14 ms·

Google removes AdBlock for Android from Google Play

365 points by HaloZero 14y ago

tomp 14y ago
AdBlock is awesome, especially for mobile users; Why would I pay my money, use my bandwidth, so that you can make money?
- tomeric 14y ago
  Because I pay my money and use my bandwidth, so that you can read the content you want.
  - uoou 14y ago
    Which you freely choose to do. You exist in the market as it is, not as you wish it to be. If you can't find a way to make it pay (if that is your priority/a requirement) then you'll fail and someone else will try. If no one can think of a way to make it pay, then we'll lose such sites until someone can. Which is fine. Better that than ads.
    - andymcsherry 14y ago
      If you remove the incentive to freely distribute content, eventually people will stop doing it. When this happens, most of the content you enjoy will end up behind a paywall. The reason you don't see it now is only a small portion of the internet is aware of and uses these products. Most of us can't work for free, and I imagine a substantial portion of this reader base's income is directly or indirectly supported by advertising.
      - uoou 14y ago
        Yes, I said that in my previous post. And we'll go back to having a greater proportion of hobbyist sites. People doing it for the love of it rather than the money. That's fine. I think advertising is a terribly crude way to make money from a website, as well as being cultural and aesthetic pollution. I think we'll look back on this period when websites were ad-funded with embarrassment. Of course, I can't think of a better idea. But if the use of ad-blockers increases then many many sites will go pop (the really good ones - the ones that people are actually actively willing to pay for - will survive of course) until some clever sausage eventually thinks of a better idea. And that will be great. Good old free market at work.
      - uoou 14y ago
        Also, if there's advertising then it's not free.
      - jessaustin 14y ago
        ... most of the content you enjoy will end up behind a paywall. This is often threatened, occasionally attempted, and rarely continued after the resulting precipitous traffic drop. "Content" is not rare. If a particular producer can't figure out a remuneration technique that doesn't annoy consumers, she'll find her lunch eaten by competing producers who can.
  - tomp 14y ago
    But unless you made a site especially for mobile devices, and also use mobile-friendly ads, I'm just downloading the huge ads that you serve your desktop users, without even being able to see them when I zoom in.
camus 14y ago
lol after the Reader debacle , I hope people finally see Google for it really is. It is not a cool company and you dont want your core business to rely on them. As for now i'm switching to Firefox.
- icebraining 14y ago
  What too you so long?
naftaliharris 14y ago
I imagine that Google, Facebook, and other companies that make much of their money from online ads must be pretty scared that this huge revenue stream depends on the general public not taking the two minutes that are required to install an adblocker. I mean, if adblockers really caught on, these companies would lose tons of revenue. Perhaps the key thing is that people who are most bothered by ads are the ones who never click on them and then install adblockers, so that the loss of these users does not represent much revenue loss.
- atishay811 14y ago
  What if Microsoft includes an optional os level ad block with windows blue that is on by default. They did that with privacy and can also do that with bandwidth. Their business model doesn't have too much on ads. That would kill these revenue streams. Google has been fighting the Microsoft business model for years giving freebies supported by ads.
  - nivla 14y ago
    >What if Microsoft includes an optional os level ad block with windows blue that is on by default. Huh? So much for baseless FUD. Ad-blocking is much different than adding an extra header for voluntarily respecting someones privacy. Incase you din't know, blocking ads involve removing the content or terminating connection to the ad-server altogether. No, Microsoft or any big players don't have a reason to or is that stupid to do so.
    - atishay811 14y ago
      Difficulty: If as a community we can filter out porn websites how is this difficult. They have filters for malware sites in many tools which have been blacklisted and require additional steps to get to. They could create an open repository of ad servers curated by users and then a slider - say block most offensive/obstructive ad servers. Reason: Better experience for users. Hidden Motive: Competition with Google and market retention of their premium products. Security for their business model. A click to download ad would itself hit the ad business hard.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
fierarul 14y ago
So let me get this, they interpret section 4.4 as the equivalent of not being allowed to edit your own /etc/hosts file on your own device? Here is 4.4. What exactly does AdBlock infringe? "4.4 Prohibited Actions. You agree that you will not engage in any activity with the Market, including the development or distribution of Products, that interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party including, but not limited to, Android users, Google or any mobile network operator. You may not use customer information obtained from the Market to sell or distribute Products outside of the Market."
- yanw 14y ago
  This: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=40506 https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=40506
Tichy 14y ago
evil
adsenseclient 14y ago
I think in the future (maybe 5 years from now), writing programs for Android will become like making money with AdSense now: unless you are very large (like Facebook), or have a PR department (like NYTimes), expect letters like you now get from AdSense: "It has come to our attention that <... blah blah ..> As a result, we have disabled your application in Google Play store and removed it from devices where it has been installed" And poof- all your work is gone! Replace <...bah blah...> with "copyright", "inappropriate user generated content", "not fitting our 'business model'", "inducing users to install it", etc.
- aw3c2 14y ago
  no why, you can always develop and install any android apps you want. what you mean is access to the play store. there is a difference.
  - tonyedgecombe 14y ago
    "there is a difference" At the moment.
    - fpgeek 14y ago
      Amazon has effectively guaranteed it will stay that way for a while. Don't forget: Even early on, the Amazon Appstore was popular enough to force AT&T to stop blocking sideloading. It is only more popular today.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
No1 14y ago
I wonder if Google has plans to yank AdBlock from the Chrome Web Store also. It must cause some bean counters some serious stress seeing the #1 Chrome extension being completely antithetical to their business.
- mansoor-s 14y ago
  Luckily Firefox has kept up and the two browsers are pretty similar. I use both, and will drop Chrome in a heart beat if they did remove it from the app store.
  - hayksaakian 14y ago
    That was the main reason I waited to get chrome in the first place.
- yanw 14y ago
  They're not quite similar as there isn't an ad blocking equivalent on other mobile platforms, but it exists on other browsers. Also in this case there is the app developer revenue to consider. Anyway you can still side-load on both platforms.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
No1 14y ago
tl;dr: AdBlock Plus “interferes with or accesses another service or product in an unauthorized manner,” which Google says is a violation of section 4.4 of the Developer Distribution Agreement so it has been removed from Google Play.
abcd_f 14y ago
Ah, the routine of not being evil.
- qompiler 14y ago
  Evil is a relative term
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    Well, company mottos are meaningless because companies always use their own versions of words. For example, in Google "evil" could mean "anything that doesn't make us maximum profit" if they want it to.
scriptproof 14y ago
"Internet freedom and consumer choice". I have always considered guys at Adblock, as a bunch of hypocrites. So consumer choice would be to use services funded by advertising, and suppress it.
smnrchrds 14y ago
