Bad Move: Google Removes AdBlock Plus From Google Play Store
from the not-doing-its-reputation-any-good dept
Another day in which Google makes a move that leaves me scratching my head about what it's thinking. It has decided to remove Adblock Plus from the Google Play store arguing that it interferes "with another service or product in an unauthorized manner." Obviously, some will argue that of course Google is doing this to protect its own ad revenue, but it still surprises me. Google's entire premise was built on the idea of building advertising that was non-intrusive and non-annoying such that it created value for people. The whole reason that Adblock exists is to fight back against bad advertising. On top of that, Adblock is a very popular tool, in part because it helps stop annoying advertising. If anything Adblock represents a useful way of exposing information about when and why people find advertising annoying.As we've argued before, even though things like Adblock directly mean less revenue for us, we don't begrudge anyone for choosing to use it. To us, it's just a sign that we're not doing a good enough job delivering what our community wants in a manner they want it. That's useful. It sometimes puts us in a difficult position, because we have to deal with advertisers who only seem to want banner ads that our audience doesn't like. But we should never take that out on our community, but rather the responsibility is on us to seek out ways to convince advertisers and sponsors to work with us in ways that benefit everyone, rather than intrude or annoy our audience. On that front, we've always found Adblock to be a useful tool.
While Google may not view it totally that way, in the past, Google has generally taken the position that what's best for the user is something that it will support, even if it's not directly the most beneficial thing for Google. Instead, it took the longer term view that doing what's right for the consumer would mean that consumers would stick with them and trust them. But blocking AdBlock goes against that very concept. It's a short term move and one that the EFF (with whom we agree) sees as simply a bad move for Google.
Part of the appeal of the Google Play store is the lack of Apple iOS style walls and gates. Putting up those gates in a way that goes against user's own interests just seems like a bad long term decision.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: adblock, adblock plus, advertising, business model challenges, censorship, google play
Companies: adblock, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ABP screwed up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ABP screwed up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ABP screwed up
And it's Google's Play Store. If they want to remove the ad blocking app, they can and they will. So what's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ABP screwed up
That's the problem with Apple's app store, and their draconian control measures: they strive to tell US what to do with our phone, our apps, our money; and it's why we went elsewhere for our phones and services.
Google needs to pull their collective heads out of their collective butts, and give us what we want, and pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ABP screwed up
The TV viewer/internet user is under no obligation to view anything they do not choose to view. They are not a party to advertising deals and are not morally or legally obliged to support someone else's business model.
Also, if users can't selectively choose what to block, malware has an even better chance of spreading, so unless your website's ad revenue goes to paying me for time spent cleaning my computer, I'll block what I like. I'm not saying any or all ads are malicious, but adblock plus works on different kinds of content and lets the user decide what they want to allow.
Web developers know how to prevent you from accessing their site with ad blocking in place. If they really want you to not use it, they can make your experience miserable. It's like the robots.txt file - if you don't use it, you have no right to complain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ABP screwed up
No, it isn't. Google isn't forcing you to view ads on your Android device. They're not saying you can't avoid them. They're simply refusing to assist you in doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ABP screwed up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ABP screwed up
https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ABP screwed up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you insane? Noone says "Yes, I would like ads with this".
Avdertising doesn't create value for people, it creates value for advertisers. Noone gives a shit about wanting adverts, but they just might accidentally concede if exposed to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The one with the guy cutting his nice hair is funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am with ya
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ever watched the Super Bowl? Know how many people say exactly that?
Ever had a funny commercial sent to you on YouTube?
Yes, there are plenty of people who are happy to see ads. When they're good and relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Ever had a funny commercial sent to you on YouTube?" no..
have I ever paid for advertising I have never seen, or for a product I have never purchased ?
yes, 100% of the time, with every purchase.
Google is an advertising company. Therefore Google is not interested in what you or 'the punters' think, they care about making money from advertising. They have a responsibility to shareholders to make more money from advertising, not to make 'people happy'.
TD is just the same, you get your money from adds displayed on your page, that influences you to write stuff that will get more people visiting your site, you just do this under the guise of 'informing us'.
you use add blockers ?? is that not censorship ? and against your freedom of speech ideal's ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your ability to comment on this blog is a privilege granted by Techdirt, and they would be within their rights to block objectionable, to them, postings. If they do block objectionable comments, it is still not censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course it's not. Using an ad blocker doesn't determine if anyone else can see the ad or not. It's no more censorship than deciding not to watch a particular show, listen to a particular song, or read a particular book is censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004136567/advertising-is-content-content-is- advertising.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Doesn't that leave you vulnerable to cross-site scripting attacks? Just because a script isn't bothering you doesn't mean it isn't attacking you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In case you're interested:
"Cross-site scripting carried out on websites accounted for roughly 84% of all security vulnerabilities documented by Symantec as of 2007.[1] Their effect may range from a petty nuisance to a significant security risk, depending on the sensitivity of the data handled by the vulnerable site and the nature of any security mitigation implemented by the site's owner."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting
As far as I know I haven't either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This confuses two issues. Google Play store is to the iTunes store as Android is to iOS.
The Google Play can censor whatever the hell it wants. It's part of the appeal of Android that you're free to get your apps elsewhere. Amazon and the Samsung store are two popular ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government infiltrated them and we are SCREWED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nope, I'm not. I block all app ads, but for apps I use, I purchase the ad-free version. Almost all apps of consequence have a paid version available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bypass em...
Furthermore, ads are NOT a product or service, at least not to those stuck dealing with them. To me at least they are garbage and the web is nearly unusuable without an ad-blocker. No offense to those who use them to pay their bills of course, but IMHO irritating people with ads is not an ethical way to make money.
There has to be a better way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bypass em...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bypass em...
To be fair, advertisers typically offer to pay for the service costs in running a web page. But you are right, the person making the web page makes no money so the only people "suffering" are the advertisers.
The worst add I came across on a web page on my mobile device was a recent one at Cracked.com...an Ocean Spray ad on my iPod Touch's web browser that had a tiny little x to close it after a "wave" of cranberry juice covered the entire screen. If you didn't hit the "x" precisely to get rid of the ad, you got redirected to an ad page whose server was somewhere in the Ukraine.....
Needless to say, it is actually quite intrusive to advertise like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bypass em...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason I use Ad-Block Plus...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The reason I use Ad-Block Plus...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The reason I use Ad-Block Plus...
How is paying for it going to make it go away?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The reason I use Ad-Block Plus...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The reason I use Ad-Block Plus...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The reason I use Ad-Block Plus...
Why would I pay for the ads on websites that I go to read fanfiction and such?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The reason I use Ad-Block Plus...
I don't even use apps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The reason I use Ad-Block Plus...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's motto needs an update to "Be Evil", dropping the "Don't". It's clear their definition of "evil" is not the same as their millions of users of their products and (annoying) services.
Google is just paving the way for someone else to take its place.
If a site doesn't let me use ad-blocking software, it's a site I don't want to visit.
As far as ads/content goes, I enjoyed the ad Ford made which allowed us to play with a few of their cars. You can pretty much build it how you want, without having to visit their website.
Now that's a useful ad and, if done right, I wouldn't block these types of ads.
So learn from it, Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am more than willing to pay for applications. Everyone does so in the Play Store. Having a free Lite version and a paid Full version of an application is one of the many other ways developers make many there, and they do so quite successfully. I much prefer that system. If only to encourage the latter and discourage the societal waste that is advertising, one ought to block ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since when has a developer ever wanted their product being intruded upon with advertising from another app?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When they want to make money from the ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can make money from Apps with in game content extras...Armor Games' "Flight", NimbleBit's "Tiny Tower", Half Brick's "JetPack Joyride" make a killing on in app purchases for coins and extras....and they also let you earn the in game monetary supplements as well. Do any of them advertise for other products at the bottom of the screen as you play? No. If a developer wants to make money, that is the way to go. Because of those games, in-app advertising is going to be a thing of the past so long as devs don't use the FarmVille carrot on a stick method to grab your cash.
However, since the AdBlock Plus app only pertains to surfing the web, does your questioning me about my statement really seem relevant? AdBlock Plus is essential to web browsing on mobile devices because it conserves not only battery power, but it also prevents advertisers from taking advantage of users.
Some advertisements go out of the way to look like a Google Play app and fill the screen to do that. It not only banishes Banners into thin air, it also prevents actual popup ads from happening and redirects....so it is not just a tool to save battery life, it is a security tool.
You want to know who gets the most money out of advertising? It isn't developers...it is those who create the advertisement. Unless you have an ad space that advertises for your own products and/or services sold on your website, it is not worth the trouble of having the ads that AdBlock Plus does in fact block.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The former. Obviously someone placing an ad doesn't make money, they have to pay to place the ad.
However, since the AdBlock Plus app only pertains to surfing the web
This article says it blocks in-app ads as well, which was always my impression: http://lifehacker.com/5963428/adblock-plus-for-android-kills-mobile-ads-in-all-your-apps
does your questioning me about my statement really seem relevant?
I wasn't questioning your statement, I was answering your question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is from the website:
"Adblock Plus for Android is an Android app that runs in the background and filters ads, using the same filter lists as the Adblock Plus browser extensions . It works on Android version 2.1 and higher."
That being said, it seems that the advertisements it blocks serve no purpose except to fund Google and online advertising companies. The people advertising pay Google to run the ads while you are running an app, and the developers of said apps are likely to get the short end of the stick. The advertisement's only purposes are to spam/sell other products to a user of an app, and to fund the existence of an app.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://adblockplus.org/en/android-about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't really care. you can either adapt or die, is not my problem.
My phone, my rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It goes like this
I used Google Chrome briefly on my iPad; they have a setting to block ads but you'd never know it. I've been using AtomicWeb for a couple of years, can customize which ads I want blocked, and I've been very pleased with it.
Small eye-catches are fine, like the one our local paper used for Belle Tire. It's the intrusive, take-over-your-computer READ THIS NOW!!!! click-thru crap I hate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The same is true of Kickstarter - I would never have tried it if not for the Amanda Palmer story (I don't care for her music but I love her personality). Now I am a regular there, and since I pass on my discoveries to others...
In a case like TD it's a little more awkward since they actually rely on the ads to some extent. But if even _they_ can manage to live with Adblock then certainly no one else can claim a legitimate reason to whine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't feel guilty blocking Techdirt's ads because I Flattr the hell out of it. I highly recommend Flattr as a much better alternative to advertising for websites to make some money. I've already thrown more money at Techdirt that way than at any other website (okay, it's still not a huge amount, but probably 100x more than they would have made on me through advertising).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do what I do -- block the ads, but sign up for a paid membership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I automatically flinch away from the term 'membership' because it so often involves automatic renewals - something I refuse to do. But I haven't even looked yet so that's just a reflex reaction/assumption. Maybe I'll look into it with next month's budget...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it was a fucking mess. most of my normal pages were now buried in obnoxious ads. add to that the potential for getting served some malware from a random ad on an otherwise trustworthy site, and i can't imagine choosing to do it, not for you masnick, not for anyone.
Also, am i hallucinating, or is this the second story about this within the last 48 hours or so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fine. Go to another platform. See if they treat you any better.
Brat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys are insane
...and it kills all the sources of revenue app developers DEPEND ON TO MAKE A LIVING in the meantime!
Ugh. The apps with advertising you use DO NOT BELONG TO YOU. The general agreement is that if the app is free, you use it, it's acceptable for the app to show ads in order to, you know, allow people to create these things in the first friggin' place. If you don't want to view ads for a free version of the app, then you don't deserve to use it. It's truly a very small inconvenience; it's a way to say thanks to the person who spent all the time, money, and energy into creating something you use.
Seriously. Screw all of you ungrateful, entitled turds that think you deserve everything for free and can't put up with a small portion of the screen used for advertising. I'm a huge Android fan but you guys ruin it ALL! You refuse to pay for apps, and if you opt for the free version (or do not have any other choice because of your region) you decide, "Hey, what a great idea! Let's deny them ANY form of payment!" They aren't asking for much.
I've never used ad blockers on my phone. I've yet to run into something that I actually want to use that uses ads that are really annoying. If I do I remove the app (basically, only 2 apps ever, and they used ads in notifications).
And you wonder why nobody wants to develop for Android???
Screw you guys. I'm using Android, but developing for iOS from now on if this is the shit attitude that you self-righteous, entitled brats choose to uphold.
Done. Just DONE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are insane
Advertisements are a huge waste of everyone's bandwidth, time, attention, and don't forget battery life: it has been proven that ads take up the majority of some application's CPU usage, as with Angry Birds.
Lastly, if you put your application on the Play Store or on the Internet for free, then you have no claim over anybody in any way. If you don't want people to block your ads, then don't put it on the Play Store / Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You guys are insane
I know that I have seen Angry Birds merchandise just about everywhere recently. I wouldn't be surprised if those guys made more money off of T-shirts and plushes then they have from the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You guys are insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You guys are insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are insane
AdBlock is intended to block just the shitty ads. So. Shitty ads = no money from ads.
