
Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads - zhuxuefeng1994
http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/01/death-to-app-install-interstitials/
======
jacquesm
Does that mean they'll block youtube? Try playing a video on a phone that does
not have the youtube app installed, it's just about impossible to get it
right, it's a roulette that's rigged with more than half the links going to
the youtube app page on google play. Highly annoying since there is no reason
why the youtube page of some video should even have that app installation link
at all.

~~~
toomuchtodo
"Do as I say, not as I do."

~~~
zorpner
Relevant:
[https://twitter.com/danbarker/status/439125570115223552](https://twitter.com/danbarker/status/439125570115223552)

~~~
kbenson
I fail to see how providing a short except that is fully attributed and links
back to the original source is a problem. If anything, it steers even more
traffic to wikipedia.

~~~
choppaface
knowledge graph indeed steers traffic _away_ from Wikipedia:
[http://searchengineland.com/businesses-knowledge-graph-
domin...](http://searchengineland.com/businesses-knowledge-graph-dominating-
search-results-215520)

luckily the foundation hasn't seen a negative impact on donations.

~~~
kbenson
I suspect that's because for the most part it just siphons off the traffic
that would have mostly been a waste to serve anyway, being that they were
either looking for such a small bit of information to be encapsulated in the
excerpt, or they determined they were looking for something else, they would
be hard to monetize. Then again, I could be wrong or there could be usefulness
to users hitting the end site that isn't directly monetizable (brand
awareness).

I wonder what percentage of the knowledge graph result excerpts are full
entries, and don't trail off indicating more can be found on the source site.

~~~
pestaa
Not saying you're wrong, but one strength of Wikipedia is the density of
internal links, which even the summaries are full of.

Perhaps some users would explore a topic if they saw their many options to do
so.

This is just pure speculation, though.

~~~
JupiterMoon
I think by now most people in the English speaking world know that if they
want to start getting more depth on a topic then Wikipedia is a decent place
to start. However, sometime you just want a quick summary/single fact.

------
saidajigumi
Ugh, maybe this will finally push forums to burn those infernal Tapatalk
interstitials. Forum owners: I'm looking for _one piece of information_ from a
web search, not a whole dumb app that will completely ignore my search goals.

~~~
alkonaut
Tapatalk splash is a sure sign of a phpBB forum, meaning I won't find what I'm
looking for anyway. Close tab.

I can't believe those forums don't just migrate to Discourse.

~~~
saidajigumi
> a phpBB forum, meaning I won't find what I'm looking for anyway.

I'll have to disagree on this point. There are a _lot_ of phpBB forums out
there, and their quality and content varies widely as the Internet itself.
Many of them, esp. some of the long-established ones, are invaluable sources
for all sorts of arcana. Wikipedia doesn't even begin to touch the kinds of
obscure practical knowledge embedded in the "dark web" of phpBB forums. There
are a lot of Google searches for which a single post by some domain expert is
the top result, many of which in old, old forum software of some sort, usually
phpBB.

FWIW, I've never once run into a Discourse forum in the wild, i.e. via a web
search, site link, etc.

~~~
reitanqild
+1 on the discourse: Is anyone using it, like at all, except discourse? I have
been waiting since it came for it to become a place for everything that Stack
Overflow bans (non trivial questions that need discussion, "how can this be
done in an elegant way" etc).

<rant>And: Can someone please please create a new stackoverflow that rewards
solving problems instead of going full Daesh in destroying old artifacts,
enforcing dumb rules etc?</rant>

~~~
Someone1234
I tried to use Discourse but the hardware and software requirements combined
would have meant a $20+/month VM rather than a $10/month VM:

\- Dual core CPU recommended

\- 1 GB RAM minimum (with swap)

\- 64 bit Linux compatible with Docker

\- Postgres 9.3+ (2 GB RAM min?).

\- Redis 2.6+

\- Ruby 2.0+ (we recommend 2.0.0-p353 or higher)

Ultimately I wound up putting PHPBB with a different skin back on the server,
since it just requires MySQL, PHP, and any web server.

Plus Discourse has a lot of strange features (e.g. auto-mod promotion) and it
feels like it is still in beta based on the feedback they get on their own
forums.

And don't get me started on the docker-based setup. If you want a local native
install (no docker container) well, you cannot. Docker or nothing.

The whole product feels extremely convoluted and over-engineered.

