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.
> and even if you do so they [non Chrome store apps] won't auto-update AFAIK.
Then you'll be pleasantly surprised to know that they CAN indeed autoupdate, and the DIY autoupdate mechanism is very lightweight to setup. And it includes security checks (i.e., will check if update is signed with the same key as the extension etc). I have a personal extension that's served out of S3 which does exactly that.
"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.
Its probably worth noting that the first response is the following:
"As a developer for Adblock Plus I am looking forward to a resolution to this issue which indeed is a serious problem.
Here are our proposals on how to fix this security hole without compromising Adblock Plus and similar apps:
(A) Add an additional permission for apps that want to act as a proxy
and/or
(B) Add an API to Android that is similar to Gecko's nsIContentPolicy and Chromium's WebRequest (access to this API may require the permission mentioned in (A))"
The value proposition just isn't there for them to give ad block the boot from desktop chrome. Ad blocking functionality is a major driver of browser adoption. Google is better off with ad blocking extensions and a larger userbase to scrape data from.
"Adblock Edge is a fork of the Adblock Plus version 2.1.2 extension for blocking advertisements on the web. This fork will provide the same features as Adblock Plus 2.X and higher but without "acceptable ads" feature."
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Use carefully means "consider turning off ad block on the pages that you enjoy, so long as those pages are using reasonable adverts".
I don't use ad block because some people get paid by me seeing the ad, even if I never ever click the ads. I know I've never bought anything from an ad. I'm unlikely to ever click an ad but it does sometimes happen. (But this just proves to me that I'm never going to buy anything as a result of an ad).
I understand your point but in my case I don't like Ads and the propouse of the ads itself - they hack you brain and make you to buy things you problably don't need and you are not aware that even exists. Like everybody that surfs the internet nowadays, I have the "Brain-Ad-Filter" but that don't means that some Ads can be really annoying sometimes.
Not having AdBlock installed means that you are OK with the Ads and Ads Companies because you are not opting out.
The only downside is that the content creator is not receiving a little amount of money for my visit. That's right. And it's a pitty. But, most of the time, I would not pay parsonally most of the pages I visit with my money, and the fact that the creator of the content gets paid by a Ad company thanks to an arrangement that have done is something I don't care. If you really like the content of a page and you want to reward the author, send him some real moeny, or a beer (I have done it and it's awesome!).
> they hack you brain and make you to buy things you problably don't need
This a thousand times. I dumped my TV in 2006 and since I use AdBlock I don't see many ads - maybe when I go to the shops or at a friend's house. Thing is, I just don't have the urge to go and buy things any more. I've probably saved a fortune.
I'm doing the same (no TV, no radio and AdBlock), but found out this actually makes me more vulnerable in the situations where I can't escape the ads - IRL promotions, running TVs in bars, etc. I just sit there, staring at a washing machine commercial, not even moving... It's horrible. Otherwise, I haven't bought anything I didn't really need in years :P Although there's another test I do to stop myself from thinking I "need" something - whether I'll still enjoy it and use it after one year (or two).
The same happens to me, but I think it has the opposite of the intended effect. The "brain hack" does indeed work better at capturing my attention, but it just makes it all the more sickening to me and creates a strong negative association with the product. I suspect it even makes me more likely to actively avoid a product I would have otherwise bought.
You mean like this - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5374528 ? :) This was my other comment on this post, although I described mostly the practical, not emotional side of the issue.
AdBlock is the first extension I install in a fresh browser. I never click on ads anyway, so PPC ads are wasted on me. Unless they're large and intrusive, I don't tend to look at them either (banner blindness), so showing them to me doesn't help advertisers anyway.
I feel that usually ads ruin the experience for me far more than it would be justified by the $0.003 the site earns, so I can't say I feel bad.
A perfect situation for me would be to be able to pay those sites the amount they earn by showing me ads, without me seing them. I'd add a site to a list in AdBlock or some other extension; the site wouldn't show me the ads and ruin my experience, getting the $0.003 (automatically) from me, not the advertiser. Too bad such nanopayments (well, formally millipayments) are far from being simple.
It's OK because publishers have found a way around the masses doing this. "Native" advertising, a.k.a. sponsored content. Publishers wanna eat and it's a great way around ad blocking.
>consider turning off ad block on the pages that you enjoy
I never understood that logic. If you don't enjoy a website then you shouldn't visit it. That way you will only visit websites that you do enjoy, so you have no reason to use ad block.