Good/relevant/entertaining ads = $$$
Out of curiousity, you hate a DVR's ability to fast forward, don't you? What about the fact that a person can ignore ads in a magazine? Or are you somehow compartmentalizing your entertainment, and justifying it only when you benefit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You guys are insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You guys are insane
Actually I have nothing against ad-supported products (The entire broadcast industry was built on ads), it's just that they have become obnoxious. And that is especially true of the internet ads which became so bad that not blocking them stopped being an option for myself and many others. In fairness, the fault could be laid at the feet of the ad distributors, but that's just quibbling over details. The fact remains that internet ads did became monstrosities and it is nearly impossible to surf safely without blocking at least some of them.
If anyone doesn't like it then they can lobby for the advertising industry to do its own internal policing rather then attacking innocent consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are insane
What is really cool about the browser extension version is that it allows you to see what it filters. The list in each one is quite extensive as there are 11 different subscribed filters you can add to your list and each one of them from a different country.
The mobile app version uses a proxy to access these lists rather than storing them locally within the system like the browser extension versions do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are insane
Developing a game and putting it on either market takes a short time , maybe a few weeks if the developer is any good at coding. So after developing apps you want to ignore the biggest market and lose those sales, I think you will find many people laughing at your idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are insane
...and it kills all the sources of revenue app developers DEPEND ON TO MAKE A LIVING in the meantime!"
While some advertising is OK, AdBlock plus blocks out the ad spaces on a web page. The ads sent to these spaces are random and from various servers around the world.
The advertisers pay to have their ads run on pages. AdBlock Plus sends a signal stating that you actually "saw" the advertisements because that is how it works. AdBlock Plus works by taking incoming data and modifying the Presentation layer of a web page to not show advertisements.
The connection is still present but only to indicates that their ad was "seen".
That being said as long as nothing is shown at the presentation layer in the OSI model, you cannot click on the ad's inadvertently or see them. So all that really is done is blanking those spaces out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very well said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will they outlaw text browsers or turning off graphics/multimedia on pages next time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since having ad block i think i have blocked all advertising , but am now allowing non intrusive advertising, i find it only fair to support sites in this way, but as soon as the adverts become intrusive again, add block will be set to block everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I was running things there, I'd have dropped Flash ad support some time ago; not just because nobody likes them, but also because they're a clear malware vector.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I've learned from the comments here
2. Google is acting out of self interest.
3. Just because ads are a part of a business model that doesn't mean you as a consumer MUST view them.
4. Technology or any method of avoiding ads is completely ethical.
5. Unlike iOS there are alternatives to download and install apps (Amazon and Samsung for example).
6. This move by Google will at worst backfire with huge backlash, or be insignificant since Google Play is not the only place to obtain Android apps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I've learned from the comments here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I've learned from the comments here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What I've learned from the comments here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I've learned from the comments here
2. Google is most certainly acting out of self interest...but at the benefit of their most highly prized customers...I'll give you a hint, it isn't Android users.
3. Just because ads are a part of a business model that doesn't mean you as a consumer MUST view them, but Google thinks so and all AddBlock Plus was used for was surfing the World Wide Web safely.
4. Technology or any method of avoiding ads is completely ethical and Google missed that point by a long shot.
5. Unlike iOS there are alternatives to download and install apps (Amazon and Samsung for example). Two separate stores that do not carry AdBlock Plus, which is free, whose developers used no advertising to promote its product. If anything, Google is becoming more like Apple in that sense.
6. This move by Google will at worst backfire with huge backlash.
Fixed that for you ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I've learned from the comments here
This is the Android app, not the browser extension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What I've learned from the comments here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone hates advertising and everyone needs to get paid. That's always been true too. Eventually this will play out the exact same way this scenario has always played out since literally the dawn of man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Google being Google.
Now of course that being said there is no real justification for Google to remove AdBlockPlus from GooglePlay for Chrome or Android. The whole point of AdBlock Plus is to view a web page unhindered and cleanly. Facebook is a VERY good example of where you would want to block advertising. A lot of those advertisements seem like legitimate links to the passing eye, and they are made to look like Facebook's own ad space "Sponsored Links".
The only reason I think Google is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Google being Google.
Are you sure? So I still count as a "view" if I visit a page with ads while having Adblock on? How do you know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Google being Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More Google being Google.
The Android app, or the browser extension?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More Google being Google.
"Adblock Plus for Android is an Android app that runs in the background and filters ads, using the same filter lists as the Adblock Plus browser extensions. It works on Android version 2.1 and higher."
http://adblockplus.org/en/android-about
If the device is rooted, Adblock Plus will filter all web traffic out of the box.
On non-rooted devices running Android 3.1 and higher, Adblock Plus will filter all WiFi traffic out of the box.
On non-rooted devices running Android 3.0 and older, Adblock Plus needs to be configured as a proxy server manually. Some devices do not support proxy configuration, and Adblock Plus does not work on those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More Google being Google.
Due to the nature of Android, I strongly doubt whether Adblock can reach within all applications and hide ads there: I much rather think it simply blocks the IP addresses of the advertising companies. I use Adaway on Android, which works so well in nearly all applications that I cannot believe it would work in any other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Google being Google.
Not that it matters since everything is based on volume anyway and the fact that 'x' out of every 100 people _will_ look at the ad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too harsh on Google
In that sort of environment, Play Store removing these apps is a dumb move on Google's part, but does not warrant any real outrage. You are not in a walled garden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too harsh on Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too harsh on Google
In any case, on Android platforms there is no need to root your device to use other stores or sideload apps. You can do that out of the box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Too harsh on Google
But even so, I don't see what the big deal is. You can't get the app in Google's store, but you can get with with equal ease in several other places.
Myself, I don't use it so I don't know. I use a firewall instead, which is very effective at blocking in-app ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Too harsh on Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Too harsh on Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too harsh on Google
"It is illegal in the US to root your device"
It is NOT illegal in the United States to root your device. As I've pointed out to you before.
The only thing in the U.S. regarding rooting is that by doing so you risk voiding your warranty. Nothing more, nothing less.
"and AdBlock Plus requires a rooted device to function straight out of the box without a proxy."
But ONLY to do that without a proxy, as well as block ads in Chrome and in-app.
You DO NOT require root though to use AdBlock Plus, but it'll only block ads over WiFi (for Android 3.1+).
"There is really no reason to have it pulled from Google Play in the first place as the app does not harm App developers in any way."
No reason EXCEPT for the fact that it violates one of the rules for the Play Store developer distribution agreements. Notably "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."
Any adblocking software or program interferes with and disrupts the services of third parties. As such, they would be in violation of said rule and subject to being pulled from the Play Store. (But still available elsewhere.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Too harsh on Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Too harsh on Google
Software is copyright protected so that applies to any software that has protections. Trying to access Android by circumventing its protections to not let you access the root is clearly illegal under the law.
Unless stated otherwise by the Librarian of Congress.
Quote:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201
So I am sorry, but it is illegal to root any Android or iOS or any other OS to have access to it, heck even Windows.
We all do it, but the law says it is illegal, therein lies all the problem.
Quote:
So any security apps out there then are to be blocked now or that rule only applies to "certain" types of apps and not others that do exactly that?
SELinux is on Android now and it is a big deal.
https://plus.google.com/+DerekRoss/posts/KX2HyQjETpX
SELinux grants access or not to anything trying to access it, one can write a policy that would ban ads.
Adblockers are access control systems for a particular type of traffic, but an access control at its heart none the less, so I fail to see how this is a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That other product...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That other product...
AdBlock Plus is the app they pulled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Side-loading
When you side-load, you have to turn off security. And the risk is that after you finish installing an app via a side-load, you might not turn security back on.
And that could allow malware to get installed, which in turn could turn your phone into a zombie.
This risk becomes greater with the number of useful apps that Google disallows and move out of Play.
The risk of phishing sites purporting to have the app will increase as well.
This is a bad move by Google in many ways. And it will hurt them in the long run.
Better if Google had forced it to be a paid app.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side-loading
Those are also very good points, though it is still Google's right to make this choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side-loading
You don't turn off security, you just check a box that says you want to side load apps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side-loading
I will stand slightly corrected though, as what you do is click a check in the box to "Allow installation of non-market apps", referred to as "Unknown sources".
So you check to allow it, not uncheck the setting. But it is definitely under the Security Settings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side-loading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Side-loading
You have a reasonable expectation that the app is not malware when you install through Play. (Much better of late.) You have no such reassurances at other places. And if you don't reset the settings in Security, then malware has a much better chance of being installed, either through mistakenly going to the wrong place, or having done so, the app you installed itself installs other apps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
The only time there is an inherent risk when installing an app outside of the Play Store is when you download .apk files from less than legitimate sites (warez among others).
You DO NOT have to "reset the settings in Security" in order to protect against malware. You simply have to take caution in what apps you install and from where. Simple as that.
It is purely a myth that malware lurks around every corner for Android.
App permissions also can determine if an app is legit or has malware built into it.
All of that is of course ignoring the fact that no app can install itself without your express permission or interaction on your part.
Oh, and you don't have to side load an app in the manner you stated. If you use ADB you can install an app WITHOUT having to check "Unknown Sources" in Security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side-loading
1) As was pointed out by others you do not "turn off security" to sideload apps.
2) The infection risks in Android are overblown (I'll get links for you on this if you wish).
3) Most Android users are tech savvy and know how to avoid apps that are a potential problem.
4) Unlike iOS Android apps have many markets: Google Play, Amazon, Samsung and others.
5) As a developer for both platforms I've gotta tell you that it is a HELL of alot easier to publish apps for Android than it is to enter Apple's walled garden. Also the revenue is greater because Google is not as greedy as Apple.
6) If anything, Google having an open market will actually help them in the long run. We have learned by sad experience that as soon as someone obtains authority, as they suppose, *Cough* Apple *Cough*, they begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. This almost always leads to a revolution where the “peasants” gravitate to more open and liberal masters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Side-loading
Needless to say, Google pulled a dick move. There are a lot more less tech savvy people using Android than you know...not everyone is an Android developer like you, and because of that, the less tech savvy people won't know about rooting or side loading or any crap like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
"The fact that Google pulled AdBlock Plus from its own store and left its usefulness to other markets indicates Google's own walled garden."
Google has no walled garden. This isn't iOS where someone is telling you what you can or cannot download and install.
Google has no garden, they have their own store where they curate the items on the shelves. But you are free to walk out of their store and visit any number of others, or even get directly from the manufacturer/developer. This, by definition, is the opposite of a walled garden.
"Needless to say, Google pulled a dick move."
And we all know Apple does the same thing regularly, so why is it in this case, when Google does it, that it becomes "a dick move"?
"There are a lot more less tech savvy people using Android than you know...not everyone is an Android developer like you, and because of that, the less tech savvy people won't know about rooting or side loading or any crap like that."
Ah yes, the "rooting is hard" argument you've used before. If the app is gone, most people won't know about it period. But you don't have to be "tech savvy" to know about rooting or side loading.
The people know about it, and if they can't do it themselves (as far as rooting) they ask someone to do it for them. But with the numerous one-clicks out there, anyone can do it. Even you. As long as they know their device and the word "rooting", they can perform a Google search and find out what they need to achieve root. The process is as straightforward as can be and any noob/non-tech savvy person can do it in half an hour at the worst.
As far as side loading goes, even easier, as it doesn't require root to side load an app. You literally click on an apk and it tells you to go into Security in Settings and tick off allow Unknown Sources. At which point you can click on any apk and install it yourself. The process couldn't be easier.
Seriously, Wally, stop trying to make Android seem like this insanely complicated mobile OS that no one who isn't a developer would ever be able to figure out.
Hell, Exynos Abuse anyone? I'm aiming this at you in particular Wally. You say non-tech savvy people can't figure anything out. That's an APK that literally roots almost any Samsung device. You "side load" it, run it and with the push of a button it roots your device. The whole process from side load to root takes 15 seconds if you're an idiot.
As far as the various adblocking apps go though, they are in fact in direct violation of Google's Terms of Service for developers. So Google is in the right in pulling them, and I say that as someone who has upon rooting any device immediately installs AdAway (an open source adblocker). The apps though are still available through any of the numerous other markets/sites/sources/etc and are still available for install.
So stop painting Google as some kind of villain. Is it not cool that they did this? Yes. Is it the end of the world? Not in the least. Is rooting beyond easy? Insanely so. Ditto side loading? Yep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
You missed the part where I mentioned that Google's walled garden had nothing to do with development and adding apps and that it pertains more towards advertising.
"And we all know Apple does the same thing regularly, so why is it in this case, when Google does it, that it becomes "a dick move"?"
We already know Apple had one...but that is usually from error or truly harmful apps that briefly end up on iTunes. Google pulled AdBlock Plus specifically because it basically "interfered with business"...what businsess was that??? Advertising. Google's main income is advertising.
"As far as the various adblocking apps go though, they are in fact in direct violation of Google's Terms of Service for developers."
I use AdBlock Plus on a regular basis. The web browser extensions work exactly the same as the app did....it blocked internet advertisements ....as in web browsing ads. How many Android developers are affected by an app that blocks ads as you surf the web? Google pulled AdBlock Plus because the app blocked ads made by Google's in house advertising business. Pullinng it from the app store was nothing but a dick move and denying that fact is detrimental to your statement stating I know nothing.