~~~
tripzilch
Yup. I had pretty much the same problems, except I didn't even get to
installing because the requirements put me off.

I just wanted something that sucks less than PHPBB or SMF, you know? But this
thing mainly seems more bloated, and the live demos didn't really quite
convince me of the "sucks less" part either.

One thing I haven't even been able to test yet, once you have it running, how
much is there to configure in order to tone it down? Because if you want to
run a forum for pretty much anything but a tech audience, I would like to get
rid of all the "dynamic" and "interactive" javascript stuff. Because it really
makes it _less_ interactive/dynamic for people on old, low-powered computers.
They need basic HTML full page reloads (assuming the HTML is somewhat lean--
leaner than PHPBB/SMF preferably :) ).

Because the unique thing about forums, that still gives them relevance in the
2010s, is that you can gather a community with extremely specialized niche
knowledge. If the person who knows everything about, I dunno, stained glass
dyes, psychogeography or uh Sumerian breakfast recipes, just happens to have a
really old machine you don't tell them to upgrade or suck it, because he or
she may be one of the only people in the world with the particular expert
niche-in-niche knowledge that brings invaluable quality to the forum, much
more than having a shiny slick UI that looks buttersmooth on a new laptop.

------
manigandham
Best to read this twitter thread:
[https://twitter.com/mdudas/status/638792939842469893](https://twitter.com/mdudas/status/638792939842469893)

This only applies to page covering ads for app installs. Not other
interstitials. In fact Google recently did a study showing how 69% of people
leave the page when faced with an interstitial [1], yet they also recently
released an updated format for their own Google overlay ad [2] (although this
is for apps). They don't want to lose web/search traffic to apps, but they
make plenty of money running these formats themselves. A good summary of the
various conflicts of interest is here [3].

1\. [http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/07/google-
ca...](http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/07/google-case-study-
on-app-download-interstitials.html)

2\. [http://adwords.blogspot.com/2015/08/beautiful-new-designs-
fo...](http://adwords.blogspot.com/2015/08/beautiful-new-designs-for-full-
screen.html)

3\. [http://searchengineland.com/google-goes-app-interstitial-
pro...](http://searchengineland.com/google-goes-app-interstitial-protecting-
consumers-search-monopoly-228543)

~~~
YokoZar
Sorry, but what?

What does an ad that shows between levels of angry birds on your phone have to
do with ads blocking you from getting your search result?

This sounds like some weird sort of misdirection attempt.

~~~
manigandham
Edited for clarity:

Google is claiming to do this to improve user experience, however:

\- they do these exact ads on every site they have

\- they arent stopping other interstitials so sites can be just as annoying on
the first page

\- a site with great content should not be penalized for the site's own
choices on ads

\- they're forcing a change that affects everyone else except them

The PR signal doesnt match the execution. It's a monopolistic move and raises
questions about their involvement in so many layers of the ads/web stack.

~~~
magicalist
The only thing you just said that made sense was:

> _the signal is that they don 't want their search results to annoy users by
> showing them app install ads on the first hit_

which is absolutely great. Well done Google.

Everything else in your post is weird and contradictory. They're apparently
fine with advertising and non-annoying app install banners but they're going
to make annoying app install banners less visible in search results. I'm
really not seeing the problem.

> _It might be good for the consumer but that 's just a side effect._

See what I mean? So it's a great move and should be celebrated, but lets not
congratulate Google on their motives? OK, I think we can all live with that.

~~~
manigandham
I think I just wrote too much, edited the other comment for clarity.

------
justincormack
Does this apply to "please subscribe to our stupid newsletter" that obscures
many sites now?

~~~
0x0
For those I just enter webmaster@<domain-name> or even the author's email if
that's listed :P

~~~
bbcbasic
They are probably already subscribed (to test it works). Better to enter a
duff@emailaddress.com which will mess up their stats.

~~~
profinger
I always enter something along the lines of
<expletive>@<expletive>.<expletive>. My hope is that they'll waste money on
trying to email it and then get a bounceback that the email failed to be
delivered.

