6 ms·

Google changes Android content policy; intrusive ads now banned

65 points by thijser 14y ago

It will be interesting to see what this will do to the push ad craze on Android (http://www.appbrain.com/stats/libraries/ad : the #2 and #3 ad networks in terms of apps are push ad networks. This is measured by total number of apps, these ads do much less well on installs as professional developers know better than to include this in their apps.) The new terms only say that it's not allowed to imitate system notifications, but it also says that it must be clear to the user from which app an ad is originating. This is currently not the case with most push ads.

thijser 14y ago
It will be interesting to see what this will do to the push ad craze on Android (http://www.appbrain.com/stats/libraries/ad http://www.appbrain.com/stats/libraries/ad : the #2 and #3 ad networks in terms of apps are push ad networks. This is measured by total number of apps, these ads do much less well on installs as professional developers know better than to include this in their apps.) The new terms only say that it's not allowed to imitate system notifications, but it also says that it must be clear to the user from which app an ad is originating. This is currently not the case with most push ads.
dm8 14y ago
Ad Walls Forcing the user to click on ads or submit personal information for advertising purposes in order to fully use an app provides a poor user experience and is prohibited. Users must be able to dismiss the ad without penalty. Does that mean "offer wall" companies can't advertise on Android platform?
- thijser 14y ago
  I think it only means you can't show an offer wall and say "you have to perform at least one action to continue". Showing offer walls that leave all actions voluntary is still fine, the way I read it.
  - stephengillie 14y ago
    I think this just means they have to have a tiny X in the corner for you to try to tap and miss and click on the ad anyway.
m0nty 14y ago
> It must be clear to the user which app each ad is associated with or implemented in. I was infuriated to be presented with a popup ad offering me (gasp!) the chance to win a free iPad recently. This was using vanilla Opera so I was puzzled about the source. I found out that some apps will inject ads into your browser - I removed the two likely suspects. This has a "chilling effect" when I consider installing new apps since I'm weighing up its usefulness vs. the likelihood that a free app will take similar liberties.
- thijser 14y ago
  There are a number of apps that detect which apps do this, we have made one ourselves too that even scans every new app you install and immediately warns you if there is some intrusive ad network present in there: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appspot.swisscodemonkeys.detector https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appspot.sw...
  - unimpressive 14y ago
    So I assume that these will be the anti-virus of the PC+ era?
dvhh 14y ago
#4 means no ad-blocking apps right ?
- dt7 14y ago
  I don't think so, it says your "Ads" cannot interfere, not your "Apps".
rcamera 14y ago
The title is misleading, Google changed Google Play content policy, not Android. There are other stores out there that do not need to follow this policy and yet can exist in Android. EDIT: s/wrong/misleading
- ntkachov 14y ago
  The only other app store that has any traction on android is the Amazon App Store. Amazon has much more strict policies about what gets into the store and what doesn't. All of the other app stores don't really have all that many users and if you use them then you probably know how to avoid shady apps.
  - rcamera 14y ago
    While that is true, it still doesn't refute the parent argument.
TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
Personally I'd like them to crack down on Apps that change the homepage of my browser to an affiliate search engine, or add home screen icons to affiliate search engines unrelated to the application itself.
BenoitEssiambre 14y ago
That is quite a welcome move. The play store can be a legitimately scary place. I have a few apps on there and I get e-mails every few days from "advertisement networks" that all claim that they will increase my eCPM 5x to 10x, that they will be non intrusive to my users, that they have high profile partners and innovative revenue sharing schemes. They just need me to add this little library of code to my apps. Now I always refuse these offers. It's too difficult to figure out who is legitimate and who is not. However, these offers are so frequent and sometimes they even look interesting and original such that I can imagine some developers would be willing to try them out. Every time I buy an app on the play store I wonder: Has the developer succumbed to the temptation and let a shady piece of code with spyware or adware in their app?
- thijser 14y ago
  I'd advise you to try our AppBrain Ad Detector also mentioned in one of my other comments on this post. It shows you for all apps which common libraries are included in them. And as a bonus for developers we aggregate the stats anonymously such that you can see which libraries are legitimate and not on the "android library statistics" page on AppBrain.
toyadventures 14y ago
So does this mean if a company/publisher is using a 3rd party developer and if there are ads that broke these new rules - who would take the hit/blame? Company/publisher or third party developer that represents the publisher in the marketplace?