"Seriously, Wally, stop trying to make Android seem like this insanely complicated mobile OS that no one who isn't a developer would ever be able to figure out."
Maybe you should ask your grandma to root your phone for you and see how she reacts. It is not clearly written how do side load any app at all out of the box...which is where most average consumers like myself know nothing about it..that's right I know nothing about Android, but I know a dick move when I see one. It was Google's decision to remove AdBlock Plus when they had no reason to.....not Google's developers who work on Android...it was a descision pushed by Google's advertising division AdSense.
"So stop painting Google as some kind of villain. Is it not cool that they did this? Yes. Is it the end of the world? Not in the least. Is rooting beyond easy? Insanely so. Ditto side loading? Yep."
Is rooting/unlocking your device currently legal in the US??? Nope.
"As far as side loading goes, even easier, as it doesn't require root to side load an app. You literally click on an apk and it tells you to go into Security in Settings and tick off allow Unknown Sources."
That is a security issue.
"Ah yes, the "rooting is hard" argument you've used before. If the app is gone, most people won't know about it period. But you don't have to be "tech savvy" to know about rooting or side loading."
Well lets see, might not be very hard and people can get instructions on how to do it...but it is not current legal here in the US because rooting your device is not legal.
"Google has no garden, they have their own store where they curate the items on the shelves. But you are free to walk out of their store and visit any number of others, or even get directly from the manufacturer/developer. This, by definition, is the opposite of a walled garden."
Might not be for development, but you are stuck to Google's advertising company, AdSense, and cannot use anyone else. The walled garden is their mobile advertising business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
Wally, again, AdBlock Plus isn't the only one missing. ALL ADBLOCKING APPS HAVE BEEN PULLED FROM THE PLAY STORE! Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE PLAY STORE DEVELOPER DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT! Seriously, get the fucking facts before you start commenting on things you know nothing about. In this case, everything.
"Is rooting/unlocking your device currently legal in the US??? Nope."
Apparently, your stupidity knows no bounds. ROOTING ANY DEVICE IS PERFECTLY LEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES. WHAT IS ILLEGAL IS UNLOCKING A DEVICE TO MOVE TO ANOTHER CARRIER. WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM UNLOCKING A BOOTLOADER IN AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN ROOT.
Fuck man. I seriously hate repeating myself just to correct your ignorance.
"That is a security issue."
THAT IS NOT A SECURITY ISSUE. Individually as an adult selecting or deselecting the option to install apps not directly from the Play Store is NOT a security issue, it is being an adult and acknowledging that you have a choice to make as to where to get and install your apps.
However, apps cannot install themselves and unless you go actively searching in places you shouldn't to install apps there is literally no risk and therefore no security issue.
Again, stop spinning things into something they're not due to your glaring lack of knowledge/experience with Android devices.
"Well lets see, might not be very hard and people can get instructions on how to do it...but it is not current legal here in the US because rooting your device is not legal."
ROOTING YOUR DEVICE IS PERFECTLY FUCKING LEGAL FOR THE UPTEENTH TIME. Stop spreading lies and misinformation.
"Might not be for development, but you are stuck to Google's advertising company, AdSense, and cannot use anyone else. The walled garden is their mobile advertising business."
And who fucking cares? Besides you apparently. Walled garden directly refers to the selection of apps available for use, always has since Apple made the term popular due to their curating of the App Store. That is what the average person means when they say and hear the term "walled garden".
So your point is irrelevant. Secondly, you're still wrong. Like you've been about everything else.
"Might not be for development"
Ah, here we go. The infamous Wally "well what I meant was" approach to not admitting error. This is the "Droid means Android" nonsense all over again.
Look, let's keep it simple. You know nothing about Android, or Google really. I do. So do many others on here. You've been completely in the wrong thus far and aren't going to change that any time soon. So how about you just bow down to my knowledge/expertise, call me a troll for questioning/challenging/correcting you and walk off with your tail between your legs before things get any worse for you?
As for my grandmother, she A. doesn't speak English B. doesn't know how to use a computer and C. doesn't believe in using cell phones. So yeah, point not made. But any person who can use a computer and perform a Google search can, again, easily root their devices. Much like any person who can use a computer and do a search of any kind has no excuse for being a complete idiot on a subject and trying to come off as an expert. HINT FUCKING HINT. Get a clue. Use Google to learn a thing or two about rooting being legal in the United States, checking "Unknown Sources" NOT being a security issue, and any of the other numerous things you've been wrong in this thread so far.
Heck, you've been corrected just on the rooting being legal multiple fucking times in this thread, and there you go trying to use that to make a point nonetheless. Do you like being an idiot? Or do you just like having your idiocy pointed out routinely, as some form of sick sadism kick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
The article I read and the article Wally read, and pretty much everyone else read stated that AdBlock Plus was specifically pulled.
"Ah, here we go. The infamous Wally "well what I meant was" approach to not admitting error. This is the "Droid means Android" nonsense all over again."
Oh you mean his comment which you only half read showing the lack of reading comprehension you poses?
To quote Wally:
The AdBlock Plus app prevented advertisers from tracking Android users as well as block Internet browsing ads. Its not political and its not Apple vs. Google/Android, it's the simple fact that Google's main income stems from advertising now and that the app they pulled, which actually benefits the consumer by saving on bandwidth and download caps, and preventing their activities from being tracked by a computer running an algorithm...
Yup I highlighted it and I think he meant to trail off with those dots.
"As for my grandmother, she A. doesn't speak English B. doesn't know how to use a computer and C. doesn't believe in using cell phones. So yeah, point not made."
A. How was Wally supposed to know that B. Use your native tongue..I'm sure Wally didn't state English as the specific language C. If she got a new one, she would be vulnerable.
"Heck, you've been corrected just on the rooting being legal multiple fucking times in this thread,"
Maybe so, but when you root your device on your own in the US also involves unlocking your phone....which is illegal in the US...where Wally is from...
Oh and for AdBlock Plus to work, you now have to Root your Android device. Side loading opens up security issues.
"Do you like being an idiot?"
Do you like being corrected on things that happen in the US you piece of Euro trash? If you A). Actually read the article you would notice that AdBlock Plus was specifically pulled. B) If you had done your research you would have noted how AdBlock Plus only blocks advertisements while viewing web pages on the Internet. C) The only reason you ever come in and "correct" Wally is because you're stalking him.
You flipped out because Wally criticized Google. You have no right to be authoritative to anyone in the way you have been to Wally. Get a fucking hint you asshole...nobody seems to care about your supposed authoritative "knowledge" of Google's business practices. You are more ignorant than he is because you lack basic English reading comprehension skills that most other foreign people on this website surpass you on.
You're nothing but a dusch bag. I don't see you correcting anyone else's ignorant comments which makes Wally your specific target. That makes you an irrelevant little bitch of a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
AdBlock Plus was pulled. ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER ADBLOCKER. Now, if you or Wally want to get uppity you'd do well to at least check multiple sources before coming at me with an attitude. I've forgotten more about Android than either of you have ever known. I guarantee that.
"Maybe so, but when you root your device on your own in the US also involves unlocking your phone....which is illegal in the US...where Wally is from...
Oh and for AdBlock Plus to work, you now have to Root your Android device. Side loading opens up security issues."
No, unlocking your phone is not illegal, at least not what is required when it comes to obtaining root. As I've stated, multiple times, the only thing currently illegal in the U.S. is unlocking your phone to switch carriers, also known as SIM unlocking. How do I know this? I'm a U.S. citizen and I do this for people regularly. In order to achieve root on SOME devices, you do have to unlock your bootloader. But unlocking your bootloader is NOT illegal in the U.S. Although in some instances it will void your warranty.
Consider yourself and Wally corrected. Again. Tards.
And no, AdBlock Plus DOES NOT need root in order to work. It specifically says so. However, if you do have root you can do additional things you couldn't otherwise. Namely avoid the whole having to use and setup the proxy thing, as well as block ALL ads over the mobile data connection and WiFi.
Again, consider yourself schooled.
"Do you like being corrected on things that happen in the US you piece of Euro trash? If you A). Actually read the article you would notice that AdBlock Plus was specifically pulled. B) If you had done your research you would have noted how AdBlock Plus only blocks advertisements while viewing web pages on the Internet. C) The only reason you ever come in and "correct" Wally is because you're stalking him. "
I'm an American first off. Now onto other things.
A. AdBlock Plus along with every other adblocking app was pulled. Do your research and check multiple sources before discussing Android, maybe then you'll learn a thing or two and maybe then you'll be able to try and correct me about things you also know nothing about.
B. Completely irrelevant to anything I stated to Wally.
C. No, I DO NOT stalk Wally. But I do correct his ignorant stupidity and misinformation. Android DOES NOT need further misinformation and lies spread about it. That's all Wally does. Talk about things he knows nothing about. And until he learns to either quit doing so, or to do a little research to make sure he does know what he's talking about, I will keep correct him when it comes to subjects that I am an authority on. Android being one of them.
"You flipped out because Wally criticized Google. You have no right to be authoritative to anyone in the way you have been to Wally. Get a fucking hint you asshole...nobody seems to care about your supposed authoritative "knowledge" of Google's business practices. You are more ignorant than he is because you lack basic English reading comprehension skills that most other foreign people on this website surpass you on."
No, I've yet to flip out. I corrected Wally because he was stating incorrect things about Android. Deal with it. I'm not discussing Google, I'm discussing Android and things associated with it. And might I add, if you're going to try and insult my reading comprehension skills, at least make sure your sentences are gramatically correct. That last sentence is atrocious. But it's nice to see you defend Wally so adamantly. Especially when you're both wrong on the same exact things. Wally, what have we told you about defending yourself in articles? It's very troll like.
"You're nothing but a dusch bag. I don't see you correcting anyone else's ignorant comments which makes Wally your specific target. That makes you an irrelevant little bitch of a troll."
First off, it's "douchebag". Secondly, nobody else is stating things like "rooting is illegal in the U.S." or any of the plethora of other things that are so completely false and wrong it boggles the mind. When someone else does, I correct them too. But when it comes to Android, only Wally comes in talking nonsense. So if he's my "specific target" it's because he brings it on himself. He claims to know nothing about Android yet insist rooting is illegal in the United States and can't adequately differentiate between SIM unlocking (which is illegal) and unlocking a bootloader (which is occasionally required to obtain root). Huge difference between the two. If Wally, or you, don't want to get corrected or singled out either shut up or do the research to be in the right. I won't spare either of you. If you don't like being corrected that's your problem. Be right and it won't happen.
But it's cute how I got under your skin and how Wally "disappeared". Might as well just sign in as Wally. It'd be the same thing. At least be man enough to admit your wrong and defend yourself I say. Otherwise, the little irrelevant bitch is the guy unable to do either of those things. And sheesh. Kiss your mother with that mouth? I call Wally an idiot, you pull out douchebag and stalking and troll and whatnot. You both have issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
That is full admission that you are attacking me and nobody else. Did I wrong you some how in a past life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
"A. How was Wally supposed to know that B. Use your native tongue..I'm sure Wally didn't state English as the specific language C. If she got a new one, she would be vulnerable."
A. Native tongue or not. It has no bearing on points 2 and 3 or B and C that I raised. Why? Let me explain.
B. She cannot use a computer. In her native language, Spanish, or any other language. Which directly goes against my stated bit earlier about "if you know your specific device and how to do a Google search for rooting it then you can do it easily and within 30 minutes".
C. She doesn't believe in using cell phones, much less owning one. So she would NEVER buy a new one period. And, even, for the sake of argument, that she did, rooting DOES NOT pose a security risk or open one up to vulnerability. I and others have stated why that is multiple times in this thread. Only an idiot thinks "Unknown Sources" being checked = OMGZ MALWARE!!! Or any other stupidity along that line.
Reading comprehension for the win, am I right?
And to save you time, rooting is legal in the United States and elsewhere, just remember that unlocking your bootloader (which is also legal) MAY void your warranty. So proceed at your own risk/with caution. Also, rooting grants one additional security protections that would otherwise not be available to the average end user. Ranging from the ability to enable/disable Device Administrators (allowing one additional security protection for misplaced phones), to the ability to grant or deny specific permission requests from individual applications, as well as to enable or install security patches that the manufacturers are not pushing out OTA (over the air) at the moment. I could easily list numerous other reasons why root is actually a good thing from a security standpoint, but ignorance is bliss and all. So it'd fall on yours and Wally's deaf ears.
Hey, this is fun. Let's do this again sometime soon, yes? Me correcting you too that is. That and pushing your buttons. I like doing both those things. It's oh so much fun.
I'll post some links when I have a chance backing up everything I've stated thus far about rooting and unlocking (SIM and bootloader). That way I can watch you go silent too, rather than admit being in the wrong. The satisfaction I'll get from that will be tremendous, as a troll and all (which I supposedly am).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
Care to show us where in the text of the law it says that exactly?
Quote:
Source: Cornell University Law School - USC - Title 17 - Chapter 12 - § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems
Did the Librarian of Congress authorized such a thing this year?
Quote:
Source: Cornell University Law School - USC - Title 17 - Chapter 12 - § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems
I saw no such thing, but maybe I miss it, so I am asking you to provide a verifiable reference to what you are saying.
