12 ms·

Google bans ad blockers, but is fine with ad-blocking browsers

21 points by axiomdata316 8y ago

deogeo 8y ago
> We don’t allow apps that interfere with, disrupt, damage, or access in an unauthorized manner the user’s device So Google decides what's authorized, not the user. Makes it clear who really owns the device.
- vuln 8y ago
  Damn. They could have at least ended with 'unless user makes the express decision to allow the application to run.' just throw up 80 pop ups warning the laymen.
  - d-sc 8y ago
    But the laymen, like most techies, don’t like ads and thus will want to use add blockers. Thus they will be trained by their fellow tech folk to ignore those warnings which will decrease the effectiveness of other warnings.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  You can install these apps from other app stores or directly from the app developer themselves. Google only decides what to carry on its own app store.
  - salawat 8y ago
    With all due respect, that fails the weasel restriction test. When Douglas Adams writing can be said to be sufficiently similar to the number of hoops you have to jump through to do something, you have a problem. Quote related >"But the plans were on display…” >>“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” >“That’s the display department.” >>“With a flashlight.” >“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” >>“So had the stairs.” >“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” >>“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard." When you have to go so far out of your normal mode of interacting with a device such that the User has to tear apart developer documentation to figure out how to do something with a device they allegedly own because the maker of the OS also just happens to be the primary disseminator of software written for the platform and would prefer that pesky developers would refrain from threatening their data collection/revenue model, there's a problem. All the alternative install paths fail every semblance of the non-techie/Grandma usability test. This is not acceptable. No one but the User should be in such a position of power over what can or should be runnable on a User's device. When you throw so many hurdles in front of a user to prevent them from executing their prerogative to run what they wish, that's called malicious engineering. Google/Alphabet is rapidly reaching the point where anti-trust mechanisms need to be brought to bear. This type of anti-consumer behavior was the same type of thing Microsoft was pinged for. Google/Alphabet should not get a free pass in this regard.
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      > When you have to go so far out of your normal mode of interacting with a device such that the User has to tear apart developer documentation 1. Download the APK from the website. 2. Tap on the downloaded notification. 3. Follow prompts. It's just as easy as it is on any other computer to the point where F-Droid just has a download button on its website and needs no explanation for what to do after the download completes.
    - jonny_eh 8y ago
      It's easy enough for Fortnite to skip the Play Store.
    - beatgammit 8y ago
      And this is part of the reason I'm excited about the Librem 5[1]. It's a Linux based phone that gives uses ultimate control over what runs on their device. If they can pull off a usable phone, they might just get enough market share for Google to notice and stop being so predatory. I just want to be able to run whatever I want without worrying if the OS is spying on me. [1] https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
xfitm3 8y ago
I hope this gives Firefox a chance to claw back some market share.

21 points by axiomdata316 8y ago

> We don’t allow apps that interfere with, disrupt, damage, or access in an unauthorized manner the user’s device So Google decides what's authorized, not the user. Makes it clear who really owns the device.

vuln 8y ago
Damn. They could have at least ended with 'unless user makes the express decision to allow the application to run.' just throw up 80 pop ups warning the laymen.
- d-sc 8y ago
  But the laymen, like most techies, don’t like ads and thus will want to use add blockers. Thus they will be trained by their fellow tech folk to ignore those warnings which will decrease the effectiveness of other warnings.
lern_too_spel 8y ago
You can install these apps from other app stores or directly from the app developer themselves. Google only decides what to carry on its own app store.
- salawat 8y ago
  With all due respect, that fails the weasel restriction test. When Douglas Adams writing can be said to be sufficiently similar to the number of hoops you have to jump through to do something, you have a problem. Quote related >"But the plans were on display…” >>“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” >“That’s the display department.” >>“With a flashlight.” >“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” >>“So had the stairs.” >“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” >>“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard." When you have to go so far out of your normal mode of interacting with a device such that the User has to tear apart developer documentation to figure out how to do something with a device they allegedly own because the maker of the OS also just happens to be the primary disseminator of software written for the platform and would prefer that pesky developers would refrain from threatening their data collection/revenue model, there's a problem. All the alternative install paths fail every semblance of the non-techie/Grandma usability test. This is not acceptable. No one but the User should be in such a position of power over what can or should be runnable on a User's device. When you throw so many hurdles in front of a user to prevent them from executing their prerogative to run what they wish, that's called malicious engineering. Google/Alphabet is rapidly reaching the point where anti-trust mechanisms need to be brought to bear. This type of anti-consumer behavior was the same type of thing Microsoft was pinged for. Google/Alphabet should not get a free pass in this regard.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    > When you have to go so far out of your normal mode of interacting with a device such that the User has to tear apart developer documentation 1. Download the APK from the website. 2. Tap on the downloaded notification. 3. Follow prompts. It's just as easy as it is on any other computer to the point where F-Droid just has a download button on its website and needs no explanation for what to do after the download completes.
  - jonny_eh 8y ago
    It's easy enough for Fortnite to skip the Play Store.
  - beatgammit 8y ago
    And this is part of the reason I'm excited about the Librem 5[1]. It's a Linux based phone that gives uses ultimate control over what runs on their device. If they can pull off a usable phone, they might just get enough market share for Google to notice and stop being so predatory. I just want to be able to run whatever I want without worrying if the OS is spying on me. [1] https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/

xfitm3 8y ago

I hope this gives Firefox a chance to claw back some market share.