Google is not an "open" company, no matter how many times they put that word in their press releases and ads. They are optimizing for revenue. They never allowed YouTube download add-ons in Chrome Web Store either. Removing AdBlock shouldn't be much of a surprise. PS: More reason to stick to Firefox, especially since installing non-Chrome Web Store add-ons requires jumping through hoops[1] and even if you do so they won't auto-update AFAIK. EDIT: I'm sorry. You're right. I got confused about what was removed from where. Apparently I'm not alone in this confusion because as of this edit the top comment for this thread starts with the sentence "the thing about blogspam is that it often generates confusion" and continues with an explanation of the situation[2]. Again, I apologize for my half-baked comment. [1] http://support.google.com/chrome_webstore/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2664769 http://support.google.com/chrome_webstore/bin/answer.py?hl=e... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5373795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5373795
- neya 14y ago
  "Let me wait till Google does something bad so I can jump straight in and start bashing them without even knowing what the issue is, as long as I hate them!" Adblock for Chrome (the one you are talking about) is different from that of Android. And really, it's no big deal either, Android allows apps outside of Market to be installed without any rooting or modifications to the phone.
- yanw 14y ago
  I think you're confused. Adblock for Android was pulled due to an agreement violation: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/13/breaking-google-has-begun-purging-ad-blocking-apps-from-the-play-store/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/13/breaking-google-has-... Adblock for Chrome is still in the Webstore.
  - fierarul 14y ago
    What was the violation? Just because they interpret something as a violation it doesn't make it true.
    - 14y ago
limejuice 14y ago
I think microsoft had excellent timing with its 'scroogled' ads. (http://www.scroogled.com/ http://www.scroogled.com/). I've already switched by browser's default search to http://duckduckgo.com http://duckduckgo.com, and honestly haven't noticed a difference, although alot of my searches are already on more domain-specific sites like stackoverflow.com so I bypass generic search engine. Now, it could be time to switch back to firefox from chrome, esp. if google decides to scroogle AdBlock Plus from the Chrome Web Store too.
- BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
  Comparing Google to DuckDuckGo in this case doesn't make sense; DuckDuckGo is not the primary stakeholder in any mobile OS platform and does not operate an app marketplace for said platform. It is only directly comparable to Google's Search product, which is entirely disjoint from Android and the Play Store. Also remember that, though the package has been removed from the Play Store, Google has taken no measures to prevent you from downloading and installing the APK directly from the author's web site (and the same goes for the Chrome extension if it gets pulled). (They are not leveraging their control over the platform; just the distribution channel they host).
- psionski 14y ago
  https://startpage.com/ https://startpage.com/ is also really nice :)
  - mehrzad 14y ago
    For Firefox set, Duckduckgo as the URL Bar search engine (somewhere in about:config) and Startpage as the right click search.
DanBC 14y ago
I hate AdBlock and I wish people would use it more carefully. But even I think this is a bad idea for Google. They appear to be saying that ad-blockers "interfere with [...] in an unauthorized manner the devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party" Which is baffling, because I as the operator of my web browser is the person who gives authorisation for code (including ad code) to run on my browser on my machine. I can think of a bunch of stuff that interferes with stuff - readability is an example. Why is it not okay to block ads, but is okay to drop CSS and reformat a page? I fully understand why people run ad-blockers. I don't use ad blockers, so I know just how awful many ads are.
- magicalist 14y ago
  I don't think this is a browser extension, because Mobile Firefox is (AFAIK) the only browser on Android that supports extensions. This would have to block http connections or something, which would seem to be breaking the rule that Google claims it is. I also think people should be able to run whatever they want on their phone, but I do understand the Android model of "apps should not touch one another", and pulling apps that don't follow that from the app store is at least somewhat understandable. You can always side load...and if you're running adblock, you're probably more ok with things like that. On the other hand, just getting an app that sets the equivalent of a hosts file should be ok for an official app store... The real solution for adblock in particular is for Mobile Chrome to add support for extensions. Or use Firefox which already has support.
  - column 14y ago
    Dolphin supports addons
- krenel 14y ago
  > I don't use ad blockers, so I know just how awful many ads are. What is your reason for not using AdBlock? > [...] I wish people would use it more carefully. What does "carefully" in this context means? These are genuine questions. I always recommend AdBlock to all my friends and everybody is delighted with it. I would like to have a point against AdBlock, though. Some times people come to me to install "that wired program that removes Ads in youtube"... you know what I mean.
paurosello 14y ago
Would you let someone mess with your business in your own house? I don't think so...
- seanp2k2 14y ago
  1.) Why are you running your business out of your house. 2.) It's not "someone". It's "customers". 3.) Your product is Free!* 4.) Ads are annoying 5.) You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Hackers and people with some dedication or desire to learn will always win, no exceptions. 6.) As most people have already mentioned, this seems to be a pretty glaring exception of the "Don't be evil" social contract that Google likes to throw about.
gnuvince 14y ago
Well, I guess I'm gonna need to install Firefox again :/
- signed0 14y ago
  This appears to be just for Android, not the Chrome browser.
vinhboy 14y ago
Ehh... I think I prefer it when apps and tools like this stay in the "black market"/"under the table" and you have to jump through a bunch of technical hoops to get it working. I like the idea of it being a reward for paying attention and being informed. (example: rooting your phone to get wifi tethering) I don't expect for-profit companies to support things that has no value (to them) other than harming their revenue stream. If lets say they start prosecuting people for building these tools for personal use, etc... Then I would be concerned.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  Your example is especially misguided. The only reason you haven't got tethering is that you're using a very wrong carrier in a very wrong place. Everyone else in the world get their tethering as an inherent consequence of having internet on their phpne. You can't get internet without tethering the same way you can't get internet without facebook. So it's very like a chinese resident saying "I'm happy that facebook and youtube access require VPN, I like being rewarded for paying attention". Which would be a major WTF.
- jakubp 14y ago
  "I don't expect for-profit companies to support things that has no value (to them) other than harming their revenue stream." If users can't block ads they hate through AdBlock on Chrome, they may switch to a different browser or OS. That's not good for browser/OS creator... In addition, people who use AdBlock probably click on ads mostly by mistake (as do I and lots of my tech-aware frinds). Hence there is almost no revenue in showing those ads anyway. I agree with you that if an organization sees something they control as working against them they will usually try to kill it. I disagree that AdBlock is actually working against their revenue stream... at least I don't see any evidence in this whole thread, mostly speculation. What worries me more is hypocrisy on the part of Google. They frequently claim that users come first, when in fact Google's profits come first. Why all the drama about users then? :)
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  As a technical person. I agree that good things should only be for technical people. GhotiFish 2016.
anvandare 14y ago
In Google's defence, they're in the business of making money, not in the business of doing good. If I'm completely honest, I'm actually ok with a model where we, the technomages, are able to install Adblock anyway and the muggles have to deal with an eyeball-tax. >;]
- acchow 14y ago
  As long as you recognize that that is not a moral argument.
- tomp 14y ago
  But they make a lot more money because their official raison d'être is to "do good".
  - anvandare 14y ago