~~~
bbcbasic
It wont cost them money if they have a double opt-in. But you will punish
those without the double opt-in by pushing them up to the next tier in the
payment plan sooner. The amount of money they waste one one dodgy email
address is minuscule though. What is more funny is that they will see
<expletive>@<expletive>.<expletive> when scrolling through their list, and you
could even send them a 'message' this way. E.g.
WhyTheHellYouMakeMeSignUpForThisRubbish@fakeemail.com.

~~~
kuschku
You can sign up their personal facebook accounts, though – if the user is
facebook.com/username123, you can register username123@facebook.com, facebook
will throw the mails into the spam folder, and report them to spam lists, and
the newsletter ends up getting blacklisted earlier.

~~~
bbcbasic
Wouldn't want to meet you in a dark alley.

~~~
kuschku
Well, as a girl, I learnt judo to be able to defend myself.

One of the most important lessons of judo is that you never use force yourself
– you just redirect the force of the other person so they hurt themselves.

Using that philosophy in life makes stuff a lot easier ;)

And, funnily, it fits here, too. Using their own newsletter to get it
blacklisted. The more they send, the less are received.

------
thrownaway2424
What ad network is it that serves up ads that actually open up the iOS App
Store, without having tapped on anything? That's super annoying.

~~~
cm2187
My personal solution is to install the app, give it a very bad rating with the
reason why I am pissed off as a comment and delete the app.

~~~
dizzyviolet
Ohhh. I like that idea. I'm going to start doing that.

~~~
ianlevesque
Your installs are improving their App Store ranking anyway though!

~~~
cryptoz
Are they? I don't think so. And especially not if the all is uninstalled
within minutes. Apple puts much more weight into the ranking than into 'total
downloads' (which would be the only increasing metric in this case.

------
thebokehwokeh2
They're looking at you [http://www.ultimate-guitar.com](http://www.ultimate-
guitar.com)

~~~
Mahn
As a beginner guitarist, this is site is the worst. It's a shame that honest
sites like olga.net don't exist anymore.

~~~
jnevill
Oh man I miss olga. I had completely forgotten about it. These "newer" sites
are the pits and every single one of them does this BS app install crap. Thank
goodness for the "View as desktop" button in mobile browsers.

~~~
tajen
Do we have an idea about their business model? How much do they pay the music
labels for the right to display half-quality tabs? I've always assumed the
labels asking for money were the reason why there was so much advertising on
those sites and why no plain-text site ever survived.

~~~
Mahn
That's something I wonder as well. Ultimate-guitar must be in bed with labels
somehow, or otherwise operate their business in a very shady way. If it's the
latter, they are very lucky to get away with it AND get top-notch treatment in
Google search.

~~~
rhizome
They have a licensing agreement with the Harry Fox Agency, essentially for
music printing rights. Chances are HFA puts the screws to them such that UG
needs to hustle ads as a primary business purpose.

------
serge2k
You know, at some point (and we are around that point) Google does cross a
line where they are abusing their near monopoly on search. This is a pro
consumer move, but it's another instance of Google saying do things our way or
we punish you.

~~~
matchu
I'm not sure what makes this abuse. Curating the content you serve isn't just
_okay_ ; it's one of the key value propositions of a search engine. The
problem is when a content provider, for whatever reason, intentionally curates
in a way that provides less value to the consumer.

~~~
tzs
One potential problem here is that this only applies to page blocking
interstitials that promote an app. Page blocking interstitials that push
signing up for a newsletter, for example, will not be penalized.

It could be hard to argue that an interstitial pushing an app (especially an
app specifically for the site the user is visiting that gives them enhanced
features compared to the mobile web version of the site) is more annoying,
distracting, or otherwise harmful to a user than any other kind of blocking
interstitial.

Thus, one might try to conclude that Google's actual interest here is trying
to keep users from using apps to access content instead of using the web site
where Google is more likely to be the ad provider.

