, if you google tips to lose weight, you shouldn't be bombarded by pictures of half naked dudes with six pack abs. Nor should you be seeing things you buy frequently due to the fact that you used an in-store membership card. I wish Google, Facebook and Apple would provide a way to say what kind of ads they'd like to see. Like I have no problem in seeing ads related to cool kickstarter projects, music equipment, tech devices, software development related tools, etc etc. I mean sometimes that is what I only see and i am like happy with the fact that I am forced to see ads. And then other times I am starting to see things that I really don't care about simply because I had a whim to go down some rabbit hole on Google. I think some developers use ads very responsibly and I think that overall denying those developers the right to generate money off your usage prevents them from growing their business and creating better products. I tend to think of flappy bird when I think of great ad placement. The ads don't get in the way of the game. They don't pop up while you are in mid game to try and trick you into clicking. They only appear after you died and they aren't full screen and annoying with a tiny little x you might miss. I mean that is the kind of ads that I can live with and I think everybody else should have to live with too. Hell I even might give them a click every now and then despite the fact that I am not interested in buying the advertised product. I just think of it like throwing some change in the hat of a busking street artist. It's the least I could do to encourage them to continue pursuing their art.
greggarious 8y ago
"It's not antitrust if we all do it right?"

310 points by ameshkov 8y ago

paulie_a 8y ago

Maybe they should focus on the quality of ads, because currently they are complete garbage. And privacy invading.

kinsomo 8y ago
> Maybe they should focus on the quality of ads, because currently they are complete garbage. And privacy invading. I prefer low quality ads because I can be more confident that they won't effectively manipulate me. I like to avoid the influence of pure product-propaganda on my decisions.

cheeze 8y ago

Why should Amazon care? Because Amazon is a large advertiser?

ronsor 8y ago
they do have product ads that can be placed on a website
moate 8y ago
Care about what? Someone using an adblocker? Because they're in the business of selling things, and many of the "things" they sell monetize via ads. It's an indirect way to killing their rev. Also, yes, Amazon does lots of retargeting/ad purchasing, so it means they're wasting those dollars as well, again killing their rev. There's no reason for them to support ad-blocking (other than like, being opposed to massive corporations doing nefarious things, but how could THAT thinking infect a massive corporation)
Consultant32452 8y ago
Amazon offers discounted products if you're willing to accept ads on the lock screen.
ameshkov 8y ago
At least because of this: * https://developer.amazon.com/mobile-ads https://developer.amazon.com/mobile-ads * https://aws.amazon.com/mobileanalytics/ https://aws.amazon.com/mobileanalytics/ Not as large as Facebook or Google (at the moment ~5% of top Android apps connect to their servers). Apparently, they are going to grow.
- hendersoon 8y ago
  Yes, that's exactly it. FireOS is a fork of Android with all Google's stuff pulled out, and Amazon wants their piece of the mobile advertising pie as well.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Presumably Amazon wants developers to continue to support their devices. That becomes much harder to do if, given that the market already does not favor apps which charge up front, they are seen as aiding the only other (semi-?) reliable form of raising revenue.

Spivak 8y ago

> They need to realize that it is your device, your personal data, and it is you who should be in control. The idea is sound but it doesn't apply to Amazon, or Google's stores. They're under no obligation to host any app in particular and it should be expected that apps that bite the hand that feeds them would be quickly removed.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
I wonder if there should be a similar law to the “right to repair” automotive laws, but for general software installation or removal for other devices? If a company both controls the production of the device and the sole means by which a user can install software on the device, then maybe the company should be legally obligated to host some app, or jump through hoops to get approval to ban an app, or the app can go through an appeal process to argue if the ban is anti-consumer. I’m not saying this applies to Google or Amazon right now, under the current mechanisms for installing software on devices. I’m sure it’s a complicated issue. But I think it’s a fair and important question.
- hendersoon 8y ago
  It indeed does not apply to Google or Amazon, as both Android and FireOS allow sideloading. It does effectively apply to Apple/iOS, as it doesn't. (With a bunch of caveats.)
- on_and_off 8y ago
  I completely agree, although it would only apply to Apple right now.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    That's only true if you limit your focus to phones. There are a lot of other consumer electronics that only let you download software from their appstore. Game consoles are a big one (as I understand it, purchasing physical media from 3rd party stores isn't an exception to this because in order for a company to publish their software for these platforms on physical media they must still go through Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's approval process.