I do agree though that rooting is a good thing for security reasons and also for social ones.
But your interpretation of the law may be lacking somewhat or I may be ignorant of some detail, so again please clarify your statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
With the two sources listed below.
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/2012-26308_PI.pdf
http://www.androidpolice.com/201 2/10/26/new-dmca-exemptions-allow-rooting-phones-but-not-tablets-unapproved-phone-unlocks-will-be-a- thing-of-the-past/
But if you want the specific text that the Library of Congress put out which covers rooting, "Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute lawfully obtained software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications with computer programs on the telephone handset."
As far as unlocking a bootloader goes that never has been illegal. But as I stated, it will void your warranty. If it was illegal, as Wally and the AC continually claim it is, then HTC, Samsung, Motorola, Google, etc wouldn't have official websites available to U.S. customers that specifically allow for the unlocking of the bootloader, which is occasionally required to obtain root.
http://www.htcdev.com/bootloader
https://motorola-global-portal.custhelp.com/app/standal one/bootloader/unlock-your-device-a
Etc. All of which clearly state on the website that unlocking the bootloader will void your warranty. In some cases even going so far as to state that just obtaining the unlock code to gain the ability to unlock the bootloader is enough to render a warranty void, even if you don't actually use it to unlock the bootloader.
The only thing currently illegal in the United States is SIM unlocking of cell phones. And that was effective as of October 28, 2012 when the previous exemption expired.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-26308.pdf
And no, my interpretation of the law is not lacking. I'm just oversimplifying things by saying "rooting is not illegal". The legalese can be found in any of the links I provided above. Rooting isn't necessarily the issue, so much as "unlocking", which according to some (Wally) is illegal and needed for root, but which is incorrect as I stated above. As the type of unlocking that is illegal has nothing to do with the type of unlocking needed to obtain root.
Although, if one can obtain a full unlock on the bootloader (which can be easy or difficult depending on the device) one can easily SIM unlock their device on their own, sans carrier assistance/approval. But again, two different types of unlocking and the one related to root is needed before being able to do the one that is illegal. HTC devices being the primary ones for which SIM unlocking, after fully unlocking the bootloader, is readily and relatively easily done. Although fully unlocking some HTC device bootloaders can be a pain. But then it depends on how full an unlock you want to have and what you really want to do with your phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/26/unlocking-your-phone-is-now-illegal-but-what-does-that-mea n-for-you/
"Everything was copacetic until this past October, when the U.S. Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress spent time reviewing some of those exceptions made to the DMCA. Geekier endeavors like jailbreaking or rooting your devices are still totally kosher, but after extensive review the original exemption for unlocking phones was overturned, noting the ability for users to unlock their own phones for use on other networks just wasn’t necessary anymore given the perceived ease of obtaining either a pre-unlocked phone or a carrier-sanctioned way to unlock one"
"So yes, unlocking your phone without your carrier’s explicit approval is technically verboten. But let’s not forget what this particular change doesn’t mean — the police most likely aren’t going to knock down your door because you felt the compulsion to free your phone from your carrier’s shackles."
You have to ask your carrier here in the US to unlock your phone. Also, when you jailbreak or root your device, it unlocks your device.
You have no real knowledge of the matter and this was a decision made by the Library of Congress. DMCA or not, the US LOC has control over such matters.
I provided one link...just one link to all the Cornell Law Links you clearly did not read....and you had to trawl Wikipedia for the answer without working for the applied knowledge based upon the world around you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
No, when you root or jailbreak it DOES NOT unlock your device. You're so in the wrong it's hard to see why you keep grasping.
The only thing illegal now is SIM unlocking your device. Nothing more.
I posted a Wiki link, because it simplifies things for others. It basically puts it in terms that are as simple to understand as possible, and yet somehow (unsurprisingly) you STILL don't get it and still refuse to admit you're wrong and still think you're right.
SIM unlocking is not the same as rooting or unlocking a bootloader. I can't explain it any more or any simpler for you.
You're wrong. End of story. That you revert to legalese to try and be right says it all. Because even then, you're still wrong.
"You have no real knowledge of the matter and this was a decision made by the Library of Congress. DMCA or not, the US LOC has control over such matters. "
Wally, you have no real knowledge period. You've been beyond wrong about Android and rooting before, you'll continue being wrong about Android and rooting and unlocking in the future. Seriously, do you get some kind of kick out of being wrong and having it pointed out to you repeatedly?
"I provided one link...just one link to all the Cornell Law Links you clearly did not read....and you had to trawl Wikipedia for the answer without working for the applied knowledge based upon the world around you."
I provided a link as I saw fit, as well as the two citations for said link the PDF and Android Police links that back it up. Why you still think you're right that "rooting is illegal" is beyond me. Because you're not.
As for "without working for the applied knowledge based on upon the world around you"... HA! Wally, I root phones daily. Ditto unlocking bootloaders. I randomly SIM unlock phones when someone request that I do so, but that's pretty rare.
I have more applied knowledge and real world experience in the matter in any given day than you've ever had in your entire life.
So please, spare me that BS. Is it seriously so hard to just say, "I was wrong. Apologies for that. I now stand corrected." Just say it, you'll grow as a person for doing so, I all but guarantee it.
I mean fuck. You literally quoted techcrunch and it even says in what you quote that rooting is kosher, by which they mean legal. And you STILL say it isn't? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?
That quote even backs up what I've stated multiple times in this thread. Rooting is legal. SIM unlocking isn't, but it previous was for a short period. Now you need permission.
UNLOCKING MEANS SIM UNLOCKING TO MOVE TO ANOTHER CARRIER. It DOES NOT mean bootloader unlocking and it for damn sure doesn't mean rooting.
Just stop. For your own sake. Because you were annoying at first, but amusing, and now you're just getting desperate and I'd rather not make you cry or something. (As if we both don't know that you didn't already reply as an AC in defense of yourself. Anything you say denying that I'll just ignore. The guy writes just like you. Coincidence? Doubtful.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
I am not a psychiatrist, I am a psychologist. I can only recommend that you see a psychiatrist to get medication for your paranoia and delusions of grandeur concerning your assertive authoritative nature.
The US does not use replaceable SIM cards because thats a feature of GSM based phones. The US uses CD/MA2000 (3G/4GLTE) and HPSA+ (Mainly used by AT&T). Rooting your phone also means modifying your locked SIM card on your own,once again...in the US...which cannot be done legally in the US as of 26, January 2013.
Since you have a habit of trawling Wikipedia here is SIM Locking...which is done in the US. Side Loading is legal yes...but Boot Loading involves modifying the SIM.....once again, NOT LEGAL IN THE US. You are sounding more and more ignorant through your interpretation of US law, and the simple fact that you don't know that US carriers use SIM Locking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock
Rooting is bypassing the hardware lock on a device with a software code. It varies from device to device. The problem is that most carriers in the US that don't do pay as you go services have the Software Unlock codes built into the firmware of the device and they don't use a replaceable SIM card. Welcome to the US where most devices do not use a SIM card.
You are either from Spain or Mexico, or some other Spanish speaking nation. Judging by your reading skills you are using Google Translate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
So obviously T-Mobile and AT&T DO NOT use SIM cards, right? Oh wait, they do. And they are replaceable and upgradable.
"Rooting your phone also means modifying your locked SIM card on your own,once again...in the US...which cannot be done legally in the US as of 26, January 2013. "
Again, false. Rooting has nothing to do with a SIM card. At all. You can root without unlocking the SIM card. I would know. I have a Nexus 4 with an unlocked bootloader and rooted with T-Mobile.
"but Boot Loading involves modifying the SIM"
No it DOES NOT. At all. SIM unlocking means modifying the bootloader, not the other way around. And SIM unlocking, again, as I've stated multiple times already, which makes me scratch my head why you keep repeating something I've stated, is illegal.
"You are sounding more and more ignorant through your interpretation of US law, and the simple fact that you don't know that US carriers use SIM Locking."
You are sounding more and more like a broken record and a petulant child. I've stated multiple times that SIM unlocking is illegal in the United States. So I fail to see what this has to do with anything I've stated about rooting being legal.
"Rooting is bypassing the hardware lock on a device with a software code. It varies from device to device. The problem is that most carriers in the US that don't do pay as you go services have the Software Unlock codes built into the firmware of the device and they don't use a replaceable SIM card. Welcome to the US where most devices do not use a SIM card."
Wally, you don't know a thing about rooting and you can't admit being in error regarding it's legality.
"You are either from Spain or Mexico, or some other Spanish speaking nation. Judging by your reading skills you are using Google Translate."
I'm from Texas. In the United States. And I speak fluent Spanish as I am of Hispanic descent.
English, despite being your alleged first language, is something you are unable to comprehend. Seeing as how you still can't it through your thick skull that rooting is legal.
You keep trying to conflating SIM unlocking with rooting. And vice versa. And then you try and conflate bootloader unlocking with that.
Who would know more? The guy who actually does this on a regular basis or the guy who has admitted to knowing fuck all about Android and has been proven wrong multiple times in this thread alone, by myself and others?
It's cute that you mention I should see a psychiatrist, seeing as you are the one with the persecution complex. Everyone is out to get you, right? Everyone who questions Wally is a troll. Everyone is stalking Wally. Blah blah blah. [waves hand dismissively]
Yeah, Wally, you're an immature 26 year old know it all who has no knowledge or experience in the real world with Android or IT related matters. Some of us are trying to correct you of your misinformed notions. Some even do it politely, but there comes a point where your childish behavior and inability to admit being wrong gets old and at that point we're going to drop the formalities and be a dick to you. I reached that point a long time ago. I see no reason to treat people with kid gloves when they want to keep acting like idiots. Which you've done and are still doing.
But to summarize, rooting is legal and does not require SIM unlocking a device in order to achieve. It does occasionally require unlocking the bootloader on a device though, and that can in turn allow one to SIM unlock a device. But the latter is dependent on the former, not vice versa (contrary to what you may mistakenly believe).
Oh, and HSPA+ is mainly used by T-Mobile. You know, that'd be the reason they have the HSPA+ 21 and 41 networks, allowing for less restrictive use of GSM (aka SIM card using) smartphones. AT&T less so, although they do use the HSPA+ 21 network.
And it's CDMA, not CD/MA.
At this point, it's evident you know nothing (much like Jon Snow). And the facts are very much against you in every single way.
Keep on being misinformed. You're the one who looks like an idiot and will get put in his place (again) in a future article and then cry about it. Like you've done multiple times now and will likely continue to do so. I really do wonder though why anyone would see a psychologist as childish as yourself. Your lack of maturity must translate to little to no work. As does your inability to handle being in the wrong. Your appeals to authority ("I'm a psychologist"), same thing. When the facts are against you you resort to name calling, appeals to authority or just outright assumptions and lies about others. For shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
You missed this directly below my Wikipedia link. Learn to comprehend as it is clear you know how to read.
"The problem is that most carriers in the US that don't do pay as you go services have the Software Unlock codes built into the firmware of the device and they don't use a replaceable SIM card. "
You see a mistake or something I missed, you then proceed to flip out and not continue on reading. Stop making yourself look like a fool by arguing with a (self admitted) fool.
I have a much higher comprehension of the law than you do concerning this case.
The point I was making before you came in like a bull in a china shop ready to gore me for the littlest of provocation is that Google pulled an App that secures your privacy from advertisers on a mobile device by blocking them out. The mobile version of "AdBlock Plus" BLOCKS ADS ON THE INTERNET as you browse and WORKS the SAME EXACT WAY AS IT'S BROWSER EXTENSION VARIANT and that THERE WAS NO REASON TO HAVE THAT SPECIFIC AD PULLED FROM THE PLAY STORE.
The only REASON you came after me is that I pointed out that this was a dick move on Google's part. I even stated earlier that this was not about my views on Apple/iOS/iTunes vs Google/Android/GooglePlay. The simple fact that you remotely tried to derail that point to other flaws you "saw" in my statements implies you are the most ignorant person between the two of us and are so blinded by your need to be authoritative over someone, you miss every single point that is made in any of my statements, or statements anyone else makes..though the latter is quite rare.
Even when I bold, italicize or use both to highlight my point, yet you still miss it because of your obsession with correcting minor fundamental mistakes that you perceive as the singe catalyst for invaliding an entire statement. Your only goal is to harass and derail which actually makes you a troll.
While I do not mind being corrected by you. I have issues with the way you carry out your corrections and convey them that sets me off, not the facts you show me I missed in the corrections.
That being said you seem hellbent on "correcting" me. Get the hint that I do not listen to people who call me a liar and generally accuse me of intending to spread FUD and misinformation. That is the exact tone that I respond negatively to, and pretty much anyone else responds negativity to it to no matter how right you think you are or seem to be. Because of that, your statements and corrections cannot be taken seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
So now you attack me you using Asperger's Syndrome as a crutch or reason that somehow that I am delusional that you are attacking me:
Let's see here...:
Comment 177;
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/15285222343/bad-move-google-removes-adblock-plus-google-pl ay-store.shtml#c2448
"Oh my god. You see, this is how dumb you are. ONLY THOSE?!"
This is only the opener to show how hypocritical you are and contrary to your claims that you are not attacking me.