I have no idea if this could rise to the level of an antitrust violation, but
it's the first place I'd look for one.

~~~
bagacrap
There's an alternative that is more user-friendly which the browser provides,
but only for app install interstitials. Since there's no built-in alternative
for other kinds of interstitials, it makes sense that they're left alone
(although the crappier your site, the less time people spend on it, and
presumably the farther it falls down the search results).

Also, the blog post states they're essentially calling these sites mobile-
unfriendly, which I think is entirely fair. All full-page interstitials are
annoying, on the mobile web or desktop web, but only "install our app"
interstitials are unique to mobile. So if you view "mobile friendly" as
meaning "as good as desktop web", banning bad things that are only relevant to
mobile makes sense.

------
neoCrimeLabs
This is a little curmudgeonly, but this is how I feel...

If your developers are not capable of making your website mobible friendly in
2015, any app they develop is likely worse. This is especially true when your
app demands access to everything on my phone even though it doesn't need any
of it to function.

~~~
roasm
You're suggesting that you can make something as usable on a mobile browser as
you can with a native app. That's just not true; if it were, there wouldn't be
any native apps.

For many use cases (games, highly interactive experiences, camera or
microphone using app, etc.), a native app may just be better, and guiding
users there might be a better experience and a better conversion funnel.

Yes, you can make a website mobile friendly, but that doesn't mean it will be
as good as the native app.

~~~
stcredzero
Often, the native app is just as bad or worse! At least the just-as-bad native
app didn't soak up your time and bandwidth!

~~~
ianstallings
If that were the case no one would ever install native apps. But the reality
is given the choice, most people will use the app. I know this is a fact
because mobile is my bread and butter. But if you need some evidence just go
look at any of the analytics data that's out there. The majority of time spent
on mobile by a user is using an app, with a much smaller percentage of time
using the browser.

~~~
stcredzero
Most apps are ok, or at least no worse than the browser. Some are way worse.
In no case does the interstitial take into account your momentary cost/benefit
for downloading/installing or if the app is any good.

------
mark_l_watson
Fantastic - so glad to see this. I use a browser to use facebook and twitter
on my android phone. No I don't want to install an app, thanks!

Still, G's new policy allows small install the app links, which is fine
because a lot of people do want the app versions of web properties.

------
squiggy22
Ha. Yet their advertising optimisation teams continue to tout the benefits of
implementing an interstitial ad unit on mobile:

[https://developers.google.com/mobile-ads-
sdk/docs/dfp/androi...](https://developers.google.com/mobile-ads-
sdk/docs/dfp/android/interstitial)

Edit. More here:

[https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/products/mobile-ads-
intersti...](https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/products/mobile-ads-
interstitial.html)

Left hand doesn't know what right hand is doing.

~~~
oaktowner
Those links appear to be about ads _within_ apps, not on web pages.

They can often be annoying, but that's different than interstitials on top of
a mobile web site, right?

~~~
manigandham
Yes, in-app is a very different environment from mobile web.

Also they only want to stop full page ads pushing to download the app, not any
other full page ad.

------
gjolund
I'd really like to see a universal app / site rating service that judges apps
/ sites on their stability, privacy, security, legitimacy of requested
permission, and general UX.

It could then provide alternatives to the app / site, and possibly even an
anonymous whistleblower service for employees .

~~~
guptaneil
This. A Yelp for websites that encourages sites to be good web citizens.

~~~
n0us
I would like to see a vote based search engine with modified reddit-style
searching where a single vote's relevance is a function of its age and the
number of existing votes. (but without the post life cycle of reddit where
posts drop because of age)

~~~
greglindahl
Like many interesting ideas in search, this one's been tried several times.
Blekko and Bing both used Facebook friends' likes for votes, but coverage was
low. Google toyed with up/down votes for a short while after Wikia Search
launched, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of votes were malicious.

On the other hand, using result long-clicks as votes is quite popular, and
seems to work well.

------
mada299
I think it's interesting that they are making this decision - one that clearly
pushed users to stay on the mobile web which is beneficial for Google - based
on a study that was pretty flawed. This article debunks their methodology
pretty well: [https://medium.com/@alexaustin/just-because-it-s-google-
does...](https://medium.com/@alexaustin/just-because-it-s-google-doesn-t-mean-
it-s-right-5fe27b912f28)

~~~
Filligree
Hush, don't tell them--they might decide not to do it.

~~~
mada299
I built an app without having a website before so I get the perspective of the
app developer here too - trying to get people to their app. But I agree that
interstitials is not the answer. We ended up building mobile app content
previews (deepviews) for all the apps using our deeplinks (I work for
Branch.io) which work much better.