    Well, not quite. Their (unofficial) motto is "don't be evil", which is not the same as "do good". Besides, it's only so because of the opinion that --in the long run-- being (perceived) as a good company is better than being a short-term greedy one. You could debate whether removing Adblock constitutes an evil act, but at the end of the day _someone_ has to pay for those shiny new services and gadgets.
lucb1e 14y ago
Google Reader stopping? Firefox has a built-in RSS reader that I've been missing. Google removing Adblock Plus, even though they allow unobtrusive ads (like most Google ads)? Firefox won't do that. And Chrome, the once so fast browser, has been hogging more and more RAM with every version. I'm going back to Firefox now. I used to use Firefox for years, but moved away when they made mistake after mistake. As another story recently said, Mozilla needed a kick in the butt. I think they've felt it, and it's time to move back now.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
onemorepassword 14y ago
So, anybody still wondering what Google Glass is actually intended to do? Given that Google's core business is advertising, not shiny new technology.
- jrockway 14y ago
  Apple seems to have made a few bucks by selling hardware. I don't really see why Google can't also go that route if it wants to.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    Because Apple consistently wins awards for support while Google.... doesn't believe in it?
carlob 14y ago
Luckily you can still sideload apps on android. If you have a rooted phone you can try the more draconian ad-away [0] that will modify your hosts file. [0] http://code.google.com/p/ad-away/ http://code.google.com/p/ad-away/
illyism 14y ago
Wait, I'm confused. The article mentions Google play which is for Android but shows screen shots of Chrome Web Store which is for Chrome. They also mention Adblock Plus which is a Chrome Extension but didn't Google remove Adblock on Google Play which is something entirely different? It's weird to see people comparing it to Firefox and how it would not block ads. AFAIK chrome still does that, but just not on Android. Or am I wrong?
- tomku 14y ago
  You're not wrong. The article is (intentionally?) confusing the two AdBlocks. The Android app is the one that got removed, not the Chrome extension.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
yanw 14y ago
The thing about blogspam is that it often generates confusion. The author took some liberties with his conclusions which explains some of the comments below. Here is a more informed post: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/13/breaking-google-has-begun-purging-ad-blocking-apps-from-the-play-store/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/13/breaking-google-has-... First: Adblock for Android was purged from the Play store. Adblock for Chrome is still available. As to why it was removed, it is said that it is in violation of section 4.4 of the Play Store Developer Distribution Agreement: 4.4 Prohibited Actions. You agree that you will not engage in any activity with the Market, including the development or distribution of Products, that interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party including, but not limited to, Android users, Google or any mobile network operator. You may not use customer information obtained from the Market to sell or distribute Products outside of the Market. How so? By rootless-ly changing proxy using an exploit that was patched in 4.2.2: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=40506 https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=40506
- huhtenberg 14y ago
  Did you just delete your earlier comment and reposted it as this ^ one? Please don't do that.
  - yanw 14y ago
    Did a summary instead of replaying to multiple comments.
    - huhtenberg 14y ago
      Just post another one. There are no comment caps :)
      - flyinRyan 14y ago
        Before you spend a lot of time on this person, I would check their comment history...
ArnoVanLumig 14y ago
Slightly unrelated: Why don't more sites allow hiding of ads for a small fee? Over the last year I've probably donated a lot more money to sites than all advertising revenue I would have generated were I not using AdBlock. What I would like to see is a kind of browser extension that automatically donates a (very) small amount to every site I visit per page view. In return, the site would not show me any ads. Safety would be a concern though. Of course this would not be good for Google at all, so they might want to block such an extension too...
- Kesty 14y ago
  Because in the ads world more users is equals to more money. A small fee for hiding ads will not generate a small revenue stream but, at the same time, decrease the value of your adspace. And selling a consistent and growing userbase is easier that keeping a consistent and growing revenue from ads-free subscriptions.
  - ArnoVanLumig 14y ago
    I don't quite understand. If I visit a web page that has an ad then that might net the website owner $0.001 (or something along those lines, I have no real figures). I would personally have no problem paying $0.002 per page view to get an ad-free site. No subscription, just pay a very small amount per view or get ads. From my point of view, which is probably naive, the website owner would rather have $0.002 instead of $0.001 per page view. Actually transferring fractions of a cent is of course difficult, but there are ways to work around that.
    - Kesty 14y ago
      If you are not talking about subscription I could see that happening but there is not a way to do that right now. The best way to do this would be a webservice where you can put some money and affiliates website can check if you are logged to that service and charge you trough that while not showing you any ads. There are alot of thing to check: - The user has to set an amount of money he is willing to pay per Day/Week/Month. - Decide what to do when the cap is reached. Showing the ads, alert the user that they have reached their cap or both. - Different websites can charge a very different sum per impression based on the scope, location,topic and number of ads in one page. It's not an easy thing to do, with not an easy solution but It might be an interesting startup idea.
dsirijus 14y ago
To ones interested in how much AdBlock actually impacts ad performances, this is an interesting report. http://clarityray.com/Content/ClarityRay_AdBlockReport.pdf http://clarityray.com/Content/ClarityRay_AdBlockReport.pdf Almost a year old though. Anyone has newer data?
joelthelion 14y ago
I'm going to remove Google Play from my smartphone :)
buro9 14y ago
I always thought that they would do this. I suspect that they won't do this to the web store, as there is a fundamental principle in that a web client determines how to render something. That is... the client (browser) can choose to obey or ignore any markup it receives... the end user actually controls the rendering (sizing, fonts, contrast, which elements to display or hide). But apps on an app store have no such principle. In fact the underlying assumption is that they are locked down and that the app author has that authority and not the end user. With that in mind, I wondered how long it would take for AdBlockers on the Play Store that blocked adverts from loading in other apps would be tolerated by Google. Personally I used to use AdAway ( https://code.google.com/p/ad-away/ https://code.google.com/p/ad-away/ || https://github.com/dschuermann/ad-away https://github.com/dschuermann/ad-away ) and you can see the hosts file they use here https://github.com/dschuermann/ad-away/blob/master/AdAway/src/org/adaway/provider/AdAwayDatabase.java https://github.com/dschuermann/ad-away/blob/master/AdAway/sr... , but then I skipped even that step. Now I just root my phone and replace the hosts file with the one found at: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/ http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/ I wouldn't say that AdBlockers are all bad, one of AdAway's features is that you can load hosts lists to unblock domains that were removed from DNS in countries like China: https://smarthosts.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/mobile_devices/hosts https://smarthosts.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/mobile_devices/h... Edit: Although now I'm curious... have Google gone so far as to prevent people from loading something like AdAway from an untrusted .apk like the one AdAway host at https://f-droid.org/FDroid.apk https://f-droid.org/FDroid.apk ?
belorn 14y ago