"At this point, your credibility is moot. If you don't even know that basic fact there is no reason to even give you the benefit of the doubt on anything else you've stated thus far. Not that I was anyway."
In Short: "There is no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt...not that I have anyway."
"No fucking shit sherlock. But the firmware refers to the Operating System. Not anything else. You're gaining root for the OS. But this has nothing to do with the SIM card or with the IMEI number of a given device, contrary to what you may believe."
Oh I am sure that starting your shit storm of anger clearly shows you not being rude....../s
Comment 170:
"Just stop. For your own sake. Because you were annoying at first, but amusing, and now you're just getting desperate and I'd rather not make you cry or something. (As if we both don't know that you didn't already reply as an AC in defense of yourself. Anything you say denying that I'll just ignore. The guy writes just like you. Coincidence? Doubtful.)"
LOL, paranoid a bit aren't we? You didn't expect a stranger to do something you would never possibly do in real life and tell you off in defense of another?
How about comment 195?: Oh that's right:
"Comment 127 moron. If you can't read that's your problem, again, not mine."
More rudeness you blatantly expect me to bow down to.
"Sheesh man. Like a dog with a bone. You've been wrong over and over and over and over and over and over and over and you still can't admit it and are still trying to argue over points that were made hours ago and which were won by myself."
Like the point you made how I have an inflated ego in comment 176?? Or how about the fact that you were supposedly not being rude to me. Methinks thou doth smoke too much up thine own arse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
False. For the upteenth time. It is legal to root and jailbreak a device in the United States.
It is illegal to unlock a device, as in unlock with the intent to switch the device to work with another carrier. Also known as SIM unlocking.
"The idiots/idiot attacking me above are likely not from the US and do not know current US news concerning phone unlocking."
Translation. "I am making assumptions about someone who is a United States citizen, has more knowledge and experience with Android devices/rooting and unlocking, and is making me look bad and wrong. And I don't like it."
I am from the U.S. I've stated this multiple times. I know the laws on the matter and I know what is or isn't illegal. Rooting is very much legal.
"The petition to make it legal again got the required +100,000 signatures got sent to the White House where they also think it should be legal, but also mentioned that due to checks and balances, it is up to the Library of Congress to decide that 3 years down the line and all the White House can do is recommend that the LOC make phone unlocking legal again."
Yes, this is all true. Except for the fact that it DOES NOT backup anything you've said thus far. It merely backs up that most people think unlocking a phone to allow for easy switching to another carrier should not be illegal.
What you fail to grasp, for whatever moronic reason, is that this has nothing to do with rooting. Nothing at all. Nor does it have anything to do with anything I've stated in correcting you.
I've stated multiple times that SIM unlocking is illegal now. It was only legal for a short period of time. So why you keep citing sources to repeat yourself, on a point I've already made multiple times, is ridiculous.
Here, you know what, since you're obviously a bit thick, and Wikipedia tends to put things as simply as possible here's a few links for you to peruse and maybe you'll learn something and I'll have to stop bitch slapping you with facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock#Unlocking _services
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock#Laws_and_practices
https://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/SIM_lock#United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_rooting
https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Android_rooting#Description
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_rooting#Industry_react ion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_rooting#Legality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andro id_rooting#United_States
For fuck's sake. Read any/all of those and get a fucking clue. Because I really don't want to have to correct you in another article at some point in the future and hear you bitch that I'm picking on you. Which I'm not. And could be avoided easily enough if you took the time to fucking learn something and just admit to being in the wrong and misunderstanding the terms being discussed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
The only devices that currently use a removable SIM card in the US are those that are used by pay as you go services such as Net10 or AT&T's GoPhone.
In the US, most carriers that do not use replaceable SIM cards. If they use a SIM card it is tied to the firmware of the device itself, otherwise the subsidiary lock is coded into the firmware of the device in stead of using the SIM card. Even if you used side booting to root your phone, the firmware of the device is still affected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
Oh my god. You see, this is how dumb you are. ONLY THOSE?!
So T-Mobile and AT&T in general DO NOT use SIM cards that are removable? At all?
"In the US, most carriers that do not use replaceable SIM cards."
In the U.S. there are 4 main carriers. Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile. Of those 4 two DO NOT use SIM cards at all, Verizon and Sprint. The other two do, and they are replaceable.
"If they use a SIM card it is tied to the firmware of the device itself, otherwise the subsidiary lock is coded into the firmware of the device in stead of using the SIM card."
SIM cards are NOT tied to the firmware on the device itself. Meaning they are not tied to the operating system or the bootloader or root or anything like that. SIM cards are tied to the device themselves, and more specifically the IMEI number of a given device. Which is the same number you must give to a carrier to gain the unlock code for your particular device in order to SIM unlock it.
"Even if you used side booting to root your phone, the firmware of the device is still affected."
No fucking shit sherlock. But the firmware refers to the Operating System. Not anything else. You're gaining root for the OS. But this has nothing to do with the SIM card or with the IMEI number of a given device, contrary to what you may believe.
I mean sheesh. You'd think the iPhone lover would know that ANY device on AT&T's network uses a user replaceable SIM card.
At this point, your credibility is moot. If you don't even know that basic fact there is no reason to even give you the benefit of the doubt on anything else you've stated thus far. Not that I was anyway. Seeing as how you know next to nothing about Android or rooting or unlocking devices in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
I mentioned Apple and you assume I'm an iPhone lover...that being said I do love my 4th Gen iPod Touch...which is not tied to a carrier of any kind. My phone is my Android device for which I only use as a phone only as I find that Android's interface does not suit me or my needs well. I suppose after reading that you won't read any further and miss my point (which is below this paragraph) and will try to say that I am wrong because I am using an iDevice and therefore know nothing about Android, even though through this entire comment here I stated that it was a Google decision that had nothing to do with comparing Android to iOS
You're only mad because I said Google made a dick move in pulling "AdBlock Plus" specifically as it does not interfere with ads in apps. That move indicates that they care more about their advertising business more than their own customers' security. Other ad blockers may have blocked ap ads, but not AdBlock Plus.
"Adblock Plus for Android is an Android app that runs in the background and filters ads, using the same filter lists as the Adblock Plus browser extensions."
http://adblockplus.org/en/android-about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
Just curious, why get a smartphone if you don't want the smart part? Syncing contacts with your google account, or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
So since I knew I wouldn't be getting used to Android any time soon and that flip phones were being forced out, I just stuck with the one that made calling easiest for me.. the M580 was it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
Any device accept the iPhone......you clearly know anything about side-booting and iPhone firmware. The firmware is the operating system.....kernel and shell, android is a kernel/shell operating system for mobile devices. The kernel holds Android's basic functions and the specific drivers (aka firmware) for your device. It operates them at s lower level not typcially seen on the GUI or Shell of Android. Some of the firmware is written in by carriers when a phone has an irreplaceable SIM card built in, and more often than not they tie a SIM Card to the specific phone's firmware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
Does the iPhone use a SIM card? Answer: Yes.
Is the iPhone available through such services as Net10 or, more relevant and specifically, AT&T's GoPhone? Answer: No.
So yet again, this is what I'm talking about. Here is direct proof, from your own words, that you DO NOT know what you're talking about. Even about things you are trying to use to your advantage to prove yourself right and me wrong.
That is but one of many things. Nasch already pointed out the quote from TechCrunch about rooting being legal. Yet you saw fit to use that as a quote against me about how you were right and rooting is illegal.
THIS is what I'm talking and this is exactly why I'm going to keep calling you out on your bullshit.
iPhones ALL have replaceable SIM cards, except for the CDMA versions on Sprint and Verizon. And EVEN THEN they still have the user accessible SIM card slot, which can be opened by inserting a paper clip (or similar object) into the tiny pin hole and ejecting the SIM card tray. Thereby making it user accessible and user replaceable. Which, again, proves me right and you fucking wrong.
Just stop, Wally. You have been wrong from the get go and you're only making yourself look worse and worse and losing what little credibility you have left (with others, obviously not with me as you have none with me).
I never claimed to know anything about iPhones. Can you say the same about Android? Because you certainly appear to know things, that all of it is false/incorrect/misleading/misinformation/etc is the issue. That you have problems admitting you know little to nothing about Android and/or Android devices is another issue.
I don't even want to get into the firmware nonsense. You're wrong there too.
All I care(d) about was that "rooting is illegal" (it isn't) and "Google made a dick move because they had no reason to remove adblocking apps" (they did, because they all specifically violate the Play Store Developer Distribution Agreement in that they interfere with the services of other products/applications).
The two things you most harped on about in this thread you were dead wrong about. End of story. The other thing "unlocking is required to root" is also wrong. Especially in the sense and definition that you mean it, which is more adequately referred to as "SIM unlocking". Which is something that is more commonly found and dealt with amongst GSM carriers, as they require SIM cards to operate (like AT&T and T-Mobile, which you were also wrong about, because they both use SIM cards and they are not "pay as you go" service plans).
I've proven you wrong on so many things in this thread alone it's hard to believe you're still trying to one up me. Admit defeat and move on already. Say it with me, "Yes, Texan, you were right and I was wrong. I hate admitting it, but that is how things currently stand. Apologies for acting like a child about things, I just really hate being wrong. More so when I'm wrong and it's proven definitively that I am. That just grinds me gears. I'll try not to let it happen again, but you know me..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/26/unlocking-your-phone-is-now-illegal-but-what-does-that-mea n-for-you/
"Everything was copacetic until this past October, when the U.S. Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress spent time reviewing some of those exceptions made to the DMCA. Geekier endeavors like jailbreaking or rooting your devices are still totally kosher, but after extensive review the original exemption for unlocking phones was overturned, noting the ability for users to unlock their own phones for use on other networks just wasn’t necessary anymore given the perceived ease of obtaining either a pre-unlocked phone or a carrier-sanctioned way to unlock one"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
I see, so you've debunked your claim that it's illegal to root your device. Well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
At least someone knows who's in the right on all this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
"First, the good news. The legal shield for jailbreaking and rooting your phone remains up - it'll protect us at least through 2015."
https://www.eff.org/is-it-illegal-to-unlock-a-phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
*some devices don't allow access to the SIM Lock code stored inside the firmware of a device...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Side-loading
And I don't subscribe to the view that Android users are more tech savvy than other mobile OS users. There may have been a point in time when that was true, but if there was, well, that ship has sailed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Side-loading
It may or may not make it more insecure it depends on how you change the security settings.
Rooting your phone and installing a tone of security related apps probably empowers you to be more aware of what is happening, also there is the thing about who controls what.
Rooting your phone is taking charge of the device which makes it more secure for you, not for others if you know what you are doing, would you trust a taxi driver not to drive you in circles if you didn't know the city you were in and he knew you didn't know it?
Companies have no incentives to keep your best interests in mind, they should not be the ones controlling any of your devices and should not be allowed to have access to it without your knowledge, to do that you need control of your own device and access controls systems in place like adblockers, but with a bigger scope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cant resist this
www.fraczi.com/bin
and documented here
www.fraczi.com/ID=3
You have to 'turn off security,' strike that 'Allow off-market apps' to install. Security warning etc.. still work.
Make sure to turn Off Market apps OFF after installation!
Be a fracZi beta tester, today!
Now - Ad and virus free!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cant resist this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't seem important enough to those advertising to make sure what they are putting up is clean. All they care about is the money, not how long it takes you to clean your machine afterwards.
It's down to a security issue with me. I hate ads to begin with but I will not open my adblocker and remove or white list in noscript. Some site hell bent on making money through ads while I have to spend sometimes hours doing clean up isn't a worry I will continue to have. Much better from my end not to have to deal with it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ad-Block/ plus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I use AdBlock because I don't want ads. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I use AdBlock because I don't want ads. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I use AdBlock because I don't want ads. Period.
On that note, you can turn off Targeted Advertising on iOS devices...albeit the settings are squirreled away a bit but they are there and they do work...the ads remain but you aren't tracked. Does Android even have an option to turn off the tracking advertisers do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I use AdBlock because I don't want ads. Period.
I'm curious, from a technical standpoint, how iOS can prevent tracking by other ad companies? Or do they not allow other ad companies in their apps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I use AdBlock because I don't want ads. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I use AdBlock because I don't want ads. Period.
Tracking is tracking, you have to stalk somebody to be tracking.
Or are you trying to say there is good tracking and bad tracking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I use AdBlock because I don't want ads. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I use AdBlock because I don't want ads. Period.
They are still tracking you in order to do the analysis.
So they didn't turn it off really LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I use AdBlock because I don't want ads. Period.
The targeted advertising in iOS 6 basically analyzed which apps you had and "recommended" (advertise) the apps you might "like". It did not control any apps while browsing the internet. You check the option to turn Targeted Advertising off and use private browsing mode in Safari for the most effective way of not being tracked that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I use AdBlock because I don't want ads. Period.
They guess?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I use AdBlock because I don't want ads. Period.
To call BS on a simple explanation like that is either ignorance, trolling, or both. Facebook's "Sponsored Links" does just that. AdBlock Plus blocks that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advantage of Android - app still available!
Seem strange they pull it only from android play store!
Anyway it's still readily available from other app sites such as appszoom etc
I assume it interferes with the adds that are bombarded within most apps - paid or free. Possibly interfering with app developers income etc. I assume that is where google are concerned.
