In-app ads suck battery life

[runawayprisoner]

http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-up-your-phone-battery-just-sending-ads.html

Oh wow... I guess that *might* explain why Android devices in general get less battery life than iOS counterparts. But hey, it's "free" apps, right?

Sarcasm aside, I'm amazed that not only do the ads suck bandwidth and data usage, now there is another reason not to like them.

 

[Dulanic]

I don't mind legit ads. I do mind these bullshit fake ads "YOU HAVE A VOICEMAIL!" that get normal people to click out of stupidity. Either way, I use a ad blocker because of those.

 

[Oyeve]

So, wouldnt turning on aiplane mode resolve this?

 

[oznerol]

This has actually been known by developers for a while. Refreshing banner ads doesn't only kill your battery, it oftentimes kills app performance. It's just something you need to deal with.

Though I would argue that analytic data is just as bad, if not worse (as the article also suggests). Paying for an ad-free app won't stop that. I think the "average Joe" user would be surprised with how much information is being tracked and sent to servers when they use any apps - paid or not.

 

[Bateluer]

For example, in Angry Birds only 20 per cent is used to display and run the game, while 45 per cent is spent finding and uploading the user's location with GPS then downloading location-appropriate ads over a 3G connection. The 3G connection stays open for around 10 seconds, even if data transmission is complete, and this "tail energy" consumes another 28 per cent of the app's energy. Pathak blames the energy leakage on inefficiencies in the third-party code that developers use to generate profit on free apps.

Sounds like Rovio just needs to clean up their code, if that much of their power draw is from ads.

 

[Mopetar]

Sounds like Rovio just needs to clean up their code, if that much of their power draw is from ads.

I think that the problem is that turning on the GPS to find location and then transmitting with the 3G radio are going to be expensive in terms of power no matter how good the code is. Maybe they can get it down to a 1:1 ratio or use other tricks such as preloading a number of ads ahead of time to reduce the battery drain, but there's a limit to how low it can possibly get.

 

[Bateluer]

I think that the problem is that turning on the GPS to find location and then transmitting with the 3G radio are going to be expensive in terms of power no matter how good the code is. Maybe they can get it down to a 1:1 ratio or use other tricks such as preloading a number of ads ahead of time to reduce the battery drain, but there's a limit to how low it can possibly get.

It shouldn't need the GPS to get a location for ads, network location is fine for that. But whats it doing if the user has the GPS turned off? Second, these ads are KBs in size, shouldn't need more than a brief blip of 3G signal to get them.

I've never played Angry Birds myself, so I'm only commenting based on other ad supported apps I use. None of them really make any noticeable effect on my battery life.

 

[oznerol]

I think that the problem is that turning on the GPS to find location and then transmitting with the 3G radio are going to be expensive in terms of power no matter how good the code is. Maybe they can get it down to a 1:1 ratio or use other tricks such as preloading a number of ads ahead of time to reduce the battery drain, but there's a limit to how low it can possibly get.

The issue isn't with Rovio's code, anyway - it's with the ad service - adMob, iAd, whatever.

And there's usually another layer of 3rd-party code added on to switch between those ad providers - adWhirl, Mobclix, etc.

Very often a developer will integrate these services into their apps once and then leave them alone - even though the 3rd party has made API updates to improve efficiency. So long as the ads are displaying and clickthroughs counted, having the latest/greatest is less of a concern than spending time improving other aspects of the project.

 

[Deeko]

I guess people should pony up and pay the $0.99 for an ad-free version of a game, then. Seriously people...its a dollar.

 

[cheezy321]

I guess people should pony up and pay the $0.99 for an ad-free version of a game, then. Seriously people...its a dollar.

Try prying 99 cents from an android user. Developers will tell you all day its a very hard thing to do!

 

[Deeko]

Try prying 99 cents from an android user. Developers will tell you all day its a very hard thing to do!

I am a developer, so I am well aware of this stigma. Its largely a discussion for another thread, but I do find it ridiculous that people are so adamantly against paying for apps.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Well, they got their phones likely for free (or close to free), so I'd imagine they wouldn't want to spend too much more to make the phone useful.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I am a developer, so I am well aware of this stigma. Its largely a discussion for another thread, but I do find it ridiculous that people are so adamantly against paying for apps.