If you're browsing websites that you've never visited before then you shouldn't be using ad block at all until you've decided if you enjoy it or not. If you do then you should make a list of each website you visit with ad block enabled and send each of them compensation for the costs they made for your free entertainment.
About visiting websites that you've never visited before. It's understandable why people have ads turned off. I don't know if they have ads or not; I don't know what ad networks they're using; I don't know if the ads will have sound or not; I don't know if the ads are secure or serving malware.
I chose not to run an ad blocker, but when you have smiley ads that shout "Hello!" at you, or that mosquito ad, well, advertisers really need to put pressure on the creators of those lousy ads to just stop doing it.
The ad business model is unsustainable and prices are falling rapidly so these people may as well come up with a better model. I have never clicked on an ad either except for testing, although I don't run ad block on all my machines although click for flash kills some too. I mainly install it if I get the particularly unpleasant weight loss ad that is common in the uk.
I don't think the ad business model is unsustainable for the simple reason that Advertising is too important for most Business to let go.
I do belive that advertising agency have not kept up with the new Technology and are playing catch up (as many other business are) and that the actual ad business model should probably be changed and right now is not what it should or will be.
Basic advertising is important in that you cannot sell a product without letting people know it exists.
However, I think the advertising industry grossly exaggerates the importance of advertising.
The trouble is, it's impossible to ask, "Does advertising work?" and get a conclusive scientific answer. There are usually far too many other factors in play to be able to look at a company or product and say, "X failed/succeeded because they didn't/did advertise." Is X successful because they advertise? Could they have been more successful if they'd invested their ad-campaign funding elsewhere? Did Y fail because of lack of advertising or simply because they tried to sell a rubbish product? Did they even fail because they devoted too much of their budget to advertising, not leaving enough to properly develop their product?
On the other hand, most ads are pay-per-click and some of us never click ads, so there's no real difference for the site. That said, I don't use Adblock either.
> Also I don't really buy the "I've never in my life click on a website".
No, really, a lot of people just don't ever click on ads. They don't even really see the ads. There are sometimes parts of websites that I subconsciously filter out because I'm used to seeing ads in that area or they've made that bit look a bit too much like an ad.
For more extreme view-points there's the Boulder Pledge, and some people really do see any form of advertising as a type of spam. Like I say, this is a minority extreme viewpoint, but it does exist.
How's that for extreme: even if I originally wanted to buy something, if I EVER see it advertised, for me this means I'll be paying extra for that advertisement, so I look for a similar, alternative product. Especially if it's TV advertisement, these things cost A TON.
"Most people that say are not influenced by ads actually are even if they don't even notice.
And I'm confident that most of the people that are using adblock are not in that minority."
Is it not then their choice whether to view advertising? If they know it's likely to affect them, even just in terms of subconscious brand awareness, and don't want that to happen?
"If you are not influenced by ADS because advertisement has no effect on you so much that you don't even notice why bother blocking them out ?"
Popups, popunders, animations, annoying noises, things that get in the way, try to grab your attention.... All sorts of horrible annoyances. Also unintended consequences - I had genuine trouble finding a download button on a website a little while ago because they'd used a bright, perky-looking graphic that hit my mental ad filter. I really couldn't see it for a couple of minutes.
Also I don't really buy the "I've never in my life click on a website".
Maybe three times, ever. And not in the last 5+ years.
Advertising of any form provokes an annoyed reaction in me now. It doesn't grow your brand (with me), it doesn't make me think about your product, I don't care if it's cute or hip, it gets switched off or blocked or even just mentally filtered out. And if you do manage to break through my technological or mental walls I'll remember not to buy your products, ever.
For Google AdSense, paid per impression is only for specific publisher sites which can deliver targeted ads to a specific market group. With that in mind, which/how many bigger publishing sites websites are we talking about here?
I can't tell you how many or which in the global market, because I have no idea and would only speculate.
I only have an idea on the numbers in the country I live where I work for an online only news website that makes all the revenue with only advertisement.
I think I'm safe to say that we are talking about websites that are big enough to have a small team with at least one "Ad Sales Rep".
The Sale representitive will go directly to companies and sell ads either by impression (CPM) or a flat rate for a fixed period of time.
Since the amount you can sell a flat rate for a week/day/month is based on your number of impressions/users is basically another kind of CPM sale.
I work for a company where about 1/3 of our revenue is from ads... it's pay per view, not pay per click for most.. some direct-sold campaigns which tend to do better than the ad networks.. most well targeted. I personally don't like them, and would love to see a 2-ads per page limit.. (including services ads)...