I must admit I find the bombardment of adverts in IOS and now android getting beyond acceptable and maybe these mobile systems need to look at alternatives to large banner adds across apps!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advantage of Android - app still available!
iOS has the slight advantage here as you can turn off targeted advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advantage of Android - app still available!
AdBlock Plus only blocks web browsing ads. No real honest reason to pull it for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Advantage of Android - app still available!
Then I realized it that I couldn't install it because my droid is to old, and I would have to hack it to get it working.
If you really want to nag at something, go for the ownership claim, it is your device you bought it, you should control it and adblock helps you do that, it is a control mechanism for the system, it does not need to care about how others will make a living, advertisers have no rights to push ads inside your home or devices, they have a right to send it to you, if you will accept those or not that is your choice not theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Advantage of Android - app still available!
http://androidandme.com/2012/12/applications/android-rookies-10-new-apps-worth-checking-out-t his-week-11/
Aside from that little mistake, I do agree there is no "honest" reason to pull it off from there.
Google build users trust that they would not meddle with their choices, and now they are throwing it out it appears
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Advantage of Android - app still available!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.androidauthority.com/android-4-2-potential-security-features-unveiled-selinux-v pn-lockdown-premium-sms-confirmation-123785/
For those that don't know SELinux is a MAC(Mandatory Access Control) system that affects "third parties" and how they interact with the system.
How is this different from regulating what can and cannot request something like ad blockers do is anyones guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps a very unobtrusive reminder/hint/request to those who are adblocking might find other people like me who are doing it unintentionally here, or would be happy not to.
That being said, there is a particularly obnoxious ad on this page right now playing a flash video, that expands and starts playing audio if the mouse cursor rolls over it. Very annoying. "Big 4", I think it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still available
Additionally be smart when you do so. Don't go to some unknown chinese site and expect not to find a virus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. You stated there was no reason for Google to pull AdBlock Plus.
I don't care that you said it was a dick move, I don't care that you don't understand how or why rooting may or may not be required to take full advantage of it, wre wre wre.
I care that you stated something that was not true. Either from lack of knowledge or stupidity or whatever.
Google had a reason to pull AdBlock Plus, along with all the other adblocking apps from the Play Store. I quoted the reason way above.
2. You stated rooting was illegal. You stated that unlocking was required for rooting to even happen.
I don't care if you don't get the difference between SIM unlocking and bootloader unlocking. Well, actually I do, as there is a huge difference between the two and stating "unlocking is needed to root" especially in your definition of the term unlocking is incorrect to say the least.
Rooting is legal. End of story. I've been saying it since yesterday, and a chunk of today. And you keep going off on a tangent about something that we are all in agreement on, SIM unlocking is illegal.
As for the rest [waves hand dismissively]. Hardware code to unlock is the same fucking thing Wally. That's the same irrelevant BS I refer to when I say you don't know shit and you go on and on and on rather than say, "my bad, I didn't fucking know". You can't unlock the SIM without carrier permission. So who gives a flying fuck about the "hardware unlock", which it isn't actually. It's a simple figure you can change yourself in a number of devices, which you'd know if you bothered to actually learn something. I've stated it multiple times in this thread.
At the end of the day, I don't give a shit what you say about Android or Google or Apple or anyone or anything. But I will not tolerate false or incorrect information being dole out about things I know more about than you. When it comes to Android that is a fucking lot. So, it's simple, do better research before you open your trap or don't open it at all, at least not as it relates to Android, a topic on which you know nothing about (as you admitted way above).
If you don't like how I talk to you, tough. That's your problem, not mine. Is it my fault you can't handle being corrected? No. Is it my fault you state things that aren't true? No. Is it my fault you can't admit being in the wrong on something? No. Those are all your personal issues and hangups. And I'm not alone in correcting you on this site and I'm definitely not alone in noticing that you tapdance your way around when cornered on something. "Oh, well, what I meant was this." Or "I'm a fucking psychologist! I need to know about technology! Want to see my certifications!" You do that shit regularly, so I'm not going to treat you with kid gloves. Your parents or others might, I won't. Why? Cause I don't give a fuck about respecting you or not hurting your feelings. From the first day you showed up here, also talking about Android and stating completely untrue things, I took an instant dislike to you. I'll admit that. I corrected you then and you couldn't take it and right away started saying I was picking on you. That led to me directly not liking you. And since then I've done my best to avoid you, but the moment you start talking about Android and stating things that are provably and demonstrably false, I will not ignore you and I won't pull my punches or talk to you like I would anyone else who has earned my respect. You want to be treated like an adult, act like one. Admit when you're in the wrong. Admit when you just don't know something. Etc. No harm in any of that. I do it myself regularly on here. If I'm not sure, I ask. If I don't know, I find out. But I don't claim to be an expert on things I know nothing about, and I don't get defensive and attack others when called out. You do. So any issues you have with me are largely of your own making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Google had a reason to pull AdBlock Plus, along with all the other adblocking apps from the Play Store. I quoted the reason way above."
Show me the link to the "quoted" reason above.
"If you don't like how I talk to you, tough. That's your problem, not mine. Is it my fault you can't handle being corrected? No. Is it my fault you state things that aren't true? No. Is it my fault you can't admit being in the wrong on something? No. Those are all your personal issues and hangups."
Oh yes blame the resident psychologist for your attitude problem. I could go on for hours showing examples of how you "write without insulting others". You have to talk to people with respect before they respond with it. Is it my fault that you are rude because of your belief that I am somehow inferior to you? NO. Is it your fault that even if I am wrong on minor details you always get hung up on my mistakes rather than looking for my point? No. Don't you dare project your own personal life at me and take it out on someone who can help you with your personal issues. You will quickly find out that your attitude is returned in kind from others towards you if you keep your shit up.
All you got caught up in was the legality and never tried to correct me at all on whether or not Google pulled those apps for a legitimate reason. You just spouted legal shit and information that was totally useless to my point. You're entire focus was on the legality of rooting and how I was wrong about it. You never stated anything to counter the point that Google doing this was unnecessary for the specific app, "AdBlock Plus".
Lets match the snow flake avatars that stay the same per article.....
Subject is Rooting and how it is done and the legality of it:
Here
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/15285222343/bad-move-google-removes-adblock -plus-google-play-store.shtml#c2258
Here (where you first responded that unlocking the SIM card was completely legal in the US and you could do it on your own after I stated it was not legal without the carrier's permission)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/15285222343/bad-move-google-removes-adblock -plus-google-play-store.shtml#c2454
Here
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/15285222343 /bad-move-google-removes-adblock-plus-google-play-store.shtml#c2408
"Hardware code to unlock is the same fucking thing Wally."
That code is stored on the devices that carry non-removable SIM cards which are locked. This is a very contradictory statement out of you because you were trying to correct me on that very point in here:
"SIM cards are NOT tied to the firmware on the device itself. Meaning they are not tied to the operating system or the bootloader or root or anything like that. SIM cards are tied to the device themselves, and more specifically the IMEI number of a given device."
Once again, most carriers tie them in..note I said MOST..so they can see if you voided your warranty by rooting your phone or device. If the IMEI doesn't match that number attached to the firmware on the device with that stored on the non-replaceable SIM card, you void your warranty and are SOL (Shit Out of Luck) on repairs or a free replacement.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/15285222343/bad-move-google-removes-adblock-plus-googl e-play-store.shtml#c2618
"Google had a reason to pull AdBlock Plus, along with all the other adblocking apps from the Play Store. I quoted the reason way above."
Clearly you were wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No reason EXCEPT for the fact that it violates one of the rules for the Play Store developer distribution agreements. Notably "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."
If you took the time to get informed and do a little research, you'd have also seen that numerous other sites covered this news and stated the same thing. Google DID NOT pull a dick move, they did what was in their right to do.
As for that first those bits you linked to, that is NOT about SIM unlocking you fucking moron. That is about unlocking the bootloader, which for the gillionth fucking time is a completely different type of unlocking and it is perfectly fucking legal.
SIM unlocking is NOT an automatic cause for a voided warranty. Unlocking a bootloader is. Which you'd know if you took the time to fucking read my replies to you.
The only one who has been in the wrong here is you. Because you can't A. differentiate between unlocking (the generalized term for SIM unlocking and unlocking the bootloader which is occasionally required to achieve root) and B. you can't fucking read any of the information or links I provide you, so you can get a fucking clue and inform yourself without coming off as more of an inept idiot and child who can't stand being wrong.
That first link, I specifically linked to and discussed how rooting is legal. I provided citations. I specifically linked to and discussed how unlocking the bootloader is also legal, but will void your warranty. And followed it up with a link specifying how "unlocking" (aka SIM UNLOCKING FOR NON-IDIOTS) is illegal.
The second thing you linked to, I again corrected you. This time you were stating only "pay as you" type services used SIM cards in the United States (they don't, at least not all of them) and I specifically stated that any GSM phone, meaning SIM card using, automatically has a user accessible and replaceable SIM card.
Fuck Wally. How thick are you? And resident psychologist means jack shit. There's that appeal to authority again. No self-respecting psychologist would diagnose others without meeting them face to face. No self-respecting psychologist would argue that they were in the right when proof had already been provided by multiple people and via multiple citations/sources/examples proving them in the wrong. And so on and so forth.
You see. This is why I will not take it easy on you or refrain from treating you like a child and being rude to you. You don't deserve anything in the way of respect. We've been over this before. Recently, with Mr. Federstone (if memory serves me correctly is his name) and PaulT in the article about IP addresses, namely that you were completely in the wrong and refused to admit so. "I HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT TECHNOLOGY!!! I'M A PSYCHOLOGIST!!! AND I'M GETTING MY BLAH BLAH BLAH!" Uh, yeah... no. That meant fuck all then and it means fuck all now.
I don't care that you said Google pulled a dick move. Again, as I stated multiple times, I care that you're stating they had no reason to pull the app(s) when they clearly did, as it violated the agreement between them and the developers. I posted it very early on, and more than once.
Sheesh man. Like a dog with a bone. You've been wrong over and over and over and over and over and over and over and you still can't admit it and are still trying to argue over points that were made hours ago and which were won by myself. This is why you'll never get anywhere in life. The inability to move on and the need to act like a child, who has excuses for everything. "Well, what I meant was this" "well I was referring to this" "my interpretation is" "I have Asperger's" "the weather was bad" "I was dropped on my head" blah blah fucking blah.
Sheesh man. Yes, I get it, you are incapable of admitting that you were wrong. So there. Now that that's out in the open, move the fuck on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh how cute you use a proxy trolling attack to assert your authority over people.
/s
Without sarcasm I still assert that AdBlock Plus was a specific app that only worked the same way as it Browser Extension counterpart. In no way does it interfere with app ads.
"I don't care that you said Google pulled a dick move."
Clearly you don't care that I said that because all you've done is rail on my mistakes rather than get my point. Once again I call your reading comprehension into question.
"Fuck Wally. How thick are you?"
I am not the one with the attitude problem towards those who have less knowledge on the same subjects...you are.
" "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."
Translation.....this only applies to apps interfering with in app advertising....
Uou forget that when you surf the web and use AdBlock Plus....it blocks internet ads as you use your internet browser.
Does AdBlock Plus cause harm to the user? Nope.
Does it cause App developers to loose money while you block advertisements when you surf the web? Nope.
Specifically, does AdBlockPlus interfere with AdSense and pretty much any other advertising company getting a hit for you viewing a web page even though you cannot see the advertisements on the presentation OSI layer? Nope...why? Because it blanks them from your viewing or seeing them. The ad servers cannot tell the difference between a human using a machine and a bot... they send garbage information back to the ad servers so they cannot track you. Advertisers only rely on the volume of traffic a website has. Website advertising makes money off of how many hits come to a website and not how many people [stupidly] click on the ads.
By not caring to realize that this is the actual point of the article is pure lunacy and you started all this conversational back and forth shit in comment 127.
As For Comment 127 (time stamp: Mar 17th, 2013 @ 7:11am)
"But ONLY to do that without a proxy, as well as block ads in Chrome and in-app.
"You DO NOT require root though to use AdBlock Plus, but it'll only block ads over WiFi (for Android 3.1+)."
Oh really??? no shit Shurlock!!! Check out Comment 100.
"Tsk tsk. It's like you go out of your way to be ignorant and wrong sometimes."
You wonder how that isn't rude, and child-like? You need more help than I can give...go see a psychiatrist dude, I only deal with counseling married couples and people who don't need medication.
"Any adblocking software or program interferes with and disrupts the services of third parties. As such, they would be in violation of said rule and subject to being pulled from the Play Store. (But still available elsewhere.)"
How is it nor possible that Google's Adsense was "suffering". You do realize that the Chrome and Play market places are made by different divisions of developers in Google Inc. right? The AdBlock Plus app did not interfere with anything but web browsing advertisements. But I am sure Google, as smart as they are, "understood" that. Those "Third Parties" do several things for telco's and Google alike.
This is the short as you clearly don't get the point and keep focusing on the legality of rooting:
Google gets a complaint that nobody is "clicking" on ads that invade our tiny mobile browsers because the ads are blocked.