zenovision 8y ago

So, my next smartphone will be iPhone, even if I prefer open source. AdBlockers are just too important. Not only they protect your privacy, but they also stop some malware programs that use ads for spreading. And don't Google & Amazon already make 30% from app sales?

ameshkov 8y ago
Hurry not, Apple did the very same thing last year: https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/15/apple-reportedly-shifts-app-store-policy-to-stop-adblockers-outside-of-safari/ https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/15/apple-reportedly-shifts-app-s...
- NeutronStar 8y ago
  Applefans forgetting that Apple does as much BS are the best!
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, such as sports-team-style BigCorp flamewars.
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  That’s not about adblocking but about using vpns for a purpose that is not a virtual private network. The general adblock system works in Safari as well as other apps that use web views though.
  - Aissen 8y ago
    It's exactly the subject of this article. They even say so.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > as well as other apps that use web views though Actually, they only work in the specific case of SFSafariViewController. This isn't available for any old webview to implement.

49bc 8y ago

Last time I looked at a “system-wide” adblocker, it was just a vpn service with proxied your traffic (not just DNS) through a who-knows-what server. That seemed really sketchy to me, and I doubt most users knew the implications of it.

hendersoon 8y ago
They are actually local VPNs looping back to your device. That's the only way to change DNS servers when on cellular data. Until Android P, which will finally allow that.
- kinsomo 8y ago
  Would it be possible to skirt these policies by having a system-wide ad blocker that's only partially configured? Either the user has to modify their systems settings to use the local VPN or take some action to load or enable the blocklist.
ameshkov 8y ago
You may have looked on a bad one. System-wide blockers on both iOS and Android do use the VPN API, but the idea is to intercept your outgoing traffic on the TUN interface, emulate the TCP/IP stack, and filter it locally, right on your device.
- 49bc 8y ago
  How do you know which one the app is doing? From my perspective the vpn was “on”
  - hedora 8y ago
    Not perfect, but you could connect to wifi, and look at the connections the phone makes. Of course, it could change its behavior if it detects a cellular connection...
    - 8y ago

pweissbrod 8y ago

Bans like this seems to increase the opportunity/value for "alternate" app stores outside the recommended vendor, offering things that the vendor wont. EDIT: Point is that many apps receive a ban because they conflict with the interest of the phone vendor, but they can still be of great use to users.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Why would I want to put my apps in a store that is also going to aid users in bypassing my means of revenue?
- xfer 8y ago
  Then you should sell your app not user-data.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I wish I lived in a world where that was the more feasible route. Sadly as it is, ad-supported is much more effective than the traditional model of paying for software.

diafygi 8y ago

Don't system wide ad blockers rely on using a VPN to block ad traffic? Wouldn't that mean that you could just install the OpenVPN app and use a special ad-blocking proxy?

adtac 8y ago
If you're going down this route, I strongly suggest PiHole.

scarface74 8y ago

How hard is it really to run your own VPN from home, connect to it from iOS and have your home VPN block ads? https://github.com/BobNisco/adblocking-vpn https://github.com/BobNisco/adblocking-vpn Why trust a third party that can monitor your traffic?