------
ianphughes
I still do not understand the popularity of this approach. It seems to crazy
increase bounce rates. You would think that negative user behavior would
already make these undesirable without Google being explicit?

~~~
s3r3nity
As someone working in tech, and does digital marketing consulting, there is
actually a lot of value in these interstitials: 1) Usually the app is
infinitely better than the mobile web experience. You can chalk it up to
prioritization of engineering working on iOS / Android app development over a
mobile web experience -- usually for good reason. 2) It's a solid retention
strategy. You can harp on about bounce rates reducing activation rates (bounce
rates aren't as high as you might think btw in certain cases) but at the end
of the day, a 1% increase in repeat purchase rate (or insert other retention
metric here) will have a much much more significant impact than a 1% increase
in activation.

It only works for certain scenarios and cases, but at the end of the day,
there's significant data to show that they work.

~~~
ianphughes
I am not sure I agree with your first point. It seems the most frequent case
is that a user wants to access content right away. Regardless of how much
"better" the native experience might be, its a lot of hoops to jump through to
fulfill the immediate need.

I certainly can't argue that it does yield positive business results under
certain scenarios, but for the average user it seems to injure common web
experiences.

~~~
s3r3nity
Sure -- that makes sense. I find that it depends upon the category or space
that the company is in.

For eCommerce, this type of interstitial is a no-brainer: users have an easier
time feeling more secure purchasing through an app vs. Safari or some other
mobile browser. (Especially if it's Apple Pay enabled!)

For content heavy sites, it might be that the opposite is true: faster access
to content can be used to hook the user. If you own one of these sites, you
still need to design a method to get the user to come back repeatedly after
you post updates. Email subscription modals do a good job at this, but people
hate giving their email - especially on mobile.

~~~
ashark
Considering that even Amazon's iOS app was worse than their site the last time
I checked—which is _really_ impressive since their site is terrible—I doubt
I'm going to gain anything by installing the app for Bob's House of Air
Conditioners or _whatever_.

------
tbranyen
I read this as publishing and was getting mad, then I read the article and
smiled. Thanks Google! I absolutely hate sites that do this.

------
avemg
In and of itself I really like this move, but I have to wonder if it's good
thing in the long run to allow Google to assert its vision of good UX on the
entire web. Where's the line? Of course nobody is forcing websites to do
anything, but Google is such an important traffic driver it's hard to imagine
a site not having to comply to survive.

~~~
leereeves
What's the alternative to allowing Google to rank results as it chooses?

~~~
EarthLaunch
Government forcing them to modify that based on 'fairness', 'need', etc. It's
coming and it will be supported by HN, for obvious reasons.

------
madsushi
Seems a bit hypocritical, considering they were using app install interstitial
pages as recently as July:

[http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/google-...](http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/google-
case-study-on-app-download-interstitials.html)

~~~
OJFord
Not really, seeing as the article you link addresses that?

It's like a car company saying "we used to only make black cars, but actually
we looked into it, and now we think people want colours; so we're making
them".

~~~
madsushi
Continued:

"So we're making them, and we're penalizing any dealerships that are still
selling black cars."

~~~
Someone1234
Unfortunately your continued use of that analogy has backfired.

If a car manufacturer used to sell black cars, then added other colors, if
their own dealers refused to sell the additional colors, it would be entirely
reasonable for the manufacturer to step in (since it hurts the manufacturer's
brand). So in that analogy, the manufacturer is right.

The reality is that Google aren't a car manufacturer, they're more like a car
magazine. Suddenly they decide not to feature trucks, and therefore Bobs
BigTruckin modal X2000 coming out next month is penalised because they won't
be featured in the next issue.

Is it "fair?" In general, yes, but in this specific case because Google holds
a monopoly on the market you could argue it is unfair. A lot of sites will
suddenly see a large drop-off of traffic if they didn't get the memo, because
so many depend on Google for redirects.

~~~
kuschku
As some report, you can reproducably get the ads even today.

So Google is punishing competitors for something they do themselves.