Possibility 1: Those "third parties" are the same mooks running your cellular carrier services that use data caps as it also "interferes" with data caps going over. Most mobile browser keep the data you download from their pages and ads...these are called cache files and cookies...and they were once very useful in the days of dial-up internet. Trust me....the data downloaded and used up due to advertisements add up PDQ when downloading flash or banner ad obj-sets.
Possibility 2: Google was losing money because people "couldn't see" the ads and advertisements they put up with AdSense.
There are many ways to speculate on why they did this but the point is they pulled a specific app called AdBlock Plus........look at the title of the article mook.
"Bad Move: Google Removes AdBlock Plus From Google Play Store".
Now will you continue to defend Google like a ravenous fanboy or will you shut up about why they have a reason to pull an app that clearly DID NOT VIOLATE THE PLAY STORE TOS?
Oh look!!! A Link!! OMG a LINK WAS INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE!
https://adblockplus.org/blog/adblock-plus-for-android-removed-from-google-play-store
Third Fucking Paragraph from the article:
While Google may not view it totally that way, in the past, Google has generally taken the position that what's best for the user is something that it will support, even if it's not directly the most beneficial thing for Google.
Mike Mansick's Thesis Statement:
Part of the appeal of the Google Play store is the lack of Apple iOS style walls and gates. Putting up those gates in a way that goes against user's own interests just seems like a bad long term decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I linked to an article earlier that indicated that it does in fact block in app advertising. You're claiming it does not? Do you have a reference? I looked on the official website and didn't find anything clear cut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://adblockplus.org/en/android-about
"Adblock Plus for Android is an Android app that runs in the background and filters ads, using the same filter lists as the Adblock Plus browser extensions."
Works just like the browser extensions...it is for internet ads only....not app ads. Which means Google put their own revenue over that of it's Android consumers by pulling it from the App store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"To filter ads, all traffic has to pass through [the] Adblock Plus [app]. Android considers this to be the traffic caused by the app, while it is in reality the sum of all traffic."
It does nothing more than what a telnet server would do at a school to block "pornographic" images.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are running your web browser and you are using the app, use the Internet in WiFi mode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks, that makes it less useful than I thought. Is your device rooted? I don't know if that has any effect on that aspect of AdBlock's functionality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT CLEARLY DID BLOCK APP ADS AND EVEN STATED DOING SO, right? /s
What you assert and what it actually does/did are two very different things. Your glaring lack of ability to comprehend that, again, are your problem.
The app, along with every other adblocking app, clearly violated the ToS between Developers and Google. As such it was indeed subject to being pulled.
"Clearly you don't care that I said that because all you've done is rail on my mistakes rather than get my point. Once again I call your reading comprehension into question."
No, you see, you specifically stated I was upset about you saying Google pulled a dick move. I've been railing on you about rooting being legal and the different "unlocking" that can be done, SIM and bootloader.
I dropped the ToS violation early on because there was nothing there. Google was in the right. You seem to think I'm a Google fanboy because I know more about Android than you do and because I said Google was in the right. The reading comprehension fail is on your part.
"How is it nor possible that Google's Adsense was "suffering". You do realize that the Chrome and Play market places are made by different divisions of developers in Google Inc. right? The AdBlock Plus app did not interfere with anything but web browsing advertisements. But I am sure Google, as smart as they are, "understood" that. Those "Third Parties" do several things for telco's and Google alike."
So, despite the fact that the app clearly advertises that it WILL block ALL ADS, you still assert that it doesn't and still assert that it doesn't interfere with the services offered by other apps?
And you wonder why I insult your intelligence and your lack of knowledge of the subject at hand. /s
"There are many ways to speculate on why they did this but the point is they pulled a specific app called AdBlock Plus........look at the title of the article mook."
Which is irrelevant. Google was well within their right to remove the app, 'tard. VIOLATED THE TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE DEVELOPERS. SPECIFICALLY THE INTERFERENCE OF SERVICES OFFERED BY OTHER APPS.
"Now will you continue to defend Google like a ravenous fanboy or will you shut up about why they have a reason to pull an app that clearly DID NOT VIOLATE THE PLAY STORE TOS?"
Will you continue to try and make points that are indefensible and wrong or will you shut up about Google blocking it because it was blocking ads?
It didn't violate the Play Store TOS. I never said it did. I said it violated the Play Store Developer Distribution Agreement. I even posted the section it clearly fell under and violated.
So despite that, you still think it didn't? Again, your inability to see past your own nose/Google hate is leading to you looking like an idiot by people who know more than you.
You've provided no proof for any of your assertions that Google pulled it because Google didn't like it (basically what you've stated up to this point). None whatsoever. I can post multiple links, by Android news sites all backing up Google's move. As much as they don't like it, they all agree Google was in the right and the app violated a ToS agreement.
"While Google may not view it totally that way, in the past, Google has generally taken the position that what's best for the user is something that it will support, even if it's not directly the most beneficial thing for Google."
Great! Except this isn't about ONLY the users, this is also about other Developers. You know, the people who make apps. And what you keep overlooking is that PEOPLE CAN STILL DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL THE FUCKING APP! ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER ONE REMOVED!
That is the beauty of the Play Store and Android. You don't have to go the official Google sanctioned route. You know, lack of a walled garden. In fact, many of the apps that were blocked have on their websites links to where you can get them. WITH NO RISK OF MALWARE! Cause "OMG SECURITY SETTINGS UNKNOWN SOURCES HACKERZ LEET MALWARE!!!", right? (Another failing on your part to understand something, despite having been corrected on it before and despite it being based on nothing in the way of facts or truth.)
"Part of the appeal of the Google Play store is the lack of Apple iOS style walls and gates. Putting up those gates in a way that goes against user's own interests just seems like a bad long term decision."
Mike's statement or not, there is no walled garden and users are still free to do as they please. They can just no longer get the app through the Play Store. Deal with it. Most are savvy enough to know they can get it elsewhere and with minimal effort.
Google knows what it's doing. And users are flocking to Android in droves. So every point you've made about bad for users, Google being evil and a dick, etc is rendered moot.
To summarize, you're still fucking wrong about everything you've stated and you ignore facts for your own manufactured Google conspiracy, supported by nothing beyond "Google is in the ad business OMGZ!"
And I don't know why you bother posting links, seeing as how I did that same thing many times earlier all to prove rooting is legal and you still kept saying it wasn't. You even posted one yourself stating the same thing, rooting is legal, and like an idiot you still kept saying it wasn't.
Reading comprehension is most definitely not your strong suit.
And with your childish and troll-like behavior, I can't see how anyone would place their marriage at risk by turning to your for counseling. Sounds like a move destined to end in divorce/separation. But hey, there's plenty of idiots out there. I know, I've spent over a day arguing with one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have a reference for that, because I would like to know and there is apparently some disagreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If anyone really needs an adblocking app though, like I stated before, you can still get one. In fact, Adblock Plus is pretty lame and ineffective in my opinion. The one that works best and without fail is AdAway.
http://f-droid.org/
Go there and install the latest AP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You really have nothing better to do in your life than to attempting to antagonize a person with a neurological disorder? Lame...just totally lame and not funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
First off, he may not even have a neurological disorder. We're supposed to take his word for it? The guy has been caught in more lies than I can count on this site. His credibility is shit as far as I'm concerned.
Secondly, I wasn't trying to be funny. Or anything like that. I was trying to correct someone who was stating things that were completely untrue. And I did so. Multiple times. And he still kept saying "nuh uh, nuh uh, nuh uh". He then went on to shift away from the point and start saying things I'd already said.
At that point, Asperger's or not, he's acting like a child and I'm going to be a dick to hammer home the point that he's acting that way and is still wrong.
You don't like it? [pulls out the world's smallest violin...]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"First off, he may not even have a neurological disorder."
I am correcting you. I have Asperger's Syndrome. It is not a crutch, and I do feel antagonized by you. It does not matter how you percive your world because you pick on someone who may or may not have his facts straight, but on all a levels, the logic that I have the ability to convey to make my point with better reasonable, rational peace of mind. You are going after a ghost, someone you hardly know who is, due to his neurological condition, is extremely capable of outwitting you in logic and making my point.
Your only point this entire time has been to make no relevant point to the subject contained in the article except to correct minor mistakes that even my MRDD brother can read and look past. You want belittlement? You've got it asshole! My retarded brother has better comprehension than you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Motive
"Google Inc. is an American multinational corporation that provides Internet-related products and services, including internet search, cloud computing, software and advertising technologies. Advertising revenues from AdWords generate almost all of the company's profits."
OH NOZE I WAS WORNGZ IT WAZ AdWords NURT AdSense...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Motive
Which says nothing about their motivation for this move. I don't doubt it's about profit, just saying that quote doesn't prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Motive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psyco Trolls
Feeding them only encourages them you know? Especially the trolls that fancy themselves as psychiatrists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psyco Trolls
However, I can tell you from the many many times he has "corrected" me in his authoritarian way, that his home life is extremely bad and that I cannot help but feel empathy for his situation which he has the need project his personal issues of his own lack of authority upon me. I am a psychologist, not a totally technology oriented person (though I do know a few things here and there).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Psyco Trolls
Statement made earlier today.
"Now as for things I supposedly don't know what I'm talking about...you stating that is trolling itself but since you asked me to back up the claims of my knowledge (I mean seriously do you want me to fucking post the certificate of my doctorate in Psychology? I have to keep up with technology in my profession and am in the process of CompTIA A+ certification as a backup, but I guess you wouldn't believe me unless there was a screenshot of what I was saying)."
Statement made less than a month ago in the following article as a reply to Mr. Applegate who questioned you on something you were demonstrably proven to know nothing about.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130218/21462222020/yet-another-court-says-ip-addresses- are-not-enough-to-positively-identify-infringers.shtml
And not just by him, but by PaulT as well. You see, again, this is another example of you stating one thing at one point in time and another later. You flip flop around as suits you. Claiming to be an expert one moment and using the appeal to authority, and then claiming not to be one the next. All these things are exactly why I avoid you for the most part, except when you talk about Android because I know more than a little bit about it. I'm an authority on the OS compared to you, and that is why I correct you. Because just like Mr. Applegate and PaulT, it bothers me that you are here, or out there, spreading ridiculously false information on subjects which you know little about and while doing so under the guise of an expert and an authority. People can only let you slide for so long before they start calling you out on things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Psyco Trolls
Just to recap, you're still calling him a liar over his phone ownership and even when he clearly showed you he owned a Samsung Replenish with proof that in deed running Gingerbread. He even stated that he never claimed in this article that be had ever made that claim. You're clearly trying to find a connection that isn't there and you're so fucking delusional that you go to a month's old article where he mistakenly said he had 3.0 on his phone..even though be read it from your "corrections" that Gingerbread was 3.0. He showed you proof that the phone he had in hand was indeed in his possesion of Android 2.6 Gingerbread. If you look at the screen behind the Replenish Wally is holding it (cites my own self eeing "Wally" in the reply header rather than Anonymous Coward) and that it does in fact prove he has an Abdroid Device that runs Gingerbread which according to your first attempt in this article at misleading him as Android 3.1. Oh and in that note you pointed that mistake of his out from a month old article. You are desperately trying to troll a psychologist with your false pretenses of doing good by correcting everything he says.
You are a troll. Wally only responds because he cares enough about you to give that which you desire most....attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah yes, the SPH-M580. Is that the same Samsung Replenish, just use the common name for it sheesh, that you stated was on Android 3.1? Because you never got back to me on that.
You know, when I specifically stated that the Replenish could NOT have possibly come with Android 3.1 as that was Honeycomb and ONLY available on tablets (for a relatively short period of time).
And then, even assuming it was a type on your part, and you meant to write Android 2.1, again, how does that work? Seeing as how the Replenish DID NOT ship with Android 2.1 either.
See, this is the same thing I've been saying for over a day now. You can't even state facts about a phone you claim to own. So why should anyone believe you, when the facts are against you, about anything you've stated about rooting or unlocking?
If you can't even get the facts about a phone you ALLEGEDLY own right, your entire credibility is called into question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You never asked about it in the article that I could remember.
Are you too dumb to hit the "reply to this" hypertext or something? It seems that your only goal in all this is to go out of your way to point out how inaccurate my statements are.
http://i.imgur.com/ZDA80JP.jpg
Now that it has been established that I actually own a Samsung Replenish, I must point out that I was only parroting what AddBlock Plus' website was saying on how to use it and install it on Android without Google Play. I even provided a link several times to its website. But since you are way too lazy to understand that here:
http://adblockplus.org/en/android-about
"And then, even assuming it was a type on your part, and you meant to write Android 2.1, again, how does that work? Seeing as how the Replenish DID NOT ship with Android 2.1 either."
I got the Unlimited Everything plan from Sprint and it came with free 3G data. I got my Replenish in early January of 2012.
Not capable of Gingerbread you say?
http://i.imgur.com/U73uMvc.jpg
Honeycomb is Android 1, Gingerbread as Android 2, Ice Cream Sandwich is Android, 3 and the current one is Android 4, which is Jellybean.