Only a extreme small subset of websites get paid per viewed ad. Its mostly an relic of the past which most ad-networks has move away from. The wast majority of websites with ads get paid per clicked ad or per sold unit/registration. They don't get paid a single dime for visitors that do not click on the ads (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation_methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation_methods). The big exception is video and video sites where commercials has a different purpose and economic model (branding mostly). That means, if one never click on ads on a website, it's equivalent to running ad-block on your browser. There is no moral superior choice by allowing ads to run on the screen. When we do, we are just fooling ourself into believing we are "contributing". At worst, we get a worse impression of the website and thus won't encourage others users who would click on the ad to visits the website. However, I doubt this has anything to do with economics and all to do with the ap-market and it's image. Google want to encourage new developers to code for the Google Play market place, and thus anything that might scare away developers is a threat.
- Kesty 14y ago
  Most professional website that base their income on ad selling will not rely on a Pay Per Click affiliate model, but will have an "Ad Sale Departement" that will sell most advertisment by a cost per Impression model (CPM, Flat Rate). By professional websites I mean website that will have a team of people working on it that are depending on the ad revenue. You are correct in saying that those kind of website are a extremly small subset compared to the many small website with a couple of google adsense banners, but are probably the website you read,consume and block the most.
  - belorn 14y ago
    If by professional websites you mean a few specific publishing websites which google has an CPM agreement with, then yes, those are a extremely small subset. News sites particularly are one large subgroup of that set. But not all Professional websites is news sites. Nor is every professional website using the CPM model just because they got a team of people which are depending on the ad revenue. They commonly use the other form of compensation model which one can read in the above Wikipedia link. CPM model is an rare/antique model outside publishing (news) sites. While looking around for statistics, I can't even find anyone that mention CPM alongside with PPC and PPS. PPC looks to be the dominant model, with PPS taking almost everything else. (https://strategyplanone.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/pay-per-click-advertising-statistics-and-trends-infographic/ https://strategyplanone.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/pay-per-cli...)
Kiro 14y ago
How does AdBlock detect the ads? Isn't there a risk it removes non-ad content?
- Elhana 14y ago
  Sure there is, but you can easily disable it per page/site if you notice something doesnt work.
dcc1 14y ago
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts
gambiting 14y ago
If they remove it from Chrome as well,then I am jumping back to Firefox.
Tenoke 14y ago
Bit OT but the title - 'Google yanks AdBlock Plus from Google Play, surprising nobody' is a good example of hindsight bias.
liotier 14y ago
Google Play may ban Adblock Plus for Android but you can still download it directly at http://adblockplus.org/en/android-about http://adblockplus.org/en/android-about or get AdAway from F-Droid, the Free & Open Source software repository for Android : http://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=org.adaway http://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=org.adaway
- thechut 14y ago
  This needs more upvotes! People are missing the point. People that are use to living in Apple controlled walled-gardens dont understand that being removed from the play store doesn't mean much. Their apps can still be listed in alternate app stores as well as download directly and installed directly (its trivial to install an apk which has been downloaded. Things are especially easy if you have a rooted phone, which I'm assuming most HN Android users do. That's the major proponent of using Android for me. Just like my computer I am free to modify is and install any software I want. I'm sure if the App Store even ever approved an Ad Block app it's long gone by now. Can any iPhone users comment on this?
  - Steko 14y ago
    "especially easy if you have a rooted phone, which I'm assuming most HN Android users do." I'd wager 100 HN bucks this is not the case.
- ajross 14y ago
  Exactly. I'm all in favor of ad blocker software, but if you want to use it why should your preferred walled-garden provider be responsible for giving it to you. Install software you control. It's better for all of us. If Google or Apple wants to make money with a walled garden and (in Android's case) subsidize our use of the open source result, then I think that's a pretty good bargain. IMHO, our part of that is letting Google play in its walled garden as long as their part (AOSP) is intact.
tmrhmd 14y ago
Good riddance. I'd rather be bothered by ads than the apps/services I use being deprecated.
2321sdadas 14y ago
I think it's time to switch back to FireFox.
octix 14y ago
Because they can? Perhaps using "Google Analytics Opt-out Browser Add-on" would be a more relevant now, https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout I can't check at the moment, but is it available for android's chrome?
randomsearch 14y ago
I'm so tired of an advertising-driven web. Unit ad revenue (so-to-speak) continually falls. The income of business reliant on advertising drops, they cut costs, and the quality of content suffers. The focus on link-bait and trying to get a viral hit or SEO, overtakes the imperative to provide something that people actually want. It is not a sustainable model for most businesses. Please, people, forget advertising. Provide something that people want, and charge a small and reasonable price for it. I pay for a news app, it's a small subscription, it's great, I'm happy. Back to Firefox we go.
- majani 14y ago
  After the power-drunk players of the internet bubble made everything free, market expectations were set, and now there's an expectation by most internet users that a large part of the online services they use be free.
JacobJans 14y ago
We try to build a positive, two-way, relationship with our readers, but if someone removes the ads from our website, they are directly attacking our ability to stay in business. Not cool. Removing ads from a website is no different than pirating software: You're getting the product without paying for it. Publishers deserve to make money from their work.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  > they are directly attacking our ability to stay in business. You have no right to be in business. If you want to be in business you have to earn it. Pissing off your customers to the point that they take extra steps to make your content readable is a fail on your part. >Removing ads from a website is no different than pirating software: You're getting the product without paying for it. Total bullshit. I have a web browser. It lets me point at the web and consume content in any way I want to. If you don't want that put your stuff behind a paywall. So long as it's on the open internet it's my choice how I view it, not yours. Piracy isn't remotely comparable and shame on you for saying it is.
Steko 14y ago
Really a pro PR move to do this on the same day as the Google Reader shutdown announcement and I/O sellout.
habosa 14y ago
For those saying this means anything about Android, it does not. Google Play is Google's app store for Android and they can do what they want with it (I wish they wouldn't, but that's another story). However, there is absolutely no restriction by Google on Amazon or any other app distributor continuing to provide AdBlock to Android devices. The AdBlock guys can also just put up an APK online. It's unfortunate that they'll lose the exposure of Google Play, but that's a risk you run when you're making an app that directly goes against the business interests of your distributor. The same goes for the Chrome Web Store, it's not the only place you can install Chrome extensions it's just the best place to get them. Again, I hope Google doesn't remove AdBlock from the Chrome Store but if they do I really couldn't blame them. I'm not sure why we should expect a company that makes 99.9% of its revenue (not an exaggeration) on ads to willingly distribute ad-blocking software to customers who are likely not paying for any Google services. This is different than what would happen if Apple did the same thing on iOS. On iOS you can't install apps from third-pary sources without jailbreaking your device, which puts your warranty in jeopardy. So while I agree Google may be abusing the term "open" with regards to their policies, Android as an Operating System is as open as ever.
godDLL 14y ago
> I believe they are testing the reaction… > Chrome is next http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/adblock-plus-secret-takedown/ http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/adblock-plus-secret-takedo...
kushti 14y ago
Evil corporation is so evil