make3 8y ago
downloading the global ad blockers from the web (instead of the app store) is a more practical option
- scarface74 8y ago
  As long as you don't care about your privacy. Everything going through a third party VPN is yet another app that has access to your data. With the built in web and web view ad blocking framework on iOS, the ad blocking app doesn't see your browsing history. It installs a JSON file that Safari uses to know what content to block. It's not a complete system wide solution but it does protect your privacy.
  - kitsunesoba 8y ago
    Yes, I’m positive that the security/privacy risk is the reason why Apple banned VPN based ad blockers. There’s no way for Apple to verify that VPN apps aren’t siphoning off data, making the whole thing a gamble and huge PR disaster waiting to happen (“Apple found to have allowed internet siphoning apps on store for years”). Loss of blocking ads in apps is a casualty, not a goal. If it didn’t mean a revolt from countless app devs I’m sure they’d be perfectly happy to implement something similar to Safari’s content blocker system for the entire OS.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Exactly. What does Apple have to gain from not blocking advertising? It makes no money from adverting. Blocking advertising not only hurts it's major competitor but would also force apps to monetize via actually getting people to pay for apps. They would get a cut from the revenue. Apple makes no money from free advertising supported apps.

on_and_off 8y ago

That's an unpopular opinion but I am ok with that. I would rather pay for the apps I use (with money, not eyeball time) than continue this course to the bottom.

vaishaksuresh 8y ago

In my home network, I run https://pi-hole.net https://pi-hole.net on a Raspberry Pi that is plugged into a USB port in the wall where it can't be seen. Almost all generic ads are blocked and those that do get through can easily be blacklisted. No need for any help from Apple/Google/Amazon. I wish I could somehow make it portable.

subway 8y ago
Don't worry, the marketers will get to you soon enough. Google has already wedged themselves in as the "gold standard" dns provider. My gut says eventually Apple/Google/Amazon will start forcing blessed devices to use their own name services. For the good of the user, of course. Ahem.
- secabeen 8y ago
  I think that's unlikely, as there are too many internal services within corporate networks that will never show up in the global DNS. Google would rather people use Chrome at work.
- imglorp 8y ago
  That's okay if you run your own router. Point your device to that as default gateway, then the router can catch any DNS connections and do pi-hole style lookup mapping. Pfsense is one good example.
  - subway 8y ago
    That's a hard game to win in the end. Odds are the new and improved name services you're required to use won't really look much like DNS today. Initially they'll be implemented as DNS over HTTPS, with devices being shipped preconfigured to favor those HTTPS endpoints over name servers provided by the local network. From there the traditional DNS bits will eventually be removed in favor of whatever proprietary mechanisms defined by Google/Amazon/Apple. The only way to use Google/Amazon/Apple services will be by bootstrapping from hardcoded list of bootstrap ips in their product, secured by a similarly hardcoded CA certificate.

PaulHoule 8y ago

I am moving towards the much more radical solution of blocking advertising supported sites entirely. I am not against advertising in general. It doesn't bug me that there are ads for car dealerships on TV, but the flood of personal injury lawyer ads damages the perceived legitimacy of the government and social system. (As well as the many other ads that are not aimed at getting people to spend their own money but instead to get benefits such as the "Medicare Advantage" scam.) Web advertising and other distractions (pop ins, "will you let this site make notifications?", Taboolah, Outbrain, "This web site uses cookies...", 20 email messages a day about IBM Cloud outages that didn't affect me, "GDPR is here and our policy has changed...") are immediately harmful in terms of cognitive load (lowers effective IQ,) stress, mistakes, missed appointments, opportunities, bills not paid on time because you had to delete 200 spam messages and accidentally deleted something important. That and the phone that never stops ringing with somebody who wants to lower my interest rates... I think long term you are training your brain to not accept the cues that "something is important". After 20 or 30 years of that who knows what that will do you? (Whenever I show my wife something from a porno site she can't see the content in the midst of all the lurid and animated advertising.) It is like Milo Yiannopoulos; it looks like communication but it is better to think about it as noise, static, or nerve gas.

malmsteen 8y ago
Ad pays for ur free high quality internet
- downrightmike 8y ago
  What world are you in? I have a Cox cable and AT&T bill for just internet/data.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    That bill pays for bandwidth. It doesn't pay a cent for content.
- PaulHoule 8y ago

danmg 8y ago

I couldn't think of a better advertisement for AdGuard.