Most of the direct campaigns are actually well targeted to our users. Products/Services that are useful, and likely to be used by those using our site.
I don't have a problem with targeted/useful ads... Hell, lots the posts in HN could be considered advertorials, just the same, I appreciate knowing about more... Where my problem is, I don't like highly intrusive ads, or far too many ads.
I don't like ads and I don't click on ads. I prefer to help content creators I enjoy in more direct ways, like buying their books, apps and donating to their projects. Advertising sets a very low minimum fee for content. Web advertising is why traditional news papers are going out of business. Some of us prefer to buy DVDs instead of watching commercial television.
I want to experience a site the way it was intended to be, not a manipulated version. When you create a site the placement of ads is a vital part of the actual design. Besides, nowadays with all the remarketing going on I am actually shown ads I care about.
>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.
The idea is that as you visit a specific page (say, the NYT) and read their content, they can dictate that they want it read the way the serve it.
I'm not saying I agree with that (I might, though), but that's they way one can read this Google dictum.
>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?
It's probably not OK, too, in Google's eyes. Just not as popular, so it's still tolerated.
> The idea is that as you visit a specific page (say, the NYT) and read their content, they can dictate that they want it read the way the serve it.
Yeah, I can't believe that logic or that the "do no evil" people can seriously claim it's wrong for you to run your own choice of code on your own computer. When you make data available to someone, there is no obligation for them to use it how you want (except to not redistribute as per copyright law). That's how data works. If NYT really doesn't like it they should render their pages to .png or .mp4 and display that (although it doesn't change anything fundamental, just makes it harder for users to find code that customizes it).
>When you make data available to someone, there is no obligation for them to use it how you want (except to not redistribute as per copyright law). That's how data works.
Well, that depends on the law of any given country.
For one, they could give the data with a specific licence -- "you can only view it on our site, with our theme and ads". One could even argue that you have a moral obligation to at least see their ads, as they are what pays them for the content you consume.
But the mere "that's how data works" I see as fatalistic. Data works the way we make it work. We should not let technology dictate to us if content creators should be compensated or not.
>>Data works the way we make it work
Who are "we" in this statement ? If you mean the distributors of the data, then you are wrong - just because you give some piece of data/information to another man, does not give you a right to force him to do anything with it. The receiver still has the free choice to do anything he pleases. Of course, you may ask politely, and make certain actions more probable, and most people will respect your wishes. But if you do not want people to do stuff with your data, just do not make it public ... it is that simple.
>>We should not let technology dictate to us if content creators should be compensated or not.
Technology shapes the enviroment in which we thrive. Every law, including copyright law, should be adapted to it in time, or else it will cause much suffering, and then there will be rebellions against it, forcing the lawmakers to adapt the law to the new realities. Content creators will do well to think about sources of compensation, which benefit from the easier/instant copying and computation possible now.
> 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
There are actually two people who give authorisation for code to run on your browser: You and the code's copyright holder. Most web sites will say, "we authorise you to run our main content as long as you also run the ads". Running AdBlock means that you are running code in a way which is not authorised by the web page copyright holder.
I hope you don't start saying that people who use adblock are guilty of copyright infringement. Or did you already say that?
Sadly, what you say is true and websites can add the no adblock requirement to their TOS. Then they can sue users who use adblock for unauthorised access (hacking!) or copyright infringement(running code that modifies their content). The next step will be to make a Blogging Industry Association. BIA can then approach ISPs for a "3 strikes followed by re-education" business deal.
The positives apart from the windfall in revenue - as governments/atittudes change BIA can push for imprisonment and bonded labour in lieu of the quantum of infringenent(based on number of pageviews with adblock on or based on bytes). Some countries will be even ready for stricter punishment. BIA then (with the help of sister organisations) can get into the lucrative prison industry.
I have never seen a web site require me to explicitly agree to something like that. There is certainly no implicit agreement that I must view any content they happen to send me.
There is no implicit agreement that you must view any content, but there is usually an implicit agreement that you must not modify the content. For example, the New York Times Terms of Service [1] says "You may not modify...any of the Content".
First of all, that's the terms of service that you agree to when signing up for an account. If you don't sign up for an account, you haven't agreed to that.
Additionally, you left out this from your quote "(except as provided in Section 2.3 of these Terms of Service)". Section 2.3 says "You may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on the Services for personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein". All an adblocker does is download some of the content and decline to download some of the downloadable items. That's permissible under Section 2.3.