It's because there are so many free alternatives that work just as well.

 

[ponyo]

I guess I'm in the minority but I don't think there's many apps worth paying for on iOS or Android. I have couple apps I've paid for on both platform but really nothing I would say is essential on either platform. I get by just fine with free apps. On the Android side I have decent collection of free paid apps from the Amazon App store and Google 10 cent apps sale last year and 40 cents apps this year. Most of these apps I haven't even installed.

As for the in-app ads sucking battery life, it's only an issue if you keep the apps in the foreground. I don't so it's non-issue for me. My Galaxy Nexus lasts me all day so battery life isn't a concern. I stopped caring about battery life since I got this phone. I get longer screen time battery life with this phone than I do with my 7" Galaxy Tab.

 

[lothar]

I am a developer, so I am well aware of this stigma. Its largely a discussion for another thread, but I do find it ridiculous that people are so adamantly against paying for apps.

Why pay for apps when there are lots of free alternatives available that do the job fine?
I'm against spending money on unnecessary products. If I was on iOS, my habits wouldn't change one bit.

On WP7, paying for apps makes sense because it doesn't really have a developed app store like Apple and Google have. On Android or iOS, in most cases heck no.
For something like SwiftKey X, I use it everyday and didn't mind paying for it. It was the 1st Android app I bought and it's predictive text is still the best on the market.

 

[akugami]

It's because there are so many free alternatives that work just as well.

Depends on how you want to calculate it. If you don't have an unlimited plan, every time you open an app, even if the function of the app doesn't need internet, it still has to download the ads which wastes device battery power as well as counting towards your allotted data.

 

[lothar]

Oh, and as for these ads...Use LBE privacy guard to stop them from accessing network/location and block their requests.

 

[Deeko]

Why pay for apps when there are lots of free alternatives available that do the job fine?
I'm against spending money on unnecessary products. If I was on iOS, my habits wouldn't change one bit.

On WP7, paying for apps makes sense because it doesn't really have a developed app store like Apple and Google have. On Android or iOS, in most cases heck no.
For something like SwiftKey X, I use it everyday and didn't mind paying for it. It was the 1st Android app I bought and it's predictive text is still the best on the market.

Sure, if there's a free alternative that works just as well - often there is a free alternative that provides the base functionality, but doesn't work as well, or is buggier, worse UI, etc. In those cases, is 99 cents REALLY that much to pay?

Most of the apps I have are free - but if there's an app I want that isn't, I buy it. Many people (particularly Android users) won't, and it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

However, its a topic for another thread, so I'm not going to rant about it here any more.

 

[WelshBloke]

http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-up-your-phone-battery-just-sending-ads.html

Oh wow... I guess that *might* explain why Android devices in general get less battery life than iOS counterparts. But hey, it's "free" apps, right?

Sarcasm aside, I'm amazed that not only do the ads suck bandwidth and data usage, now there is another reason not to like them.

Why are you making this an Android issue? Don't all ads regardless of OS work the same?

Anyway if it's a problem buy the ad free version or use an ad blocker.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Why are you making this an Android issue? Don't all ads regardless of OS work the same?

Because apparently, it affects Android more than other platforms, even the original article insinuated the same thing.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

root+adblocker=problem solved

 

[MrX8503]

As for the in-app ads sucking battery life, it's only an issue if you keep the apps in the foreground. I don't so it's non-issue for me.

Isn't the problem that while you're using the app, it uses more power?

 

[ponyo]

Isn't the problem that while you're using the app, it uses more power?

yes, but since Android can multitask, it can also keep running and draining if you don't close the apps properly. But like I said, it's a non-issue for me because I can use the phone how I want and don't have to worry about the battery life.

 

[ponyo]

root+adblocker=problem solved

that does nothing. problem still exist. you just see grey or black bars instead of ads but it's still running. adblocker just slows your phone down.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I guess people should pony up and pay the $0.99 for an ad-free version of a game, then. Seriously people...its a dollar.

Agree 100%! How the hell is $0.99 gonna break you?

OTH, I find it hard to believe a game, even one with limited graphics like Angry Birds, isn't more of a battery drain than the comm activity for ads...


Brian