This is all looking like Google just wants to make the EU regulators angry.

~~~
sangnoir
This would only matter if punishment was being dished out today - which is not
the case. Everyone is being given a heads-up (until November 1). Also, Google
has already set a precedent of punishing itself[1] for bad behaviour.

1\. [http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-penalizes-
chrome/3...](http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-penalizes-
chrome/38469/)

------
ChuckMcM
I wonder if this is more search defense than it is user experience work. One
of the things web driven access gives you is access to the search traffic
through that web site, once you go to the App all that traffic goes with it.
Its clear that an app for everything is getting pushed hard by content
providers.

------
prodmerc
Does that mean the death of Tapatalk? 'cause I'm all in. Stop pestering me to
install your stupid app, I like my browser just fine...

------
dssddsds
Isn't this a tiny bit concerning that one company can effectively force the
web to comply with their standards by "punishing" any non-conformers? I know
Bing exists, but still, this is something that would happen in a monopoly.

~~~
exodust
When 100% of people find those intrusive pop-ups annoying, the "standard" then
is not so much belonging to Google, but shared by all.

------
wcummings
>Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites That Use _Competing Ad
Platforms_

~~~
n0us
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I have wondered this myself. Between
punishing sites that are not mobile responsive and this move I wonder if their
motivations are partly fueled by the fear that mobile users are spending more
times within native apps and not enough time on the web.

As you can read here their response to the EU antitrust lawsuit
[http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/14/internal-google-memo-
respon...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/14/internal-google-memo-responds-to-
eu-antitrust-objections/#.m5yn4p:FTKu) google makes the argument that users
spend a lot of time inside apps. I would expect they are worried about the
ability for users to go directly to content and bypass search from which they
make money.

I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall on. The web is arguably a more
open technology than native apps but the experience in a native app is often
better.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Between punishing sites that are not mobile responsive and this move I
> wonder if their motivations are partly fueled by the fear that mobile users
> are spending more times within native apps and not enough time on the web.

I think its more driven by the fact that more of Google search traffic comes
from mobile, so its more critical that the results provide a good experience
on mobile.

~~~
n0us
True, again if users are getting good results through google search they they
are less likely to jump directly into the app, bypassing google advertising.
Content producers in turn want to take advantage of google search as a way of
directing users to their content so they optimize their mobile sites and don't
focus solely on apps. The result is a feedback loop that is good for both
Google and the user.

------
Aldo_MX
And when will they punish advertisements that redirect to app stores? or even
worse, websites that activate WAP subscriptions...

------
bradgessler
Content publishers have created a really bad situation for themselves on the
web from these types of ads, slow Javascripts, and other "ad tech" excesses.

Apple is responding with ad blocking technology and a news app. Facebook has
responded with articles that load quickly from their apps. These solutions
represent an existential threat to the open web, and therefore Google.

I really hope Google doesn't just stop at app ads, and starts punishing
websites that do objectively horrible things to end-user experience.

------
yoz-y
Hm, I've rarely seen such pushes for app installs. I've mostly seen banner-
like ads. However, I hope they will also start penalising websites that use
overlays for mailing list submissions and account creation - before even
giving you chance to read the article you came in for.

------
jbigelow76
The most annoying aspect of app install interstitials is when the publisher
doesn't offer a version of their app for your platform, which for us Windows
Phone users is pretty much all of them. One more indignity I guess :)

------
alexbilbie
I hope they also stop serving adverts that redirect from Safari to the App
Store too

~~~
wlesieutre
I thought Safari doesn't even allow this anymore because of all the popup
forwarder spam?

~~~
alexbilbie
I still experience it every so often (iOS 8.4.1). The last time it happened it
was on Techcrunch

~~~
wlesieutre
I see. Looks like they were at least to be blocked, but the system either
wasn't shipped or doesn't work reliably.

[http://sentrant.com/2015/03/12/safari-to-app-store-
redirect-...](http://sentrant.com/2015/03/12/safari-to-app-store-redirect-
from-ad-on-ios-8-2/)

------
ksec
May be only me, I dont really find those annoying, in fact i find them helpful
when they tell me my favorite site has an App and I dont need to use Mobile
Browser to Read.

~~~
exodust
There are better ways to tell you about the app that don't annoy 99% of
people.

