Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Mar 2012 21:01 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Because I've been spending days browsing through XDA, reading CM changelogs, and flashing nightly builds, I'm still in an Android state of mind, so excuse me for more talk on the subject. An interesting study has been performed which found that advertisements in Android applications are a huge battery drain - they account for up to 75% of an application's battery usage.
Order by: Score:
Yes, absolutely
by WorknMan on Tue 20th Mar 2012 21:22 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

It not only affects battery life, but it affects bandwidth as well, which is a lot more expensive on cellular devices than broadband (at least in the US). Therefore, I think it is perfectly within anyone's right to block ads.

That being said, if there are two versions of an app available - one that's a paid appp and the other one that's infected with adware, I will choose the paid version every time. If you offer me a paid version of an app I want, I will gladly pay for it. If you don't, then you obviously didn't want my money that badly, and my battery life/bandwidth is worth more to me than your desire to make money with obtrusive advertising. Plus, there's no law against blocking ads anyway.

'But what about piracy', you say? Well, what about it? There are apparently APIs (or whatever) that developers can use to work around this problem. But even if not, if you need to earn a living developing apps and can't do so on Android without putting in ads, I'd rather you just not develop apps for Android. That is how much I DON'T want ads in my apps, and the Android Market.... er, Google Play doesn't do a good job of differentiating between apps that are free, and those that are ad-infested.

BTW: To those devs out there that are pushing ads to the notification area, you are kindly advised to eat shit and die.

Edited 2012-03-20 21:25 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Yes, absolutely
by sagum on Tue 20th Mar 2012 22:12 UTC in reply to "Yes, absolutely"
sagum Member since:
2006-01-23

It not only affects battery life, but it affects bandwidth as well, which is a lot more expensive on cellular devices than broadband (at least in the US). Therefore, I think it is perfectly within anyone's right to block ads.


I think in these cases, its to the point where you have to weight up how much its going to cost you in bandwidth and battery power vs the price of the paid for, add-free version of said app.

I do beleive you are within your rights to use your device however you want. That might include blocking internet connections and as a result also includes the blocking of adverts.
However, I don't think you a right to block them based on the face they're using your bandwidth or battery just because you didn't want to pay for the ad-free version. That in itself is a different matter then rights over your device.

I can see where you are coming from, most of the adverts in the apps I use get in the way or distract from it, and I've never seen adverts that are relivent. I've never purposefully clicked an advert but rather miss pressed due to silly locations.

Developers need incentives to keep creating apps we use. For most, its cash, be it paid apps or via adverts.

Unfortunatly, at the moment adverts via 3g and such is how it is and until someone finds a better way to market adverts or other ways to generate incentives or money for them then they're going to be a here to stay.

We're quite lucky that most apps that are ad-paid still work without a active internet connection, if everyone starts to block the adverts then I think we'll see a move towards internet only enabled apps to ensure more adverts are not blocked because the easiest way to block adverts in apps right now is to just turn off data access on the phone until its actually needed.
That itself would save more battery and bandwidth then trying to block adverts and the developer revenue.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Yes, absolutely
by WorknMan on Tue 20th Mar 2012 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Yes, absolutely"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

However, I don't think you a right to block them based on the face they're using your bandwidth or battery just because you didn't want to pay for the ad-free version. That in itself is a different matter then rights over your device.


As I said in my original post, I always choose the paid version if one is available. I'm always happy to pay for quality software. Hell, I've even donated to some free apps when the authors asked nicely. I'm not looking for a free ride here... only requesting that if you want to get paid, offer me a version without ads.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yes, absolutely
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 21st Mar 2012 00:05 UTC in reply to "Yes, absolutely"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

LIke many here, I would pay for an app that I used a lot if possible to avoid ads. But, if that's not a possibility, I will block the ads for the data usage. I don't have an unlimited data plan, but a rather limited one that I don't want to exceed. If it were easy to do, I'd allot an app a given amount of bandwidth to use per month, which it could then use to suck up downloading ads.