All this proof of ownership aside, I should point out that outside of the fact that my Replenish is in fact only a phone for me. I had gotten used to iOS and its interface and was comfortable with it. The Replenish did have an easier way of getting to using the phone function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You'd know this if you were able to even look it up. And again, notice how you lack reading comprehension in replying to what I write.
I specifically stated there is no way it could have shipped with Honeycomb 3.1 due to that being a strictly tablet OS.
I also stated that the Replenish DID NOT ship with Android 2.1 (aka Froyo).
I know for a fact it shipped with 2.3 (minimum), so now I have visual proof. But that still does not demean or detract from the fact that from a previous statement made by you, you were completely wrong about a phone you claimed to own. And note, a screenshot means absolutely nothing. I can produce screenshots of phones I "own" too. Doesn't make it so.
And no, my goal is to point out your incorrect and factually inaccurate statements. Given on an almost routine basis. Kind of like "rooting is illegal". How many times did you state that in this thread? Despite all proof presented by myself to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's so sad to see that you still think that the way you say things had nothing to do with how anyone else feels about your methods. What are you a Google/Samsung shill? Seriously you are pitiful. It's like you expect him to bow down to how rude you are.
"You'd know this if you were able to even look it up. And again, notice how you lack reading comprehension in replying to what I write."
"Ah yes, the SPH-M580. Is that the same Samsung Replenish, just use the common name for it sheesh, that you stated was on Android 3.1? Because you never got back to me on that."
"He then went on to shift away from the point and start saying things I'd already said."
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that comment 100 came 27 comments before your repetition of "oh Wally your so totally wrong". He's called you out plenty of times as a troll and the only thing you revert back to is his mistakes to cover your tracks as a troll.
"I know for a fact it shipped with 2.3 (minimum), so now I have visual proof. But that still does not demean or detract from the fact that from a previous statement made by you (Wally)"
Based on your misinformation shit for brains. And when he parrots what you say you swoop in and "correct" him in some humiliating way that demeans him.
"And no, my goal is to point out your incorrect and factually inaccurate statements."
You are really fucking dense you know that? Just because you don't see him feeling as if he is being antagonistized by you doesn't mean he doesn't feel antagonized. It isn't the correction you give it's the method you carry it out by. It is on a level where you rather look like an asshole than a person teaching someone valuable information. All you do is throw insults at him.
Your initial correction on Android version code names was fine until here:
"You'd know this if you were able to even look it up. And again, notice how you lack reading comprehension in replying to what I write."
He must be getting it correct each time you correct him because this is the same instance of mislead and swoop in that you consistany do.
So guess what...you're a liar and an asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You write to him rather rudely, you're being a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that you somehow made a magical connection in your head (that clearly and plainly did not exist if you had read what I was saying) that somehow me stating I that I own a Samsung Replenish, and that, out of a separate, unrelated conversation about AdBlock Plus requiring Android 2.1 or higher to run, are somehow related to each other, makes me feel extreme pity for you in that you won't seek help for your issues. I cannot solve your (and I do not mean this derogatorily) mental health problems unless I am in person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, I was merely commenting on the fact that in a completely separate article you stated something that was factually impossible/untrue. This goes to your credibility again.
Nor do I have mental health problems. Nor is my home life "bad". I actually have a great job, a loving family, vast numbers of friends, as well as hobbies. I'm a perfectly functioning and well respected member of society. I'm a jovial person and am considered extremely kind and giving to family, friends and even complete strangers. I just don't like you because you try to come off as knowing all and when you're in the wrong you won't admit it. You double down and then some. And then you claim to be a psychologist and yet do things no self-respecting psychologist would do. Like commenting on the mental health of others based on quick TV snippets (waves at Julian Assange) or comments given in annoyance brought about by your own shortcomings and childish behavior.
Nothing I have EVER stated has been about my home life or could give any kind of reflection about my personality or my home life. Nothing. Yet I know tons about you. I know you have all kinds of mental issues (ranging from "Asperger's" ALLEGEDLY to persecution complex and paranoia to ego trips and ), I know your dad is a teacher, your wife supposedly also suffers from Asperger's, and so on and so forth. I know WAY WAY too much about you, all from random things you reveal on this site. None of which has any relevance to technology, copyright or bad laws. And none of which should be revealed so casually online. I've seen you have literally an emotional breakdown on this site and then get extremely defensive when told this website is NOT a place for your personal issues to be aired, and in fact you got downright hostile to myself and others for pointing that out to you.
So yeah, the one who has deep seated mental issues and for damn sure needs someone to talk to is yourself. Not me. Projecting much? Cause it certainly seems like it. So before you go recklessly trying to analyze me, make sure you got your head on straight first and I seriously hope all of your "clients" do a bit of research before going to you, else they're putting themselves in the hands of a person who has proven to be relatively unstable and immature online and who has no trouble revealing very personal information about themselves, I can easily see you revealing client information just as easily, if not more so.
In fact, given all that information I have about you (you're from Ohio if memory serves me correctly), I could easily put in an inquiry to the licensing board for your state and mention to them that perhaps they want to give you a thorough analysis the next time whatever license you may have is due to expire. It'd be a shame if someone sued the licensing board for a mistake caused on your part, seeing as how they may have granted a license to someone who has issues, to say the least.
So yeah, let's not play the I think "he has problems" game. You'll wind up on the losing side of that argument too. But I digress, see what you did there? You know nothing about me whatsoever but the moment you're challenged and called out you have no trouble resorting to such childish and petty actions such as commenting on my mental health and using an appeal to authority (as a psychologist I highly recommend you seek help) to do so. Man, I never acted as childish as you did when I was 26. And that wasn't even a year ago. Quite sad. On your part that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hey dumbass....you are the one trying to connect two totally different statements Wally made in in this artice pertaining to two totally different subjects in the comments outside of arguing with you. He called you out way before I did and you're just a raging little fucktard with nothing else to do. You want to try to fling your shit...try it at me fuckface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I never said you did. I never remotely enve saw it. But the way you treat me and specifically attack only me me is a big indicator that you have personal problems. I cannot help you with them unless I am there in person talking to you. I am only a counselor and nothing more. I am only allowed to recommend you to a psychiatrist. The very fact that you so detrimentally deny that your home life is bad and then turn around accusing me of projecting my own problems on you is the single biggest psychological red flag and that is among the first issues talked about in Psychology 101.
"In fact, given all that information I have about you (you're from Ohio if memory serves me correctly), I could easily put in an inquiry to the licensing board for your state and mention to them that perhaps they want to give you a thorough analysis the next time whatever license you may have is due to expire. It'd be a shame if someone sued the licensing board for a mistake caused on your part, seeing as how they may have granted a license to someone who has issues, to say the least."
Dude, It's not like you will magically find out my street address and come to my home. My goal is not to find out that information, my goal is only to help you work out your feelings. There was a really old Techdirt article way back when where a wise commenter once said:
"Psychologists are the biggest trolls ever"
That being said you're in a flame war with me and frankly it is getting old. There was actually a time where I would put minor wrong information out just so you would take the bait. I have been studying your MO and from statistical data I hace encountered over the years....your MO fits one who has had a bad home life for a number of years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So now you attack me you using Asperger's Syndrome as a crutch or reason that somehow that I am delusional that you are attacking me:
Let's see here...:
Comment 177;
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/15285222343/bad-move-google-removes-adblock-pl us-google-pl ay-store.shtml#c2448
"Oh my god. You see, this is how dumb you are. ONLY THOSE?!"
This is only the opener to show how hypocritical you are and contrary to your claims that you are not attacking me.
"At this point, your credibility is moot. If you don't even know that basic fact there is no reason to even give you the benefit of the doubt on anything else you've stated thus far. Not that I was anyway."
In Short: "There is no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt...not that I have anyway."
"No fucking shit sherlock. But the firmware refers to the Operating System. Not anything else. You're gaining root for the OS. But this has nothing to do with the SIM card or with the IMEI number of a given device, contrary to what you may believe."
Oh I am sure that starting your shit storm of anger clearly shows you not being rude....../s
Comment 170:
"Just stop. For your own sake. Because you were annoying at first, but amusing, and now you're just getting desperate and I'd rather not make you cry or something. (As if we both don't know that you didn't already reply as an AC in defense of yourself. Anything you say denying that I'll just ignore. The guy writes just like you. Coincidence? Doubtful.)"
LOL, paranoid a bit aren't we? You didn't expect a stranger to do something you would never possibly do in real life and tell you off in defense of another?
How about comment 195?: Oh that's right:
"Comment 127 moron. If you can't read that's your problem, again, not mine."
More rudeness you blatantly expect me to bow down to.
"Sheesh man. Like a dog with a bone. You've been wrong over and over and over and over and over and over and over and you still can't admit it and are still trying to argue over points that were made hours ago and which were won by myself."
Like the point you made how I have an inflated ego in comment 176?? Or how about the fact that you were supposedly not being rude to me. Methinks thou doth smoke too much up thine own arse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You just showed your ignorance about the Internet in an attempt to attack Wally. I italicized that bit that shows it. One...what makes you think "Wally" is really that guy's name...Two...You don't have his real name and he is not as dumb as you are to assume that just because a guy chooses the screen name "Wall" he's automatically named that in real life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW. This thread is why I just "fire and forget" my posts.
Anyhoo, saw some shots bracketing a relevant point (but they seem to be at random) that's big on my list: that the advertising-supported "model" of web revenue is on shaky basis.
IF Google tries to force yet more advertising, there'll be a backlash, as it's (for now) possible to dodge with Noscript and "hosts" file. I can see (that is, hope for) a Firefox extension that does nothing but block Google and all its ad servers, with an option to allow it when absolutely necessary (meaning they've so tangled the web that you're caught).
Speaking of tangled web, as I mentioned elsewhere: HTML5 seems to be exactly mostly for forcing advertising on users.
So it's a race to get locked-up operating systems in place before rising user annoyance leads to serious revolt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WOW. This thread is why I just "fire and forget" my posts.
As for the AC that doesn't leave me alone, he does not know the definition of "fire and forget". Of course he's an über level of retarded troll who has only earned the ire of a person you never would want to piss off... a psychologist who earned his doctorate due to his thesis on trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WOW. This thread is why I just "fire and forget" my posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WOW. This thread is why I just "fire and forget" my posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WOW. This thread is why I just "fire and forget" my posts.
It's also rather convenient how Google pulled it when fanboys were drooling all over the announcement of the S4. While I condone them pulling ad blockers that interfere with their app ads, Ad Block Plus was the straw that broke the camel's back as it only affects web browsing advertisements...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, it's shameful to find ads annoying isn't it? I'm ashamed of myself every time I skip ads with my DVR too but I manage to live with the shame somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a lot of free sites would become subscription only,
youtubers ect would have to make money from donations and the internet would just be, this guy is cooler so im going send him some money to fund his videos and losers wouldn't be able to make money.
anyway by now you should see where im going with this you have your own brains think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AdblockPlus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A better adblock
The problem with this position is that you are not in the position to decide what content is acceptable, and what is not. Only I, the user, am.
The only way to make advertising work effectively is to be painfully responsive to the user. What is needed, therefore, is a VASTLY upgraded adblock tool. I need to be able to indicate on any ad that I don't like it. That ad should then be immediately and permanently blocked on my computer. Further, a message needs to be sent to adblock central informing them of my decision. Adblock central needs to moniter the rejections coming in. If an ad is being blocked alot, they need to block it from everyone (ideally at the source.)
Further, adblock needs to offer ad categorization, much like parental control programs do. I need to be able to instruct my adblock about my sensibilities.
If this kind of work is done, if users are not bombarded with undesirable content, the entire internet experience will be better for all: the user, the content provider and the advertiser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AdBlock is Good But ..
The concept of free internet is based on advertisements. If AdBlock thinks it is doing something good for internet users, then it is wrong. People will stop creating content over internet, if you stop their revenue stream. Only the sites like Wikipedia will run. Internet will become the place for rich people, as websites will directly ask to pay them monthly fees with credit card. The overall growth of the internet will stop and this is not good for the common internet user himself.
Today, someone is reading the free content on internet by blocking ads with AdBlock, because someone on their behalf is not using AdBlock and watching ads! AdBlock should allow ads from good advertising companies or else all their arguments can not be considered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adblock is Needed .. wake up Rohan
The "concept of free internet based on advertising" is false.
The true concept is "freedom of information" which existed long before patents and copyright and people who try and control it. Mankind can survive easily without making a buck out of peaces of information and would thrive more if REAL LAWS of truth and human decency prevailed.
The internet was clean and free in the beginning and becomes more insidious everyday thanks to ruthless people making money from advertising networks.
There is just more garbage apps and websites containing more garbage spyware because AD banners encourage such poor efforts.
Google is just a dominate force because it feeds of this - Why does anyone think Google is the best we can have ? We would be much better if the advertising model did not exist and monopolies and censorship died out and if people created P2P database systems for helping and sharing information freely.
ADBLOCK helps save us from bandwidth hogging mind numbing advertising which often also leads to spyware and costly computer infections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can AND has BEEN turned off by some sites ? !!!!
how th hell can we feel comfort when preferred
AND CHOSEN settings are altered?
arbitrary my assPidestra
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond limits, Google adds interrupt games (Clash of Clan)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google removes Adblock Plus from store
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No more Adblock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]