------
nilved
What about sites that prompt you to enable push notifications?

~~~
jasonlotito
That is a feature of the browser, and is on the browser to make it not
annoying. While it's fair to say you might find it annoying and might not want
to see it, others do find it valuable. If a browser feature is annoying you,
the correct approach would be to disable that feature in the browser. If the
browser doesn't allow you to do this, than it's the browser's implementation
that is at fault.

This all assumes the site is using the features the browser makers are telling
the sites to use.

~~~
pdkl95
The correct answer is that features like push notifications should be opt-in
_in the browser_. Too many of these features exploit the general ignorance of
users.

> If a browser feature is annoying you, the correct approach would be to
> disable that feature in the browser.

Yet when some of us shut off Javascript - a feature that is often annoying,
enables many kinds of tracking, and occasionally creates serious security
problems - half of HN freaks out. Given that Javascript is necessary for many
types of surveillance-as-a-business-model, hostility to the idea of disabling
javascript is expected.

Push notifications are still a newer feature, but once that feature becomes
entrenched enough that some people's profit depends on the feature, disabling
push notifications in the client will be regarded with similar hostility.

~~~
jasonlotito
> The correct answer is that features like push notifications should be opt-in
> in the browser.

They are. They are completely opt-in. You don't get push notifications unless
you ask for them.

------
smegel
Which seems to be like 90% of them. Good guy Google for once.

~~~
unfunco
Is it? It might seem like it's good guy Google, but Google is a company with
shareholders and their mission objective (despite what they claim) is to
maximise profit for their shareholders. They're the most powerful advertising
agency in the world and they're punishing smaller advertising models.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike advertising; I'd rather pay for content, but
this strikes me as anti-competitive.

------
mischanix
These kinds of ads are the reason I leave javascript disabled on my phone. It
prevents all kinds of annoyances and saves a significant amount of battery as
well.

~~~
exodust
Yes but that's annoying when you want JS enabled to view something like a
slideshow on a web page. Swiping from one image to the other requires JS, and
you need to go into settings and turn it on. Then remember to turn it off
again.

And you might not even know there's a gallery to view, because without JS the
fallback might be a single image rather than a prompt to swipe the slideshow.

When the simple act of swiping within a web page requires JS, you're crippling
your own experience. Not to mention all the other JS-powered functions on a
page. Adding things to a shopping cart etc, is much more user friendly with JS
enabled.

------
lunz
Hopefully Google can distinguish them from the "By browsing this site, you
accept the use of Cookies [X]"-popups that EU websites have to implement now.

~~~
bouke
Site owners should be punished for those banners, as they could refrain from
using third party tracking cookies instead.

------
andoma
First i thought the title read "Google Will Soon Start Pushing Mobile Sites
That Use Annoying App Install Ads" :)

------
werber
Is this an announcement for the death of the unknown app, or Google give a big
hug to using the browser more?

------
FilterSweep
So they're still not punishing sites that force redirect your mobile browser
to a failed app download page I see. I shouldn't have to worry about my
browser unintentionally trying to download the Draftkings app from a sports
blog I'm reading.

------
danielrakh
I can't help but think this is a jab at Apple for allowing ad blockers in iOS
9.

~~~
tajen
For once the consumer experience wins on the two fronts.

Or maybe the UX used to suck on the two because of a secret non-agression pact
between Google and Apple ;)

------
amolgupta
what about the companies who dont have a mobile web version? All they have is
a page to install app when opened on mobile? Do they show the desktop version
or kill that page? eg. Flipkart and Myntra

~~~
hobarrera
Those don't qualify as "mobile app ads" really. Those are actual websites that
merely link to a mobile app.

------
davidw
When are they going to shit-can sites that have tiny 'next' buttons next to
big Google ads with arrows in them? The ones like "20 pictures of celebrities'
hairy moles!".

------
vacri
I misread the title and was hoping that those .gif ads with misleading
'download', 'next', or 'inbox mail' buttons would be penalised. Ah, well...

------
marak830
I wonder if this has anything todo with apples push to block adverts to get
people to make an app(and thus advertise that app on their site).

Maybe i'm looking too much into this ;)

------
sharkweek
As a user, I'm pro-getting rid of interstitial ads on mobile. But just for
dissenting opinion, this definitely feels monopolistic.