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

Anti-competitive practice makes anti-competitive perfect.

air7 8y ago

IMO there's a moral problem with ad blocking, which is that it's basically stealing. Like it or not, many popular websites and services online gain income from advertising. By using them while blocking their ads you're basically getting something for nothing by gaming the system. It's probably against their ToS (but who reads that right?). It probably says: We serve ads. If you don't like that don't use this site. One might say that ads are distracting, annoying, resource heavy, and sometimes downright malicious. I think so too. However that is essentially the "price" of ads, and this price is known in advance. Blocking ads for these reasons while continuing to use the sites is not unlike eating at a restaurant and leaving without paying because you think their prices are exorbitant: It might seem morally justified but it's theft because the prices were known in advance. I think one of the main reason people don't dine-and-run (yet install adblockers) is that it's hard to do a moral wrong so close to the source, e.g seeing the waiters, being there in person, risking an unpleasantness drama, etc. (This is well known psychological phenomenon which name I can't recall.) In contract installing an adblocker is fast and feels totally unrelated to the 2nd party. It makes it easy to feel like you're fighting the bad guys (ads and the terrible ad-tech) and forget whose revenue you are withholding for your own benefit. Personally I resisted installing adblockers for a long time though eventually I caved in (ad-tech got really bad). I honestly don't know what the solution is.

manfredo 8y ago
I don't agree. If someone got a magazine, and before reading it they cut out all the ads are they committing theft? If I mute my radio while ads play, am I a thief? I'd bet that most reasonable people would say no. The content providers serve the ads, how end users interact with them is up to said users. Ad blocking, in my view, is analogous to muting your radio. The content provider delivered the ads, how the user interacts with them is up to each individual.
- bad_user 8y ago
  > If someone got a magazine, and before reading it they cut out all the ads are they committing theft? While cutting the ads you'll get such a good look at them, ads companies will be thrilled and beg you to do it :-) > If I mute my radio while ads play, am I a thief? The behavior of people watching TV or listening to radio is well studied. Here's some facts: 1. even if you change the station, you'll still see or hear some ads, especially if you want to get back to what you were watching, as people keep changing back and forth — and those ads are for brands mostly, therefore it's enough for you to see Coke's logo for you to pick it in a store as the "safe" choice 2. many TV and radio stations synchronize their ads breaks So are you committing theft when skipping commercials? If you use automation for it, the jury is actually still out and there have been several lawsuits already. Also skipping ads might be legal still, but there are always legal loopholes. For example circumventing DRM is not legal and it's only a matter of time before media networks wise up. And note there have been other doomsday scenarios in the past. For example the rise of VHS was a similar event, allowing people to record shows and skip ads. But even so, ads kept being efficient and publishers and media networks survived. However this time the automation has reached a level unprecedented in history. What do you think will happen if companies start going out of business due to ad blockers? They'll start lobbying of course and lobbying works.

adblockuser123 8y ago

System-wide Adblocker at the Apple App Store that doesn't exist according to the article: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id69121579?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id69121579?mt=8 Creates a fake VPN that does the filtering

myf01d 8y ago

I use ad blockers since forever, howver I just find it extremely mean and unethical that a company like Adguard makes profit by depraving others from their lawful profits by blocking ads. Ad blocking by its nature should not be commercialized.

always_good 8y ago
Brave (browser) is even worse. Except they get bonus points for inventing their own coin which only exists to make the creator money, along with replacing ads with their ads.