365 points by HaloZero 14y ago

tomp 14y ago

AdBlock is awesome, especially for mobile users; Why would I pay my money, use my bandwidth, so that you can make money?

tomeric 14y ago
Because I pay my money and use my bandwidth, so that you can read the content you want.
- uoou 14y ago
  Which you freely choose to do. You exist in the market as it is, not as you wish it to be. If you can't find a way to make it pay (if that is your priority/a requirement) then you'll fail and someone else will try. If no one can think of a way to make it pay, then we'll lose such sites until someone can. Which is fine. Better that than ads.
  - andymcsherry 14y ago
    If you remove the incentive to freely distribute content, eventually people will stop doing it. When this happens, most of the content you enjoy will end up behind a paywall. The reason you don't see it now is only a small portion of the internet is aware of and uses these products. Most of us can't work for free, and I imagine a substantial portion of this reader base's income is directly or indirectly supported by advertising.
    - uoou 14y ago
      Yes, I said that in my previous post. And we'll go back to having a greater proportion of hobbyist sites. People doing it for the love of it rather than the money. That's fine. I think advertising is a terribly crude way to make money from a website, as well as being cultural and aesthetic pollution. I think we'll look back on this period when websites were ad-funded with embarrassment. Of course, I can't think of a better idea. But if the use of ad-blockers increases then many many sites will go pop (the really good ones - the ones that people are actually actively willing to pay for - will survive of course) until some clever sausage eventually thinks of a better idea. And that will be great. Good old free market at work.
    - uoou 14y ago
      Also, if there's advertising then it's not free.
    - jessaustin 14y ago
      ... most of the content you enjoy will end up behind a paywall. This is often threatened, occasionally attempted, and rarely continued after the resulting precipitous traffic drop. "Content" is not rare. If a particular producer can't figure out a remuneration technique that doesn't annoy consumers, she'll find her lunch eaten by competing producers who can.
- tomp 14y ago
  But unless you made a site especially for mobile devices, and also use mobile-friendly ads, I'm just downloading the huge ads that you serve your desktop users, without even being able to see them when I zoom in.

camus 14y ago

lol after the Reader debacle , I hope people finally see Google for it really is. It is not a cool company and you dont want your core business to rely on them. As for now i'm switching to Firefox.

icebraining 14y ago
What too you so long?

naftaliharris 14y ago

I imagine that Google, Facebook, and other companies that make much of their money from online ads must be pretty scared that this huge revenue stream depends on the general public not taking the two minutes that are required to install an adblocker. I mean, if adblockers really caught on, these companies would lose tons of revenue. Perhaps the key thing is that people who are most bothered by ads are the ones who never click on them and then install adblockers, so that the loss of these users does not represent much revenue loss.

atishay811 14y ago
What if Microsoft includes an optional os level ad block with windows blue that is on by default. They did that with privacy and can also do that with bandwidth. Their business model doesn't have too much on ads. That would kill these revenue streams. Google has been fighting the Microsoft business model for years giving freebies supported by ads.
- nivla 14y ago
  >What if Microsoft includes an optional os level ad block with windows blue that is on by default. Huh? So much for baseless FUD. Ad-blocking is much different than adding an extra header for voluntarily respecting someones privacy. Incase you din't know, blocking ads involve removing the content or terminating connection to the ad-server altogether. No, Microsoft or any big players don't have a reason to or is that stupid to do so.
  - atishay811 14y ago
    Difficulty: If as a community we can filter out porn websites how is this difficult. They have filters for malware sites in many tools which have been blacklisted and require additional steps to get to. They could create an open repository of ad servers curated by users and then a slider - say block most offensive/obstructive ad servers. Reason: Better experience for users. Hidden Motive: Competition with Google and market retention of their premium products. Security for their business model. A click to download ad would itself hit the ad business hard.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

fierarul 14y ago

So let me get this, they interpret section 4.4 as the equivalent of not being allowed to edit your own /etc/hosts file on your own device? Here is 4.4. What exactly does AdBlock infringe? "4.4 Prohibited Actions. You agree that you will not engage in any activity with the Market, including the development or distribution of Products, that interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party including, but not limited to, Android users, Google or any mobile network operator. You may not use customer information obtained from the Market to sell or distribute Products outside of the Market."

yanw 14y ago
This: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=40506 https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=40506

Tichy 14y ago

evil

adsenseclient 14y ago

I think in the future (maybe 5 years from now), writing programs for Android will become like making money with AdSense now: unless you are very large (like Facebook), or have a PR department (like NYTimes), expect letters like you now get from AdSense: "It has come to our attention that <... blah blah ..> As a result, we have disabled your application in Google Play store and removed it from devices where it has been installed" And poof- all your work is gone! Replace <...bah blah...> with "copyright", "inappropriate user generated content", "not fitting our 'business model'", "inducing users to install it", etc.

aw3c2 14y ago
no why, you can always develop and install any android apps you want. what you mean is access to the play store. there is a difference.
- tonyedgecombe 14y ago
  "there is a difference" At the moment.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Amazon has effectively guaranteed it will stay that way for a while. Don't forget: Even early on, the Amazon Appstore was popular enough to force AT&T to stop blocking sideloading. It is only more popular today.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

No1 14y ago

I wonder if Google has plans to yank AdBlock from the Chrome Web Store also. It must cause some bean counters some serious stress seeing the #1 Chrome extension being completely antithetical to their business.

mansoor-s 14y ago
Luckily Firefox has kept up and the two browsers are pretty similar. I use both, and will drop Chrome in a heart beat if they did remove it from the app store.
- hayksaakian 14y ago
  That was the main reason I waited to get chrome in the first place.
yanw 14y ago
They're not quite similar as there isn't an ad blocking equivalent on other mobile platforms, but it exists on other browsers. Also in this case there is the app developer revenue to consider. Anyway you can still side-load on both platforms.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

No1 14y ago

tl;dr: AdBlock Plus “interferes with or accesses another service or product in an unauthorized manner,” which Google says is a violation of section 4.4 of the Developer Distribution Agreement so it has been removed from Google Play.

abcd_f 14y ago

Ah, the routine of not being evil.

qompiler 14y ago
Evil is a relative term
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  Well, company mottos are meaningless because companies always use their own versions of words. For example, in Google "evil" could mean "anything that doesn't make us maximum profit" if they want it to.

scriptproof 14y ago

"Internet freedom and consumer choice". I have always considered guys at Adblock, as a bunch of hypocrites. So consumer choice would be to use services funded by advertising, and suppress it.