Reply Score: 3

Thorny situation
by Moredhas on Tue 20th Mar 2012 21:43 UTC
Moredhas
Member since:
2008-04-10

If a paid version also offers more features over an ad-supported version, I will normally go with the paid version of an app, but I find it hard to justify the couple of dollars when I can get the same for free, unless the app proves to be something I use every day, and not so buggy as to render it more a chore to use (I'm looking at you, IM+!). If it's just a matter of battery life, then I'm willing to take the hit to power use. If those same ad supported apps start infecting me with malware, this shows a complete lack of respect for the user, and I don't see why I should give the developer any respect, in return.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Thorny situation
by WorknMan on Tue 20th Mar 2012 22:16 UTC in reply to "Thorny situation"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

but I find it hard to justify the couple of dollars when I can get the same for free ... If it's just a matter of battery life, then I'm willing to take the hit to power use.


It amazes me that people would rather put up with the ads and battery drain than to pay the pittance that developers are asking in return for building these phone apps. And we're not even talking about $40 apps here, as most of them are less than 3 bucks. People are so f**king cheap these days. No wonder most of our electronics are cheap, Chinese crap that breaks down in a year or two.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Thorny situation
by gus3 on Tue 20th Mar 2012 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Thorny situation"
gus3 Member since:
2010-09-02

I won't argue the point about being cheap, at least for myself, but I can reduce it to something that's a little less insulting:

If one spends N quatloos to get rid of the ads in an app, does that mean one will save at least N quatloos on the electric bill?

(Bandwidth isn't a concern for me; I'm one of the lucky ones on a flat data rate.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Thorny situation
by WorknMan on Tue 20th Mar 2012 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thorny situation"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If one spends N quatloos to get rid of the ads in an app, does that mean one will save at least N quatloos on the electric bill?


I think the better question to ask is, do you really want ads EVERYWHERE? Of course, if images like this doesn't bother you:

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/bus%20ad.jpg

Then I suppose you're ok with having ads shoved down your throat every time you blink.

IMO, the less ads we have as a whole, the better off we are as a society. If I have the chance to avoid them in my apps for less than a cup of coffee, I will do so.

Edited 2012-03-20 23:10 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Thorny situation
by bouhko on Wed 21st Mar 2012 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Thorny situation"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

It's even more amazing if you put the price of apps in perspective. Most (android) apps/games are 1-3$. It's the price of a coffee and yet a lot of people aren't willing to pay even if they use the app a lot.

The ad-supported business model has created a "software should be free (as in beer)" environment. Because of this, software vendors need to find new ways to monetize their software which are :
a) more ads
b) user data analysis

I think it's kind of sad. I would be the first one to pay a monthly fee to remove ads (and personal data mining) from Google and their services.

My hope is that the advance of easy micro-payment will allow for more services to propose ads removal for a small fee. The Android market is a good step in this direction because it's usually very easy to buy the full version without having to enter credit card information each time. (This raise some security concerns as well though)

Reply Score: 2

of course
by emphyrio on Tue 20th Mar 2012 21:50 UTC
emphyrio
Member since:
2007-09-11

Naturally you are allowed to block any ads. Complaining about that is as silly as complaining about people who visit the toilet in the break of a football match.

Reply Score: 7

You could just pay...
by bowkota on Tue 20th Mar 2012 22:02 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

These mobile apps have become so cheap; why not buy them? Both parties win.
You get an unobtrusive, full featured and clean app that uses less battery and bandwidth.
The developer gets paid for his work and can keep on developing the application.

Most of these applications don't go overboard with ads, on iOS at least, and they don't take much screen estate. More importantly, you know what you signed up for. You get a free app instead but have to live with the consequences, in this case the ads.

Sure, go ahead and block them but don't complain down the road if there's no updates or the developer drops support for it.

Reply Score: 1

v what was the app?
by slimscraggle on Tue 20th Mar 2012 22:39 UTC
I'd pay if i could
by grable on Tue 20th Mar 2012 22:43 UTC
grable
Member since:
2006-11-24

I have no qualms blocking adds, but i prefer not using those apps anyway as they are in the way and suck up bandwidth (which i care more about than power).

Still, there are some apps id buy if i could...
Hell, i'd even donate some cash to those making only free stuff without adds because i respect their way of doing things.