"Stay on the native web so we can sell more ads!"

Maybe it's mutually beneficial for Google and its search users, but this is
certainly the argument that's going to come from folks who are about to lose a
ton of app downloads.

[http://searchengineland.com/google-goes-app-interstitial-
pro...](http://searchengineland.com/google-goes-app-interstitial-protecting-
consumers-search-monopoly-228543)

~~~
matchu
If anyone tries to make that argument, the counter will be simple: "We _want_
developers to make native apps! That's why we're making App Indexing a thing."

There's definitely some advantage to keeping people on the web, since App
Indexing requires buy-in from content producers, but, if browsers start truly
losing to native apps, Google are prepared.

[https://developers.google.com/app-
indexing/](https://developers.google.com/app-indexing/)

------
look_lookatme
maybe they should punish their fucking AdX buyers that redirect people to the
app stores for a change

note: i work for a publisher and when an app store redirect comes through AdX
or AppNexus and someone makes a complaint it is one of the worst, most
helpless feelings. this is why people use adblock and there is nothing we can
do because the networks are, still, an important part of our entire revenue
stream

------
amelius
You can say what you want about this benefiting the end user, but Google is
acting as a market regulator now.

------
teaneedz
Can't wait to see the Yahoo! interstitial news app go away or at least stop
hijacking the whole screen.

------
Fomite
I expect them to get rid of the "You know you can install the App!" ads on
Gmail for iOS first.

------
cm2187
I can't resist mentioning that one of the greatest offenders is
news.google.com

------
rubyn00bie
tldr; Cool... but shouldn't google stop policing the internet and abusing,
what some might call, monopoly powers for trivial gains.

======

I'd be willing to bet, this will one day be in an FTC/DOJ report about
monopoly practices at Google...

Google seems to have forgotten they don't want to be looked at as a monopoly
or abusing their power for the small things. While this is consumer friendly,
at least at first glance, I still find it anti-competitive and generally
worthless exertion of their near monopoly power.

It also effects them quite heavily (GMail being my prime example). If I had to
guess, this is a decision by someone who is lacking the resources to fully
grasp the decision and potential long term ramifications of their action.
Maybe they do, but for a company of their size this seems petty.

The potential anti-trust lawsuit however will not be petty.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
This isn't an anti-trust issue. Google's not using its market dominance to
move into a new market.

It's more like a common practice by retailers: using their market share to
force changes by their suppliers. For example, Tesco (the largest UK
supermarket) recently banned certain sugary drinks targeted at children.

~~~
kuschku
But Google is, even _today_ still using these same interstitial ads for Gmail.

That means it will most likely end up in some antitrust trial.

~~~
dragonwriter
Or Google will stop doing it before it starts applying the penalty.

Or Google Search will penalize other Google sites that use those ads. It
wouldn't be the first time Google-owned sites have run afoul of Google Search
penalties.

------
jane_is_here
How much longer before Google starts flagging Sourceforge as a malware site ?

~~~
JohnTHaller
SourceForge distributes bundleware offer installers for only a handful of
projects (I think 12) that have opted into their Dev Share program.

Interesting Fact: A chunk of Google Chrome's install growth has been courtesy
of the exact same type of bundleware offers with Adobe Flash, Java updates,
and free antivirus installs/updates.

------
dtournemille
Is it Google's "job" to police websites in this fashion?

~~~
exodust
Google isn't banning websites, only denying them "mobile friendly" status,
which naturally downranks them. Fair enough too. When you click a search
result link, you want the information, not a full screen ad that's hard to
close.

------
antr
Finally, I hope those sites don't even make it to the first serp.

------
collyw
Google is as bad as anyone when I open up stuff in my Ubuntu phone.

------
titfn
How many years did it take for Google to react to this?

------
zaczac
google is the biggest ads app. how funny

------
bibabo
(I don't like these ads)

1\. Apps can't be searched or content linked from Google.com

2\. Apps don't show (as much?) Google ads

1 + 2 = Google penalty

------
evboyle
cough * cough * linkedin

------
thespace123
don't be evil

------
illivah
Dance websites! dance!

------
iamadatawhore
bout time.

------
kevando
Google will soon start encouraging you to continue using their apps. FTFY