smnrchrds 14y ago

Google is not an "open" company, no matter how many times they put that word in their press releases and ads. They are optimizing for revenue. They never allowed YouTube download add-ons in Chrome Web Store either. Removing AdBlock shouldn't be much of a surprise. PS: More reason to stick to Firefox, especially since installing non-Chrome Web Store add-ons requires jumping through hoops[1] and even if you do so they won't auto-update AFAIK. EDIT: I'm sorry. You're right. I got confused about what was removed from where. Apparently I'm not alone in this confusion because as of this edit the top comment for this thread starts with the sentence "the thing about blogspam is that it often generates confusion" and continues with an explanation of the situation[2]. Again, I apologize for my half-baked comment. [1] http://support.google.com/chrome_webstore/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2664769 http://support.google.com/chrome_webstore/bin/answer.py?hl=e... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5373795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5373795

neya 14y ago
"Let me wait till Google does something bad so I can jump straight in and start bashing them without even knowing what the issue is, as long as I hate them!" Adblock for Chrome (the one you are talking about) is different from that of Android. And really, it's no big deal either, Android allows apps outside of Market to be installed without any rooting or modifications to the phone.
yanw 14y ago
I think you're confused. Adblock for Android was pulled due to an agreement violation: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/13/breaking-google-has-begun-purging-ad-blocking-apps-from-the-play-store/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/13/breaking-google-has-... Adblock for Chrome is still in the Webstore.
- fierarul 14y ago
  What was the violation? Just because they interpret something as a violation it doesn't make it true.
  - 14y ago

limejuice 14y ago

I think microsoft had excellent timing with its 'scroogled' ads. (http://www.scroogled.com/ http://www.scroogled.com/). I've already switched by browser's default search to http://duckduckgo.com http://duckduckgo.com, and honestly haven't noticed a difference, although alot of my searches are already on more domain-specific sites like stackoverflow.com so I bypass generic search engine. Now, it could be time to switch back to firefox from chrome, esp. if google decides to scroogle AdBlock Plus from the Chrome Web Store too.

BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
Comparing Google to DuckDuckGo in this case doesn't make sense; DuckDuckGo is not the primary stakeholder in any mobile OS platform and does not operate an app marketplace for said platform. It is only directly comparable to Google's Search product, which is entirely disjoint from Android and the Play Store. Also remember that, though the package has been removed from the Play Store, Google has taken no measures to prevent you from downloading and installing the APK directly from the author's web site (and the same goes for the Chrome extension if it gets pulled). (They are not leveraging their control over the platform; just the distribution channel they host).
psionski 14y ago
https://startpage.com/ https://startpage.com/ is also really nice :)
- mehrzad 14y ago
  For Firefox set, Duckduckgo as the URL Bar search engine (somewhere in about:config) and Startpage as the right click search.

DanBC 14y ago

I hate AdBlock and I wish people would use it more carefully. But even I think this is a bad idea for Google. They appear to be saying that ad-blockers "interfere with [...] in an unauthorized manner the devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party" Which is baffling, because I as the operator of my web browser is the person who gives authorisation for code (including ad code) to run on my browser on my machine. I can think of a bunch of stuff that interferes with stuff - readability is an example. Why is it not okay to block ads, but is okay to drop CSS and reformat a page? I fully understand why people run ad-blockers. I don't use ad blockers, so I know just how awful many ads are.

magicalist 14y ago
I don't think this is a browser extension, because Mobile Firefox is (AFAIK) the only browser on Android that supports extensions. This would have to block http connections or something, which would seem to be breaking the rule that Google claims it is. I also think people should be able to run whatever they want on their phone, but I do understand the Android model of "apps should not touch one another", and pulling apps that don't follow that from the app store is at least somewhat understandable. You can always side load...and if you're running adblock, you're probably more ok with things like that. On the other hand, just getting an app that sets the equivalent of a hosts file should be ok for an official app store... The real solution for adblock in particular is for Mobile Chrome to add support for extensions. Or use Firefox which already has support.
- column 14y ago
  Dolphin supports addons
krenel 14y ago
> I don't use ad blockers, so I know just how awful many ads are. What is your reason for not using AdBlock? > [...] I wish people would use it more carefully. What does "carefully" in this context means? These are genuine questions. I always recommend AdBlock to all my friends and everybody is delighted with it. I would like to have a point against AdBlock, though. Some times people come to me to install "that wired program that removes Ads in youtube"... you know what I mean.

paurosello 14y ago

Would you let someone mess with your business in your own house? I don't think so...

seanp2k2 14y ago
1.) Why are you running your business out of your house. 2.) It's not "someone". It's "customers". 3.) Your product is Free!* 4.) Ads are annoying 5.) You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Hackers and people with some dedication or desire to learn will always win, no exceptions. 6.) As most people have already mentioned, this seems to be a pretty glaring exception of the "Don't be evil" social contract that Google likes to throw about.

gnuvince 14y ago

Well, I guess I'm gonna need to install Firefox again :/

signed0 14y ago
This appears to be just for Android, not the Chrome browser.

vinhboy 14y ago

Ehh... I think I prefer it when apps and tools like this stay in the "black market"/"under the table" and you have to jump through a bunch of technical hoops to get it working. I like the idea of it being a reward for paying attention and being informed. (example: rooting your phone to get wifi tethering) I don't expect for-profit companies to support things that has no value (to them) other than harming their revenue stream. If lets say they start prosecuting people for building these tools for personal use, etc... Then I would be concerned.

guard-of-terra 14y ago
Your example is especially misguided. The only reason you haven't got tethering is that you're using a very wrong carrier in a very wrong place. Everyone else in the world get their tethering as an inherent consequence of having internet on their phpne. You can't get internet without tethering the same way you can't get internet without facebook. So it's very like a chinese resident saying "I'm happy that facebook and youtube access require VPN, I like being rewarded for paying attention". Which would be a major WTF.
jakubp 14y ago
"I don't expect for-profit companies to support things that has no value (to them) other than harming their revenue stream." If users can't block ads they hate through AdBlock on Chrome, they may switch to a different browser or OS. That's not good for browser/OS creator... In addition, people who use AdBlock probably click on ads mostly by mistake (as do I and lots of my tech-aware frinds). Hence there is almost no revenue in showing those ads anyway. I agree with you that if an organization sees something they control as working against them they will usually try to kill it. I disagree that AdBlock is actually working against their revenue stream... at least I don't see any evidence in this whole thread, mostly speculation. What worries me more is hypocrisy on the part of Google. They frequently claim that users come first, when in fact Google's profits come first. Why all the drama about users then? :)
GhotiFish 14y ago
As a technical person. I agree that good things should only be for technical people. GhotiFish 2016.

anvandare 14y ago

In Google's defence, they're in the business of making money, not in the business of doing good. If I'm completely honest, I'm actually ok with a model where we, the technomages, are able to install Adblock anyway and the muggles have to deal with an eyeball-tax. >;]

acchow 14y ago
As long as you recognize that that is not a moral argument.
tomp 14y ago
But they make a lot more money because their official raison d'être is to "do good".
- anvandare 14y ago
  Well, not quite. Their (unofficial) motto is "don't be evil", which is not the same as "do good". Besides, it's only so because of the opinion that --in the long run-- being (perceived) as a good company is better than being a short-term greedy one. You could debate whether removing Adblock constitutes an evil act, but at the end of the day _someone_ has to pay for those shiny new services and gadgets.