But alas i gots no credit card, and my credit rating aint worth shit ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: I'd pay if i could
by glarepate on Tue 20th Mar 2012 23:33 UTC in reply to "I'd pay if i could"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Two words: Prepaid debit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'd pay if i could
by grable on Wed 21st Mar 2012 12:24 UTC in reply to "RE: I'd pay if i could"
grable Member since:
2006-11-24

Theres no such thing in my country as far as i know,
but il look into it. thanks ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I'd pay if i could
by glarepate on Wed 21st Mar 2012 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'd pay if i could"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

My comment may have merely been a side-effect of my narrow view of the world, a condition I was giving someone grief about just last night. |o[)~

I hope I actually helped.

Reply Score: 2

JuiceDefender to the rescue!
by phoenix on Tue 20th Mar 2012 22:54 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

Configure JD to turn off all radios (3G, 4G, wifi, GPS, etc) while the screen is off. Configure it to turn data on every X minutes (I use 2 hours) to allow apps that need to sync to do so. And then never worry about it again.

Without JD, I'm lucky to get 20 hours with my 2011 Xperia Pro, even when most auto-sync stuff is disabled. With JD configured as above, I can get just shy of 50 hours with regular usage (GMail, GReader, Facebook, VX ConnectBot, Opera Mobile, various other little apps most with ads).

If the data connections are off, then none of the ad systems can update, and your battery doesn't drain. And when the data connection is on (since you're using it), then the ad systems can update, and your battery isn't drained any extra.

Works so well, I even paid for JD+. ;)

One of the nice things about Android are the ad-supported versions of paid apps, as they allow you to try-before-you-buy. Especially since the "refund window" on Android is only 15 minutes now.

Reply Score: 4

Earl C Pottinger Member since:
2008-07-12

I was just going to ask about if something does what you just described.

What would the difference be between no ad-supported apps running on the phone vs ones running but with JD running also? 5%? 10%? More?

Reply Score: 1

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Would probably depend on how often you configure the apps to sync. If you have things sync every 2 hours (same as with JD enabled), then the difference shouldn't be too much.

However, since I don't have any phones without JD installed, nor do I have any wish to use a phone without JD enabled, I can't give you any solid numbers. ;) JD is one of my "must be installed and enabled before I configure the phone" apps (along with 3G Watchdog).

Reply Score: 2

Comment by glarepate
by glarepate on Tue 20th Mar 2012 23:32 UTC
glarepate
Member since:
2006-01-04

my sister-in-law had the same 3GS, bought in the same month, no less, as I did, also T-Mobile, and she did have a consistent 3G connection.


Actually you should already know this ; you are just holding it wrong. (o;)

But seriously: If you know you don't want to tolerate the side effects of the ad-supported app then you should also know that you aren't actually using it under the terms on which it is offered. What you decide to do about that is up to you.

If you are 'boxed in' by circumstances and can't get reasonable use of your phone without a temporary workaround I suspect that any reasonable developer would accept that a temporary adjustment could be made and would not be an unreasonable use of the app. I think the dev would also expect you to turn off ad blocking when you weren't in a bandwidth challenged environment.

I have paid versions of all the apps that I rely on and have also paid for apps that I later realized I wouldn't be using any more. For instance I paid something like $3.99 for gvoice only to find out that my carrier treated calls made with it as voice calls and not VOIP calls. So I uninstalled it.

I didn't ask for a refund, even though I am a major cheapskate, because it was a carrier issue and not an app or developer shortcoming. Lots of other folks got to make voice calls on their data plans with it, but it didn't work that way for me.

Now I use the Nettalk app. It is free but it is outbound only and has a 30 minute per call time limit. It will only make calls to the U.S. and Canada but those limitations are not restrictions for me.

Reply Score: 2

Depends...
by danger_nakamura on Tue 20th Mar 2012 23:35 UTC
danger_nakamura
Member since:
2011-06-21

Is it okay to block ads in mobile applications (which have no functional restrictions compared to the for-pay versions), knowing how much battery they consume?


This question may well already be covered in the license. We probably shouldn't discuss enforceability because you posed an ethical question.

What terms did you receive the software on. If the "ad-supported" version is free to use, for anyone, with no restrictions, and it happens to serve up ads, than you are on fair ground blocking them. In this case the developer has sought no compensation from you - any revenues from advertising are incidental.

