Google removes AdBlock for Android from Google Play

http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/13/adblock-plus-removed-google-play-store/

by HaloZero • 13 years ago

365 201 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

"there is a difference"

At the moment.

No12• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

That was the main reason I waited to get chrome in the first place.

yanw9• 13 years 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.

No12• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

Ah, the routine of not being evil.

qompiler• 13 years ago

Evil is a relative term

flyinRyan7• 13 years 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.

smnrchrds• 13 years 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=e...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5373795

yanw9• 13 years 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-...

Adblock for Chrome is still in the Webstore.

sn0v• 13 years ago

Might only be a matter of time before Adblock for Chrome is removed from the Webstore though.

smegel• 13 years ago

Can you run adblock for chrome on android?

fierarul2• 13 years ago

What was the violation? Just because they interpret something as a violation it doesn't make it true.

neya• 13 years 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.

luser001• 13 years ago

> 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.

http://developer.chrome.com/extensions/autoupdate.html

limejuice• 13 years ago

I think microsoft had excellent timing with its 'scroogled' ads. (http://www.scroogled.com/).

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.

BHSPitMonkey• 13 years 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).

psionski4• 13 years ago

https://startpage.com/ is also really nice :)

mehrzad2• 13 years ago

For Firefox set, Duckduckgo as the URL Bar search engine (somewhere in about:config) and Startpage as the right click search.

DanBC4• 13 years 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.

krenel2• 13 years 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.

DanBC4• 13 years ago

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).

Kesty8• 13 years ago

The point against AdBlock is that it will block ads from website you like and that make most, if not all, their moneys from ads revenue.

You enjoy "free" content from someone and you block the only way they make enough money to stay alive and keep giving you this "free" content.

Kiro2• 13 years ago

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.

magicalist• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

Dolphin supports addons

coldtea2• 13 years ago

>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.

bo10247• 13 years ago

> 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).

duaneb• 13 years ago

Out of interest, why do you hate AdBlock?

MarkMc3• 13 years ago

> 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.

TheCoelacanth2• 13 years ago

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.

anoncow• 13 years ago

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.

jellicle• 13 years ago

You need to read up on what "copyright" actually is, and why it is not called authorisationright.

flyinRyan7• 13 years ago

lol. You can also put "if you even accidentally see this page you owe me a quadrillion dollars" but that doesn't mean it's binding in any way.

paurosello• 13 years ago

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

seanp2k2• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

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

signed0• 13 years ago

This appears to be just for Android, not the Chrome browser.

vinhboy• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

As a technical person. I agree that good things should only be for technical people.

GhotiFish 2016.

anvandare2• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

As long as you recognize that that is not a moral argument.

tomp3• 13 years ago

But they make a lot more money because their official raison d'être is to "do good".

anvandare2• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

onemorepassword• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

flyinRyan7• 13 years ago

Because Apple consistently wins awards for support while Google.... doesn't believe in it?

carlob• 13 years 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/

naftaliharris• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

fierarul2• 13 years 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."

yanw9• 13 years ago

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

Tichy• 13 years ago

evil

tomp3• 13 years ago

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

tomeric• 13 years ago

Because I pay my money and use my bandwidth, so that you can read the content you want.

uoou3• 13 years 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.

tomp3• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

icebraining3• 13 years ago

What too you so long?

illyism• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

yanw9• 13 years 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-...

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

huhtenberg2• 13 years ago

Did you just delete your earlier comment and reposted it as this ^ one? Please don't do that.

yanw9• 13 years ago

Did a summary instead of replaying to multiple comments.

itry2• 13 years ago

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)

yanw9• 13 years ago

They patched the Exynos bug: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/16/3883238/samsung-exynos-sec...

mistercow2• 13 years ago

>The thing about blogspam is that it often generates confusion.

How do you reckon that this is blogspam? That's not just a general term you can toss at any post that you find lacking. It has a specific meaning.

anon1385• 13 years ago

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'.

http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=yanw%20blog...

http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=yanw+FUD...

ojiikun• 13 years ago

> 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.

bo10247• 13 years ago

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....).

white_devil• 13 years ago

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.

nailer2• 13 years ago

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.

rozap• 13 years ago

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.

ArnoVanLumig2• 13 years 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...

Kesty8• 13 years 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.

ArnoVanLumig2• 13 years 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.

lmm• 13 years ago

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.

dsirijus• 13 years ago

To ones interested in how much AdBlock actually impacts ad performances, this is an interesting report.

http://clarityray.com/Content/ClarityRay_AdBlockReport.pdf

Almost a year old though. Anyone has newer data?

buro9• 13 years 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://github.com/dschuermann/ad-away ) and you can see the hosts file they use here 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/

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/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 ?

belorn5• 13 years 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). 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.

Kesty8• 13 years 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.

belorn5• 13 years 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-cli...)

hammerzeit2• 13 years ago

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.

Look at this data, for example: http://www.adexchanger.com/online-advertising/iab-2011-onlin...

"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.

belorn5• 13 years ago

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.

bjourne• 13 years ago

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.

Kiro2• 13 years ago

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

Elhana• 13 years ago

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

joelthelion• 13 years ago

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

dcc1• 13 years ago

http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts

gambiting• 13 years ago

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

Tenoke• 13 years ago

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

liotier• 13 years ago

Google Play may ban Adblock Plus for Android but you can still download it directly at 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

thechut• 13 years 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?

Steko3• 13 years 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• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

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

2321sdadas• 13 years ago

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

octix• 13 years 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

I can't check at the moment, but is it available for android's chrome?

randomsearch• 13 years 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• 13 years 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.

JacobJans2• 13 years 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.

flyinRyan7• 13 years 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.

Steko3• 13 years ago

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

habosa• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

> I believe they are testing the reaction… > Chrome is next

http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/adblock-plus-secret-takedo...

kushti• 13 years ago

Evil corporation is so evil

Google removes AdBlock for Android from Google Play

Related Stories