lucb1e 14y ago

Google Reader stopping? Firefox has a built-in RSS reader that I've been missing. Google removing Adblock Plus, even though they allow unobtrusive ads (like most Google ads)? Firefox won't do that. And Chrome, the once so fast browser, has been hogging more and more RAM with every version. I'm going back to Firefox now. I used to use Firefox for years, but moved away when they made mistake after mistake. As another story recently said, Mozilla needed a kick in the butt. I think they've felt it, and it's time to move back now.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

onemorepassword 14y ago

So, anybody still wondering what Google Glass is actually intended to do? Given that Google's core business is advertising, not shiny new technology.

jrockway 14y ago
Apple seems to have made a few bucks by selling hardware. I don't really see why Google can't also go that route if it wants to.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  Because Apple consistently wins awards for support while Google.... doesn't believe in it?

carlob 14y ago

Luckily you can still sideload apps on android. If you have a rooted phone you can try the more draconian ad-away [0] that will modify your hosts file. [0] http://code.google.com/p/ad-away/ http://code.google.com/p/ad-away/

illyism 14y ago

Wait, I'm confused. The article mentions Google play which is for Android but shows screen shots of Chrome Web Store which is for Chrome. They also mention Adblock Plus which is a Chrome Extension but didn't Google remove Adblock on Google Play which is something entirely different? It's weird to see people comparing it to Firefox and how it would not block ads. AFAIK chrome still does that, but just not on Android. Or am I wrong?

tomku 14y ago
You're not wrong. The article is (intentionally?) confusing the two AdBlocks. The Android app is the one that got removed, not the Chrome extension.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

yanw 14y ago

The thing about blogspam is that it often generates confusion. The author took some liberties with his conclusions which explains some of the comments below. Here is a more informed post: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/13/breaking-google-has-begun-purging-ad-blocking-apps-from-the-play-store/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/13/breaking-google-has-... First: Adblock for Android was purged from the Play store. Adblock for Chrome is still available. As to why it was removed, it is said that it is in violation of section 4.4 of the Play Store Developer Distribution Agreement: 4.4 Prohibited Actions. You agree that you will not engage in any activity with the Market, including the development or distribution of Products, that interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party including, but not limited to, Android users, Google or any mobile network operator. You may not use customer information obtained from the Market to sell or distribute Products outside of the Market. How so? By rootless-ly changing proxy using an exploit that was patched in 4.2.2: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=40506 https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=40506

huhtenberg 14y ago
Did you just delete your earlier comment and reposted it as this ^ one? Please don't do that.
- yanw 14y ago
  Did a summary instead of replaying to multiple comments.
  - huhtenberg 14y ago
    Just post another one. There are no comment caps :)
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      Before you spend a lot of time on this person, I would check their comment history...

ArnoVanLumig 14y ago

Slightly unrelated: Why don't more sites allow hiding of ads for a small fee? Over the last year I've probably donated a lot more money to sites than all advertising revenue I would have generated were I not using AdBlock. What I would like to see is a kind of browser extension that automatically donates a (very) small amount to every site I visit per page view. In return, the site would not show me any ads. Safety would be a concern though. Of course this would not be good for Google at all, so they might want to block such an extension too...

Kesty 14y ago
Because in the ads world more users is equals to more money. A small fee for hiding ads will not generate a small revenue stream but, at the same time, decrease the value of your adspace. And selling a consistent and growing userbase is easier that keeping a consistent and growing revenue from ads-free subscriptions.
- ArnoVanLumig 14y ago
  I don't quite understand. If I visit a web page that has an ad then that might net the website owner $0.001 (or something along those lines, I have no real figures). I would personally have no problem paying $0.002 per page view to get an ad-free site. No subscription, just pay a very small amount per view or get ads. From my point of view, which is probably naive, the website owner would rather have $0.002 instead of $0.001 per page view. Actually transferring fractions of a cent is of course difficult, but there are ways to work around that.
  - Kesty 14y ago
    If you are not talking about subscription I could see that happening but there is not a way to do that right now. The best way to do this would be a webservice where you can put some money and affiliates website can check if you are logged to that service and charge you trough that while not showing you any ads. There are alot of thing to check: - The user has to set an amount of money he is willing to pay per Day/Week/Month. - Decide what to do when the cap is reached. Showing the ads, alert the user that they have reached their cap or both. - Different websites can charge a very different sum per impression based on the scope, location,topic and number of ads in one page. It's not an easy thing to do, with not an easy solution but It might be an interesting startup idea.

dsirijus 14y ago

To ones interested in how much AdBlock actually impacts ad performances, this is an interesting report. http://clarityray.com/Content/ClarityRay_AdBlockReport.pdf http://clarityray.com/Content/ClarityRay_AdBlockReport.pdf Almost a year old though. Anyone has newer data?

joelthelion 14y ago

I'm going to remove Google Play from my smartphone :)

buro9 14y ago

I always thought that they would do this. I suspect that they won't do this to the web store, as there is a fundamental principle in that a web client determines how to render something. That is... the client (browser) can choose to obey or ignore any markup it receives... the end user actually controls the rendering (sizing, fonts, contrast, which elements to display or hide). But apps on an app store have no such principle. In fact the underlying assumption is that they are locked down and that the app author has that authority and not the end user. With that in mind, I wondered how long it would take for AdBlockers on the Play Store that blocked adverts from loading in other apps would be tolerated by Google. Personally I used to use AdAway ( https://code.google.com/p/ad-away/ https://code.google.com/p/ad-away/ || https://github.com/dschuermann/ad-away https://github.com/dschuermann/ad-away ) and you can see the hosts file they use here https://github.com/dschuermann/ad-away/blob/master/AdAway/src/org/adaway/provider/AdAwayDatabase.java https://github.com/dschuermann/ad-away/blob/master/AdAway/sr... , but then I skipped even that step. Now I just root my phone and replace the hosts file with the one found at: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/ http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/ I wouldn't say that AdBlockers are all bad, one of AdAway's features is that you can load hosts lists to unblock domains that were removed from DNS in countries like China: https://smarthosts.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/mobile_devices/hosts https://smarthosts.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/mobile_devices/h... Edit: Although now I'm curious... have Google gone so far as to prevent people from loading something like AdAway from an untrusted .apk like the one AdAway host at https://f-droid.org/FDroid.apk https://f-droid.org/FDroid.apk ?

belorn 14y ago

Only a extreme small subset of websites get paid per viewed ad. Its mostly an relic of the past which most ad-networks has move away from. The wast majority of websites with ads get paid per clicked ad or per sold unit/registration. They don't get paid a single dime for visitors that do not click on the ads (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation_methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation_methods). The big exception is video and video sites where commercials has a different purpose and economic model (branding mostly). That means, if one never click on ads on a website, it's equivalent to running ad-block on your browser. There is no moral superior choice by allowing ads to run on the screen. When we do, we are just fooling ourself into believing we are "contributing". At worst, we get a worse impression of the website and thus won't encourage others users who would click on the ad to visits the website. However, I doubt this has anything to do with economics and all to do with the ap-market and it's image. Google want to encourage new developers to code for the Google Play market place, and thus anything that might scare away developers is a threat.

