I truly don't understand how this can be described as a 'purely greedy, evil' move. Some of the money that those ads generate go to independent developers looking to make income from their hard work, many of whom use this site. The more people that see the ads, the more ads Google sells, and the more money both Google and developers make.

Personally, I think it's selfish to block ads on applications and websites.

> Personally, I think it's selfish to block ads on applications and websites.

I tend to agree, but that's the user's choice. Google can't come into your house to make sure you read the ads on the newspaper page.

>Some of the money that those ads generate go to independent developers looking to make income from their hard work, many of whom use this site.

If the developer chose a model of making money that pisses of their users so much they go to the trouble of getting other software that does literally nothing but stop the developer's annoying monitorization model maybe the dev should work on a less offensive way to make money. After all, they've shown that users are invested in their app in some way, there must be a way to turn that into revenue.

You can't see how it disrupts anything?

It steps in-between two third-parties:

The person who developed an app that shows ads, and the people who bought the ad space.

It doesn't step between anyone. It takes content that was delivered to a person's computer and post-processes it (or changes the settings of the machine). What I do on my machine with content I access should be up to me, and if content owners don't like it, they have the choice of negotiating a different deal with me before serving me the content. I view adblock as the equivalent of paying someone to paste paper over newspaper ads before you read it. (By the way, I don't use adblock or any similar stuff.)

More correct analogy: You are allowed to pay someone to paste paper over newspaper ads before you read it. You are just not allowed to hire such a guy inside the shop selling that newspaper, as per that shop's policies. Feel free to hire anyone outside the shop.

i.e. Google is fine with downloading AdBlock independently. They just won't allow it in Play store which is closed (unlike the OS, which is open).

The analogy does make sense, but I don't think that Google's stated policy applies under any reasonable interpretation. If they changed to a policy like "we don't allow apps we disagree with", then fine. But to ban these apps on the grounds they gave is disingenuous in my opinion.

Well, you could apply your own words here... if don't like it, you have the choice of negotiating a different deal with them before using the Play store.

My point is I think they're breaking the terms they set out.

> post-processes it

Or, in the case of the hosts file, blocks connections to IPs that may be malicious.

My ability to block ads in that way is a consequence of a key design decision of the network, one which we're far better with than without.

They did negotiate a deal with you:

Here's content you can use, if you view our ads.

How is this remotely unclear?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never agreed to any such deal on the vast majority of websites that I visit.

Indeed. This demonstrates Google is committed to delivering audiences to advertisers rather than letting users control their devices. Never give root to your users...

You can absolutely control your device.

You can download apps, or not download apps.

If an app developer says, "Hey, you can use this app if you let me show you ads!" you can agree to that or not.

Google is committed to letting an app developer offer you that deal, and they're taking a step towards making sure you hold up your end of the bargain.

If a farmer's market set up shop in your town, and little kids stole the merchandise all the time, you'd want them to hire a security guard, wouldn't you?

And you can still install from the APK. So, you're really just whining that Google doesn't THEMSELVES make it easy for you to bypass the ad market.

Yeah, but no app developer is explicitly saying that.

> If a farmer's market set up shop in your town, and little kids stole the merchandise all the time

I've found that comparisons between physical theft and digital "theft" are always going to be flawed due to fundamental differences between the two domains.

What do you mean they're not explicitly saying that?

They develop an app - often for free, and as-designed it shows ads.

How is this at all ambiguous?

Then they release it to users who have control over their devices and can modify how their device displays the app. Users are under no obligation to ensure that the app runs as-designed, and if it's not explicitly disallowed they should be free to modify how the app runs. They could modify it to show another language, or put tape over part of the screen to hide some content, or they could download a tool that modifies their hosts file to alter how the app runs.

Point being, you can't count on ads being shown to all of your users as you can't guarantee control over their devices. If you don't like that, then don't make apps that rely on ad revenue.

Are you saying that Google should help police user behavior for app developers? That sounds contrary to the "open" argument.

Installing from APKs keeps you open.

Removing this from the Play store merely makes it inconvenient.

Google is trying to make a convenient API for app developers to earn money by showing users ads.

Seeing an ad is an inconvenience to users, granted. They have several options: APK install, pay for the premium version of the app, find a no-ad competitor to the app, or just don't use the app.

Android is open. Google Play is closed.

> You can absolutely control your device.

> You can download apps, or not download apps.

How is that absolute control? only having control over installing apps?

...or you can install Cyanogen mod. And mod the crap out of it.