65 points by thijser 14y ago

thijser 14y ago

It will be interesting to see what this will do to the push ad craze on Android (http://www.appbrain.com/stats/libraries/ad http://www.appbrain.com/stats/libraries/ad : the #2 and #3 ad networks in terms of apps are push ad networks. This is measured by total number of apps, these ads do much less well on installs as professional developers know better than to include this in their apps.) The new terms only say that it's not allowed to imitate system notifications, but it also says that it must be clear to the user from which app an ad is originating. This is currently not the case with most push ads.

dm8 14y ago

Ad Walls Forcing the user to click on ads or submit personal information for advertising purposes in order to fully use an app provides a poor user experience and is prohibited. Users must be able to dismiss the ad without penalty. Does that mean "offer wall" companies can't advertise on Android platform?

thijser 14y ago
I think it only means you can't show an offer wall and say "you have to perform at least one action to continue". Showing offer walls that leave all actions voluntary is still fine, the way I read it.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  I think this just means they have to have a tiny X in the corner for you to try to tap and miss and click on the ad anyway.

m0nty 14y ago

> It must be clear to the user which app each ad is associated with or implemented in. I was infuriated to be presented with a popup ad offering me (gasp!) the chance to win a free iPad recently. This was using vanilla Opera so I was puzzled about the source. I found out that some apps will inject ads into your browser - I removed the two likely suspects. This has a "chilling effect" when I consider installing new apps since I'm weighing up its usefulness vs. the likelihood that a free app will take similar liberties.

thijser 14y ago
There are a number of apps that detect which apps do this, we have made one ourselves too that even scans every new app you install and immediately warns you if there is some intrusive ad network present in there: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appspot.swisscodemonkeys.detector https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appspot.sw...
- unimpressive 14y ago
  So I assume that these will be the anti-virus of the PC+ era?

dvhh 14y ago

#4 means no ad-blocking apps right ?

dt7 14y ago
I don't think so, it says your "Ads" cannot interfere, not your "Apps".

rcamera 14y ago

The title is misleading, Google changed Google Play content policy, not Android. There are other stores out there that do not need to follow this policy and yet can exist in Android. EDIT: s/wrong/misleading

ntkachov 14y ago
The only other app store that has any traction on android is the Amazon App Store. Amazon has much more strict policies about what gets into the store and what doesn't. All of the other app stores don't really have all that many users and if you use them then you probably know how to avoid shady apps.
- rcamera 14y ago
  While that is true, it still doesn't refute the parent argument.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

Personally I'd like them to crack down on Apps that change the homepage of my browser to an affiliate search engine, or add home screen icons to affiliate search engines unrelated to the application itself.

BenoitEssiambre 14y ago

That is quite a welcome move. The play store can be a legitimately scary place. I have a few apps on there and I get e-mails every few days from "advertisement networks" that all claim that they will increase my eCPM 5x to 10x, that they will be non intrusive to my users, that they have high profile partners and innovative revenue sharing schemes. They just need me to add this little library of code to my apps. Now I always refuse these offers. It's too difficult to figure out who is legitimate and who is not. However, these offers are so frequent and sometimes they even look interesting and original such that I can imagine some developers would be willing to try them out. Every time I buy an app on the play store I wonder: Has the developer succumbed to the temptation and let a shady piece of code with spyware or adware in their app?

thijser 14y ago
I'd advise you to try our AppBrain Ad Detector also mentioned in one of my other comments on this post. It shows you for all apps which common libraries are included in them. And as a bonus for developers we aggregate the stats anonymously such that you can see which libraries are legitimate and not on the "android library statistics" page on AppBrain.

toyadventures 14y ago

So does this mean if a company/publisher is using a 3rd party developer and if there are ads that broke these new rules - who would take the hit/blame? Company/publisher or third party developer that represents the publisher in the marketplace?