Kesty 14y ago
Most professional website that base their income on ad selling will not rely on a Pay Per Click affiliate model, but will have an "Ad Sale Departement" that will sell most advertisment by a cost per Impression model (CPM, Flat Rate). By professional websites I mean website that will have a team of people working on it that are depending on the ad revenue. You are correct in saying that those kind of website are a extremly small subset compared to the many small website with a couple of google adsense banners, but are probably the website you read,consume and block the most.
- belorn 14y ago
  If by professional websites you mean a few specific publishing websites which google has an CPM agreement with, then yes, those are a extremely small subset. News sites particularly are one large subgroup of that set. But not all Professional websites is news sites. Nor is every professional website using the CPM model just because they got a team of people which are depending on the ad revenue. They commonly use the other form of compensation model which one can read in the above Wikipedia link. CPM model is an rare/antique model outside publishing (news) sites. While looking around for statistics, I can't even find anyone that mention CPM alongside with PPC and PPS. PPC looks to be the dominant model, with PPS taking almost everything else. (https://strategyplanone.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/pay-per-click-advertising-statistics-and-trends-infographic/ https://strategyplanone.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/pay-per-cli...)

Kiro 14y ago

How does AdBlock detect the ads? Isn't there a risk it removes non-ad content?

Elhana 14y ago
Sure there is, but you can easily disable it per page/site if you notice something doesnt work.

dcc1 14y ago

http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts

gambiting 14y ago

If they remove it from Chrome as well,then I am jumping back to Firefox.

Tenoke 14y ago

Bit OT but the title - 'Google yanks AdBlock Plus from Google Play, surprising nobody' is a good example of hindsight bias.

liotier 14y ago

Google Play may ban Adblock Plus for Android but you can still download it directly at http://adblockplus.org/en/android-about http://adblockplus.org/en/android-about or get AdAway from F-Droid, the Free & Open Source software repository for Android : http://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=org.adaway http://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=org.adaway

thechut 14y ago
This needs more upvotes! People are missing the point. People that are use to living in Apple controlled walled-gardens dont understand that being removed from the play store doesn't mean much. Their apps can still be listed in alternate app stores as well as download directly and installed directly (its trivial to install an apk which has been downloaded. Things are especially easy if you have a rooted phone, which I'm assuming most HN Android users do. That's the major proponent of using Android for me. Just like my computer I am free to modify is and install any software I want. I'm sure if the App Store even ever approved an Ad Block app it's long gone by now. Can any iPhone users comment on this?
- Steko 14y ago
  "especially easy if you have a rooted phone, which I'm assuming most HN Android users do." I'd wager 100 HN bucks this is not the case.
ajross 14y ago
Exactly. I'm all in favor of ad blocker software, but if you want to use it why should your preferred walled-garden provider be responsible for giving it to you. Install software you control. It's better for all of us. If Google or Apple wants to make money with a walled garden and (in Android's case) subsidize our use of the open source result, then I think that's a pretty good bargain. IMHO, our part of that is letting Google play in its walled garden as long as their part (AOSP) is intact.

tmrhmd 14y ago

Good riddance. I'd rather be bothered by ads than the apps/services I use being deprecated.

2321sdadas 14y ago

I think it's time to switch back to FireFox.

octix 14y ago

Because they can? Perhaps using "Google Analytics Opt-out Browser Add-on" would be a more relevant now, https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout I can't check at the moment, but is it available for android's chrome?

randomsearch 14y ago

I'm so tired of an advertising-driven web. Unit ad revenue (so-to-speak) continually falls. The income of business reliant on advertising drops, they cut costs, and the quality of content suffers. The focus on link-bait and trying to get a viral hit or SEO, overtakes the imperative to provide something that people actually want. It is not a sustainable model for most businesses. Please, people, forget advertising. Provide something that people want, and charge a small and reasonable price for it. I pay for a news app, it's a small subscription, it's great, I'm happy. Back to Firefox we go.

majani 14y ago
After the power-drunk players of the internet bubble made everything free, market expectations were set, and now there's an expectation by most internet users that a large part of the online services they use be free.

JacobJans 14y ago

We try to build a positive, two-way, relationship with our readers, but if someone removes the ads from our website, they are directly attacking our ability to stay in business. Not cool. Removing ads from a website is no different than pirating software: You're getting the product without paying for it. Publishers deserve to make money from their work.

flyinRyan 14y ago
> they are directly attacking our ability to stay in business. You have no right to be in business. If you want to be in business you have to earn it. Pissing off your customers to the point that they take extra steps to make your content readable is a fail on your part. >Removing ads from a website is no different than pirating software: You're getting the product without paying for it. Total bullshit. I have a web browser. It lets me point at the web and consume content in any way I want to. If you don't want that put your stuff behind a paywall. So long as it's on the open internet it's my choice how I view it, not yours. Piracy isn't remotely comparable and shame on you for saying it is.

Steko 14y ago

Really a pro PR move to do this on the same day as the Google Reader shutdown announcement and I/O sellout.

habosa 14y ago

For those saying this means anything about Android, it does not. Google Play is Google's app store for Android and they can do what they want with it (I wish they wouldn't, but that's another story). However, there is absolutely no restriction by Google on Amazon or any other app distributor continuing to provide AdBlock to Android devices. The AdBlock guys can also just put up an APK online. It's unfortunate that they'll lose the exposure of Google Play, but that's a risk you run when you're making an app that directly goes against the business interests of your distributor. The same goes for the Chrome Web Store, it's not the only place you can install Chrome extensions it's just the best place to get them. Again, I hope Google doesn't remove AdBlock from the Chrome Store but if they do I really couldn't blame them. I'm not sure why we should expect a company that makes 99.9% of its revenue (not an exaggeration) on ads to willingly distribute ad-blocking software to customers who are likely not paying for any Google services. This is different than what would happen if Apple did the same thing on iOS. On iOS you can't install apps from third-pary sources without jailbreaking your device, which puts your warranty in jeopardy. So while I agree Google may be abusing the term "open" with regards to their policies, Android as an Operating System is as open as ever.

godDLL 14y ago

> I believe they are testing the reaction… > Chrome is next http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/adblock-plus-secret-takedown/ http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/adblock-plus-secret-takedo...

kushti 14y ago

Evil corporation is so evil