gwbas1c 8y ago

I don't mind advertising... I just object to how advertisers screw things up. Moving text while I'm reading. Hijacking the page and navigating away. Auto-playing loud videos. (These problems are really symptoms of poor design in JavaScript) All I want is a good ad blocker for my mobile browser!

milcron 8y ago
Firefox for Android supports full extensions, so you can install uBlock Origin or even uMatrix.
- gwbas1c 8y ago
  Yeah, but then I'd have to use Firefox for all my browsing. Tabbed browsing on Firefox is abysmal. I also like going back into my browser history. It's like Firefox was only designed for viewing porn.
  - milcron 8y ago
    >I also like going back into my browser history. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Firefox has browsing history, if that's what you mean. There is a different product Firefox Focus which erases your history when the browser closes, maybe you're thinking of that.

cmsimike 8y ago

I am running pi-hole at home and push out that pihole DNS to my VPN clients and my phone is always connected to my VPN. I never trusted any of these phone platforms to do anything in my best interest anyway. Related, I cannot wait for the Librem 5

s73v3r_ 8y ago

I mean, you could just not use apps that rely on ads for revenue. I personally like getting paid for my work, and being able to buy food and pay rent.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kazagistar 8y ago
There are many other other ways you can do that, so I simply cannot find a reason to care for your "plight". I hope the ad industry burns in flames and everyone who works in it finds other, better things to build then garbage no one is willing to pay for.

michaelbuckbee 8y ago

I don't know anything about AdGuard in particular, but the general category of "Adblocker that is a really a VPN that really just loads a DNS server to block ads" is really problematic as: - cause lots of weird networking issues (impacting perceived stability) - are often "Free" b/c they are swapping in their own ads and malware [1] - are just in general a poor way of loading a hosts/dns file that in many cases they don't even own (they're just pointing to a freely available one) 1 - https://www.cloudwards.net/worst-free-vpn/ https://www.cloudwards.net/worst-free-vpn/

ballenf 8y ago
I used adguard and still do without any issues. Maybe there are weird issues, but they are vastly overwhelmed by the immense data and processing savings from no data siphoning happening. Adguard was/is a paid app that didn't substitute any ads nor collect data.

ryandrake 8y ago

At home, I just block ads and the DNS level. Run dnsmasq, send all known ad serving domains to 0.0.0.0, and have DHCP point clients’ DNS to your dnsmasq server. Done! Site-wide ad blocking that works on all clients and platforms, without a VPN and without permission from any vendor.

makecheck 8y ago
The problem on iOS and other mobile devices is that, when not using WiFi, you don’t have any place to put such a block. I find iOS content blockers work decently but it is still possible to have an overwhelmingly better experience on the desktop due to the multiple crap-blocking mechanisms available.

zeta0134 8y ago

I use a VPN service that happens to include an ad blocking feature. I wonder if that will be blocked too? It's PIA, which is very popular. Of course the feature goes unused; I simply refuse to install an application that includes advertising code. Instead, if available, I pay for the ad-free version of the app. Bonus points if that's the only option. The play store helpfully points out most advertising built into apps, so this is pretty easy to do. Combined with Firefox for Android which lets me run uBlock Origin, I have a completely ad-free mobile experience.

danpalmer 8y ago

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about Apple’s stance in this thread. Apple explicitly allows and provides APIs to develop content blockers. Apple does not allow content blocking through custom VPN implementations, seemingly because these a) introduce a performance impact, b) may be confusing for users as it’s abusing the point of VPNs, and c) may allow more easy abuse, as VPNs can do a lot more than just block content. This is what the article linked as evidence for Apple’s policy covers, and the statement provided by Apple, while not especially clear, does match up with this. I think the title should be reverted to remove Apple, as they do allow ad blockers on the store (I personally use 1BlockerX https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/1blocker-x/id1365531024?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/1blocker-x/id1365531024?mt=8 )