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.
I've already switched by browser's default search to 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.
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).
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.
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.
"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? :)
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.
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.
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). 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.
I think it's important to stress that this is totally incorrect -- the substantial majority of display advertising is still being paid on a CPM rather than CPC basis.
"Performance pricing" (CPC and CPA) was 65% of all online ad spend in 2011, but if you remove search from that, it goes down to 20%. CPM (per-impression) pricing is around 33% of all online ad spend.
Block ads if you want, but you should be aware you are depriving publishers of revenue if you do so.
That one include digital videos, which they say includes cable and spot TV (I assume based on the article that this mean streaming sites and sport commentators?). Thus We are now trailing far far away from ads on a website which is the primary purpose of ad-block. TV and by extension video is basically never PPC or PPI based for their advertisement model.
For better statistics, lets pick advertising companies that only offer banner and text ads (like ad-word), or which has clear way to separate them. We also want the number of sites that use each type of model and not the total revenue for the ad company. I am not the least surprised that video streaming, sport channels, and news papers has a much larger revenue source for ad companies than say all other type of websites combined. Feel free to point to statistics that proves this wrong.
When they say video, they mean sites like YouTube etc -- spot TV is so negligible as to be pretty much a non-factor. As you can see from the 2012 report (http://www.iab.net/media/file/IAB_Internet_Advertising_Reven...) video is < 5% of overall spend and is not rolled up with display. The number you should be looking at is Banners + Rich Media, which is what most publishers use.
Ty, that report was an interesting read. Rich media and Digital Video was way smaller than I would had thought, and email way bigger than I ever feared.
Sad that they didn't include a Revenues by pricing model for each of search and banner specific market. The second thing I would have very much liked to see which markets sold the space.
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.
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-cli...)
Only a small subset of sites get paid at all. Many networks has a treshold on how many acquisitions a publisher must create before they get paid anything. E.g a small publisher may create one customer per month with a commission of $5, but the threshold for payout is $50 and the network may charge a withdrawal fee plus wire transfer fees going to other middle men. In the end, the network gets huge amounts of advertising but pays almost nothing.
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...
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.
On many of my sites, I earn at least 12 cents per pageview, on average, and sometimes as much as 50 cents.
Because I don't charge our users, I don't have to deal with customer service, payment processing, and many other things related to collecting money.
While I haven't ruled out letting subscribers pay us in the future, it would add a huge layer of complexity to our business.
Additionally, if subscribers where to pay $.0002 per page view, guess who would get all of the money? The credit card company! And I definitely don't want to be in the business of figuring out how to do micropayments.
Advertising is simple, it works, and actually provides value to users when done right. Furthermore, as a publisher, I have the right to build a sustainable business.
People who remove ads are directly attacking the ability of any publishing business to exist. Not cool.
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.
Taking money is a lot of effort compared to just setting up google ads. There have been attempts to do something like you suggest - one of these reader-type sites (readability?) used to collect money for content creators as compensation for hiding their ads.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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. >;]
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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
I'm not certain I buy this explnation. AdAway (a alternative FOSS adblocker) was also kicked out of the store for a violation of section 4.4 and they do nothing like use a proxy exploit. They simply let you customize your .hosts file and explicitly require root.
Yes, it looks like from the link that they are kicking out every adblocker. I can't see any explanation for how what you describe "disrupts, damages, or accessses in an unauthorized manner" anything. Seems like a purely greedy, evil move by Google to me (and I try really hard to be a Google fan too....).
I truly don't understand how this can be described as a 'purely greedy, evil' move. Some of the money that those ads generate go to independent developers looking to make income from their hard work, many of whom use this site. The more people that see the ads, the more ads Google sells, and the more money both Google and developers make.
Personally, I think it's selfish to block ads on applications and websites.
>Some of the money that those ads generate go to independent developers looking to make income from their hard work, many of whom use this site.
If the developer chose a model of making money that pisses of their users so much they go to the trouble of getting other software that does literally nothing but stop the developer's annoying monitorization model maybe the dev should work on a less offensive way to make money. After all, they've shown that users are invested in their app in some way, there must be a way to turn that into revenue.
It doesn't step between anyone. It takes content that was delivered to a person's computer and post-processes it (or changes the settings of the machine). What I do on my machine with content I access should be up to me, and if content owners don't like it, they have the choice of negotiating a different deal with me before serving me the content. I view adblock as the equivalent of paying someone to paste paper over newspaper ads before you read it. (By the way, I don't use adblock or any similar stuff.)
