
Google removes AdBlock for Android from Google Play - HaloZero
http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/13/adblock-plus-removed-google-play-store/
======
smnrchrds
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...](http://support.google.com/chrome_webstore/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2664769)

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

~~~
yanw
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-...](http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/13/breaking-google-has-begun-
purging-ad-blocking-apps-from-the-play-store/)

Adblock for Chrome is still in the Webstore.

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

~~~
yanw
<https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=40506>

~~~
twelvechairs
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))"

------
liotier
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
This needs more upvotes! People are missing the point.

People that are use to living in Apple controlled walled-gardens dont
understand that being removed from the play store doesn't mean much.

Their apps can still be listed in alternate app stores as well as download
directly and installed directly (its trivial to install an apk which has been
downloaded. Things are especially easy if you have a rooted phone, which I'm
assuming most HN Android users do.

That's the major proponent of using Android for me. Just like my computer I am
free to modify is and install any software I want.

I'm sure if the App Store even ever approved an Ad Block app it's long gone by
now. Can any iPhone users comment on this?

~~~
Steko
"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.

------
DanBC
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.

~~~
MarkMc
> 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.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
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.

~~~
MarkMc
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".

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/rights/terms/terms-of-
se...](http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/rights/terms/terms-of-service.html)

~~~
TheCoelacanth
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.

------
lucb1e
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.

------
limejuice
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.

~~~
psionski
<https://startpage.com/> is also really nice :)

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

------
vinhboy
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
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.

------
adsenseclient
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
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
"there is a difference"

At the moment.

~~~
fpgeek
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.

------
belorn
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.

~~~
hammerzeit
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...](http://www.adexchanger.com/online-
advertising/iab-2011-online-ad-spend-hit-31-billion-as-display-trailed-
search/)

"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.

~~~
belorn
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.

~~~
hammerzeit
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...](http://www.iab.net/media/file/IAB_Internet_Advertising_Revenue_Report_HY_2012.pdf))
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.

~~~
belorn
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.

------
ArnoVanLumig
Slightly unrelated: Why don't more sites allow hiding of ads for a small fee?
Over the last year I've probably donated a lot more money to sites than all
advertising revenue I would have generated were I not using AdBlock.

What I would like to see is a kind of browser extension that automatically
donates a (very) small amount to every site I visit per page view. In return,
the site would not show me any ads. Safety would be a concern though.

Of course this would not be good for Google at all, so they might want to
block such an extension too...

~~~
Kesty
Because in the ads world more users is equals to more money.

A small fee for hiding ads will not generate a small revenue stream but, at
the same time, decrease the value of your adspace.

And selling a consistent and growing userbase is easier that keeping a
consistent and growing revenue from ads-free subscriptions.

~~~
ArnoVanLumig
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.

~~~
JacobJans
Yes, your point of view is naive.

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.

------
illyism
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
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.

------
No1
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
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
That was the main reason I waited to get chrome in the first place.

------
buro9
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...](https://github.com/dschuermann/ad-
away/blob/master/AdAway/src/org/adaway/provider/AdAwayDatabase.java) , 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...](https://smarthosts.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/mobile_devices/hosts)

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> ?

------
randomsearch
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
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.

------
onemorepassword
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
Apple seems to have made a few bucks by selling hardware. I don't really see
why Google can't also go that route if it wants to.

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

------
tomp
AdBlock is awesome, especially for mobile users; Why would I pay _my_ money,
use _my_ bandwidth, so that _you_ can make money?

~~~
tomeric
Because I pay _my_ money and use _my_ bandwidth, so that _you_ can read the
content _you_ want.

~~~
uoou
Which you _freely choose to do_.

You exist in the market as it is, not as you wish it to be. If you can't find
a way to make it pay (if that is your priority/a requirement) then you'll fail
and someone else will try. If no one can think of a way to make it pay, then
we'll lose such sites until someone can.

Which is fine. Better that than ads.

~~~
andymcsherry
If you remove the incentive to freely distribute content, eventually people
will stop doing it. When this happens, most of the content you enjoy will end
up behind a paywall. The reason you don't see it now is only a small portion
of the internet is aware of and uses these products. Most of us can't work for
free, and I imagine a substantial portion of this reader base's income is
directly or indirectly supported by advertising.

~~~
uoou
Yes, I said that in my previous post.

And we'll go back to having a greater proportion of hobbyist sites. People
doing it for the love of it rather than the money. That's fine.

I think advertising is a terribly crude way to make money from a website, as
well as being cultural and aesthetic pollution. I think we'll look back on
this period when websites were ad-funded with embarrassment.

Of course, I can't think of a better idea.

But if the use of ad-blockers increases then many many sites will go pop (the
really good ones - the ones that people are actually actively willing to pay
for - will survive of course) until some clever sausage eventually thinks of a
better idea. And that will be great. Good old free market at work.

------
fierarul
So let me get this, they interpret section 4.4 as the equivalent of not being
allowed to edit your own /etc/hosts file on your own device?

Here is 4.4. What exactly does AdBlock infringe?

"4.4 Prohibited Actions. You agree that you will not engage in any activity
with the Market, including the development or distribution of Products, that
interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the
devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party
including, but not limited to, Android users, Google or any mobile network
operator. You may not use customer information obtained from the Market to
sell or distribute Products outside of the Market."

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

------
carlob
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/>

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

[http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/adblock-plus-secret-
takedo...](http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/adblock-plus-secret-takedown/)

------
abcd_f
Ah, the routine of not being evil.

~~~
qompiler
Evil is a relative term

~~~
flyinRyan
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.

------
naftaliharris
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
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
>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.

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

------
dsirijus
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?

------
octix
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?

------
No1
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.

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

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

~~~
signed0
This appears to be just for Android, not the Chrome browser.

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

------
dcc1
<http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts>

------
anvandare
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. >;]

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

~~~
anvandare
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.

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

~~~
seanp2k2
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.

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

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

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

------
2321sdadas
I think it's time to switch back to FireFox.

------
JacobJans
We try to build a positive, two-way, relationship with our readers, but if
someone removes the ads from our website, they are directly attacking our
ability to stay in business. Not cool.

Removing ads from a website is no different than pirating software: You're
getting the product without paying for it. Publishers deserve to make money
from their work.

~~~
flyinRyan
> 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.

------
kushti
Evil corporation is so evil

------
Tichy
evil

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

------
yanw
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-...](http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/13/breaking-google-has-begun-
purging-ad-blocking-apps-from-the-play-store/)

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>

~~~
white_devil
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.

~~~
nailer
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.

~~~
flyinRyan
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...

~~~
nailer
The point of the web is to share knowledge.

Advertising pays for knowledge to be created and published.

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

~~~
icebraining
What too you so long?

------
habosa
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.