annabellish 8y ago
The linked app is a Safari-only adblocker which doesn't cover apps, so I feel the title is pretty accurate. There have been full system ad-blocking solutions developed for iOS and apple refuses to host them, it's a statement of fact. `a` is permitted for other apps; `b` is, as far as I know, not a criteria anything else gets judged on; and `c` is the point of having a curated store, because any app "may allow [...] abuse".
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  Indeed, Apple is significantly worse in this regard. Both Amazon and Google devices allow you to install system-wide ad blockers from other sources.
  - djrogers 8y ago
    Amazon does not allow you to install anything from other sources without hacking the device.
    - brewdad 8y ago
      Sure they do. My Fire HD tablet has a simple option in Settings-->Security & Privacy-->Apps from Unknown Sources. I have a number of F-droid apps installed. I also have the Play Store hacked in, but F-droid only required downloading the app from the web. Standalone APKs can also be installed.

JTbane 8y ago

I'm a big fan of AdAway on F-Droid, which blocks using the hosts file. It does require root, however.

reph 8y ago

nice post. printers driver : https://www.dr-driver.com/ https://www.dr-driver.com/

calimac 8y ago

Bring on the Side Loading Websites to instruct users how to turn off security measures to allow it. Amazon is Roe V Wade to ad blockers. encouraging abortions in back allies! People will find a way to block annoying invasive ads and tracking.

TekMol 8y ago

How can an app block ads system wide? I would have thought that apps are sandboxed. Just less strictly then websites. Can an app intercept the network communication at will? Can an app call any operation system function?

hokkos 8y ago

I use AdGuard and it is great. It is not only ads that I happily block, but all the analytic, it is unbelievable all the requests that are made by apps, even when not using them.

_bxg1 8y ago

For those on Android, here's a great one that's open source. Get it on F-Droid, XDA, or build from source: https://github.com/julian-klode/dns66 https://github.com/julian-klode/dns66

userbinator 8y ago

The only way to consume content the way you want to on locked-down devices is to basically MITM your traffic and run it through something like Proxomitron[1] or Proximodo[2]. I continue to find it ironic that the very same technology, often detested in discussions here, and present in the middleboxes that companies use to block/filter/inspect the traffic between their networks and the Internet, can also be used under your control to enhance your computing experience. I believe that everyone should have complete ability to modify the traffic that flows to/from the devices they own, and this is something which those who strongly support making connections "more secure" and harder to MITM often fail to consider. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxomitron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxomitron [2] https://github.com/amate/Proxydomo https://github.com/amate/Proxydomo (Japanese)

mortdeus 8y ago

I think ads are just fact of life nowadays and not necessarily a bad thing. Ads shouldn't be annoying nor should they be creepy. Like for example, if you google tips to lose weight, you shouldn't be bombarded by pictures of half naked dudes with six pack abs. Nor should you be seeing things you buy frequently due to the fact that you used an in-store membership card. I wish Google, Facebook and Apple would provide a way to say what kind of ads they'd like to see. Like I have no problem in seeing ads related to cool kickstarter projects, music equipment, tech devices, software development related tools, etc etc. I mean sometimes that is what I only see and i am like happy with the fact that I am forced to see ads. And then other times I am starting to see things that I really don't care about simply because I had a whim to go down some rabbit hole on Google. I think some developers use ads very responsibly and I think that overall denying those developers the right to generate money off your usage prevents them from growing their business and creating better products. I tend to think of flappy bird when I think of great ad placement. The ads don't get in the way of the game. They don't pop up while you are in mid game to try and trick you into clicking. They only appear after you died and they aren't full screen and annoying with a tiny little x you might miss. I mean that is the kind of ads that I can live with and I think everybody else should have to live with too. Hell I even might give them a click every now and then despite the fact that I am not interested in buying the advertised product. I just think of it like throwing some change in the hat of a busking street artist. It's the least I could do to encourage them to continue pursuing their art.

greggarious 8y ago

"It's not antitrust if we all do it right?"