Ad blockers removed from Play Store by Google

[poofyhairguy]

Is there a good browser that has ad blocking capabilities?

Dolphin does.

As far as this discussion is concerned, many ROMs I use have built-in adblocking. For my non-rootable tablet there is this:

http://adblockplus.org/en/android

Easily installable from their website.

 

[vshah]

You can still get the same adblockers on f-droid

yup, came here to post this.

 

[Mopetar]

I don't know if this was entirely about removing ad blockers. Google just made some changes to their API to close a potential security hole. While I don't think Google is going to cry many tears over these apps no longer being in the store, it's not as though they just wanted to target only those apps.

 

[wirednuts]

I don't know if this was entirely about removing ad blockers. Google just made some changes to their API to close a potential security hole. While I don't think Google is going to cry many tears over these apps no longer being in the store, it's not as though they just wanted to target only those apps.

i might actually believe this, because google has said in the past that even though they make a ton of money off ads, they dont condemn ad blockers. reason being was, people who are irritated by the ads enough that they want to find a way to stop them wont be buying anything off those ads anyway. and the last thing they want is pissed off google consumers.

 

[Zaap]

...people who are irritated by the ads enough that they want to find a way to stop them wont be buying anything off those ads anyway.

This.

I don't buy that these types of ads are ever very effective. I can't think of one instance I was ever compelled by an in-app add. I'm convinced most of the clicks any of them gets is by fooling people, IE: placing ads somewhere on the UI that's virtually unavoidable to catch a few accidental clicks, etc.

I've got no issue with a developer making money, but as far as advertisers wanting their money's worth by placing ads, I gotta believe there are many much more effective ways than paying for annoyance-space inside some app or game.

 

[Dude111]

This really isnt a surprise.... They want everyone bombarded with spam crap!!

 

[QueBert]

This really isnt a surprise.... They want everyone bombarded with spam crap!!

You mean ad's that help the developer of the app make money because people want everything for free? It's no wonder many developers either don't support Android or the Android version of their app is at the bottom of their radar when it comes to bug fixes and updates. The majority of apps I used when I owned Android devices were paid ones, and guess what? I didn't see ads, or spam or whatever you want to call it.

 

[lopri]

Ad-supported free apps have always been test runs for me. If I like an app, 9 out of 10 times I buy the app.

There are some egregiously offensive developers that put ad receiver/tracker/whatever in paid versions of their apps. I saw a couple of them and uninstalled them in spite of the purchases. (and left nasty reviews)

 

[Nothinman]

I think there's many views on that. I remember Ars talking about this, and while I thought it was a well written article, I saw a good rebuttal:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100306/1649198451.shtml

If you run a company, it's your responsibility to put together a business model that works. And if people are somehow figuring out ways to do what they want where you don't get paid, then it means you're doing something that needs to change. A good business model is one where everyone is happy with the transaction, not one where one party feels forced or coerced into accepting something they don't want.

That sounds good from an idealistic perspective, but there's always going to be someone trying to find away around paying for your goods. Blindly saying it's the company's fault because someone is trying to steal their goods is shortsighted and stupid. Those people may feel it's worth something but you're charging too much (e.g. Windows) or they may feel that they're entitled to completely free and unfettered access to all electronic data just because it's not physical (e.g. music, copyrited images, etc). Every service or product will have to deal with those that steal it in some fashion, you just have to accept a certain level of that and balance curtailing that with pissing off the customers that are willing to pay for your goods. Steam is a great example of that while Ubisoft always-on DRM is a great example of failing at that.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I see someone trying to rationalize their selfishness by saying "oh, ads are so mean, so I screw the content providers."

Well, when I relaunch my site, I'm strongly considering implementing code to block anyone who has ad blockers running from reading the pages. I'm not a charity, and if people aren't willing to even to put up with a slight inconvenience in exchange for a large quantity of high quality information, screw them.

This is going to start happening more and more. Pay content is also going to become increasingly common.

Because too many people are cheapskate freeloaders.

 

[shortylickens]

Yes, nothing is stopping you except for the knowledge that you're taking from people who also need to put food on the table.

That sounds like the pirating argument. I dont think pirating is stealing, nor do I think ad blocking is stealing.

I DO think pirating is wrong and if you wanna support people who give you free data, like vid sites and pic sites and general help & info sites, then you either pay for it with ads, or a subscription.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That sounds like the pirating argument. I dont think pirating is stealing, nor do I think ad blocking is stealing.

And I do.

The difference is likely because I am a content provider and you are a content consumer. That is -- I actually do the work, and people like you freeload it.

 

[lopri]

See, money = speech.

 

[shortylickens]

And I do.

The difference is likely because I am a content provider and you are a content consumer. That is -- I actually do the work, and people like you freeload it.

Umm, since you clearly ignored the rest of my post (so much so as to delete it from your quote), fuck you.

And you will go out of business one day. Cuz you clearly dont give a fuck about anybodies thoughts or viewpoints. That is a recipe for business disaster.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Sorry, I did see the second paragraph, but I don't really see how it's consistent with the first. And yes, I'm a little over-sensitive on this particular issue.. I'm just tired of people trying to justify pirating and similar behavior. I didn't mean anything personal towards you.

 

[shortylickens]

Sorry. I'm over sensitive too.
I gotta stop taking everything so personally. At the very least, I need to keep my anger to myself. All it does is cause more trouble. One day I'm gonna lose a job or get into a fist fight. Havent had that since I left the ship back in 2000.