More correct analogy: You are allowed to pay someone to paste paper over newspaper ads before you read it. You are just not allowed to hire such a guy inside the shop selling that newspaper, as per that shop's policies. Feel free to hire anyone outside the shop.
i.e. Google is fine with downloading AdBlock independently. They just won't allow it in Play store which is closed (unlike the OS, which is open).
The analogy does make sense, but I don't think that Google's stated policy applies under any reasonable interpretation. If they changed to a policy like "we don't allow apps we disagree with", then fine. But to ban these apps on the grounds they gave is disingenuous in my opinion.
Well, you could apply your own words here... if don't like it, you have the choice of negotiating a different deal with them before using the Play store.
Indeed. This demonstrates Google is committed to delivering audiences to advertisers rather than letting users control their devices. Never give root to your users...
If an app developer says, "Hey, you can use this app if you let me show you ads!" you can agree to that or not.
Google is committed to letting an app developer offer you that deal, and they're taking a step towards making sure you hold up your end of the bargain.
If a farmer's market set up shop in your town, and little kids stole the merchandise all the time, you'd want them to hire a security guard, wouldn't you?
And you can still install from the APK. So, you're really just whining that Google doesn't THEMSELVES make it easy for you to bypass the ad market.
Yeah, but no app developer is explicitly saying that.
> If a farmer's market set up shop in your town, and little kids stole the merchandise all the time
I've found that comparisons between physical theft and digital "theft" are always going to be flawed due to fundamental differences between the two domains.
Then they release it to users who have control over their devices and can modify how their device displays the app. Users are under no obligation to ensure that the app runs as-designed, and if it's not explicitly disallowed they should be free to modify how the app runs. They could modify it to show another language, or put tape over part of the screen to hide some content, or they could download a tool that modifies their hosts file to alter how the app runs.
Point being, you can't count on ads being shown to all of your users as you can't guarantee control over their devices. If you don't like that, then don't make apps that rely on ad revenue.
Removing this from the Play store merely makes it inconvenient.
Google is trying to make a convenient API for app developers to earn money by showing users ads.
Seeing an ad is an inconvenience to users, granted. They have several options: APK install, pay for the premium version of the app, find a no-ad competitor to the app, or just don't use the app.
Wow! That proxy-bug means that the author of every app is able to read all of my network traffic! Its really amazing what kind of glaring security holes Android devices have. And how little media attention is spent on it. Is it still so, that on Samsung devices every app has full memory access? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4931944)
This was in January. Updates and patches are usually rolled out staggered, that is, not every device gets the update immediately. That helps in not overloading any servers and also helps in finding potential problems before every customer is affected. So I'd guess by now they should be all patched.
Yep. No excuse for delaying security updates by anything other than a bare minimum. There's other ways to spare your servers if that's the real problem.
Updates take a while... devices should be updated by now... or in the case of most devices more than 3 months old... ever
I swear, between this, Reader, and iGoogle.. I'm pretty disenfranchised... I may have to go with FirefoxOS, WinPhone or iThingy for my next cell purchase (just got my N4 & N7 a few months ago too)
Look at the commenters history. They only ever post on stories that are negative towards Google, and only ever post comments defending Google and often use generic attacks like 'blogspam'.
Oh look! -It's a Google fanboy apologist! Obviously, this is a good thing because it lets all Android users enjoy The Full Open Web, now that it's been Opened up a bit more.
Open is Good. Google is Open. Google is Good. Open open open.
No one ever insinuated that Google is completely open with Android. That would be a ridiculous claim. However, I think it's hard to argue that the ecosystem is more closed off than iOS or Windows Phone.
Until Firefox OS and Ubuntu for Android get a foothold, your argument is just not very compelling.
I beg to differ. Plenty have tried to say that. In fact in pretty much every attack (yes attack, the threads feel very orchestrated) on iOS, one of the principle benefits touted is that Android is open. Even Rubin tried to declare it 'open' with his now infamous tweet (https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429). Let's keep those goalposts static.
TBH I wouldn't mind them blocking AdBlock Plus for simple reasons of harming content creators. If people don't want ads that's fine, they don't have a right to view my content.
I know HN isn't, but it should be, on the sides of creators.
If you want to be paid for your content charge for it. If you put it open on the web then I have the right to consume it how ever I like. That's kind of the point of the web...
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.
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.
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=e...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5373795