However, if you accept the application on the contingency that you also accept the ads, than you are bound ethically to allow them. Yes, it is your device, your battery, etc... You can exercise your prerogative by uninstalling the app.

The acceptance of advertising is, in the second case, in lieu of payment sought as compensation. If the developer makes this clear, than there is no ethical way around it.

If OSnews had a click-through login portal offering an option to pay for access or view an ad-supported version, it would be unethical to enter the ad-supported version and turn on an adblocker. However, OSnews does no such thing, and provides a public website that I can read without agreement on any point. Thus, blocking your ads would be perfectly ethical. Perhaps not very nice, but certainly fair.

Just my 2 cents...

Of course, if the app doesn't come with the source code, it may be otherwise unethical anyway ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Perspective
by cfgr on Tue 20th Mar 2012 23:59 UTC
cfgr
Member since:
2009-07-18

To be fair, 75% of an application's battery usage is still nothing compared to the rest of the system.

Currently the top 5 of battery hungry components on my Nexus S (ICS):
1) Android OS: 37%
2) Screen: 30% (yes, I read ebooks on my phone)
3) Android System: 9%
4) Cell Standby: 7%
5) Wifi: 4%

While these numbers are specific and reflect my own usage, 75% of something that's less than 4% isn't all that much to me. As others have mentioned, I think bandwidth is more of an issue here.

Reply Score: 4

Ad's are too obscene
by marcus0263 on Wed 21st Mar 2012 02:13 UTC
marcus0263
Member since:
2007-06-02

Google text ads I don't mind but the in your face crap I block. I will and always do pay for the ad free, I won't mess with the app if it doesn't offer an ad free. I'm also using Firefox Android because none of the other's have an adblock plugin.

Reply Score: 1

websites?
by alexz on Wed 21st Mar 2012 04:16 UTC
alexz
Member since:
2012-02-25

As such, with just a bare 1G connection, I'm well within my right to remove ads from web pages to speed up page loading.


I have fairly good Internet here, but ads still slow page loading and waste my precious laptop battery. According to your standards it's well within my right to block ads on osnews, but if everybody does it, how will you survive? Will you launch a paid version? OSNews Gold?

Edited 2012-03-21 04:17 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: websites?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 21st Mar 2012 08:22 UTC in reply to "websites?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

As such, with just a bare 1G connection, I'm well within my right to remove ads from web pages to speed up page loading.


I have fairly good Internet here, but ads still slow page loading and waste my precious laptop battery. According to your standards it's well within my right to block ads on osnews, but if everybody does it, how will you survive? Will you launch a paid version? OSNews Gold?


We have a paid, ad-free version, actually. Other than that - lots of people block ads on OSNews, and I don't see how we have any right to tell you not to.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: websites?
by pandronic on Wed 21st Mar 2012 10:47 UTC in reply to "RE: websites?"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Well, you have the right, but you can't enforce it. As a site owner myself, I'm really bothered by the fact that people can enjoy my content, make me pay for the bandwidth and the servers and not contribute anything back.

If a site has really obnoxious ads it's the user's right to not use that site. It's not his right to steal from the site's owner.

I'm really putting effort into making sure that my ads don't bother my users, but after all that, if you still block my ads then, it's really rude, inconsiderate and overall really douchebag behavior on the your part.

So ... get used to the ads or GTFO, I don't need you anyway. If Adblock becomes a big problem for my sites I'll do my best to block those self entitled assholes. After all, if you want to keep visiting my website, think about the fact that I need money to make it and update it and using ads for that is my choice, my right, you are not forced to click them and if you don't like it fuck off.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: websites?
by stestagg on Wed 21st Mar 2012 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: websites?"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Sounds like your revenue model is a bit broken if you feel forced to attack your users.

Reminds me somewhat of the RIIA ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: websites?
by pandronic on Wed 21st Mar 2012 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: websites?"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

In what way am I attacking my users?

I'm offering some content that some people may need. In exchange I want them to look at some ads and if they find them useful even click on them. That's the deal I'm offering. They can accept it or not.

If you want all the content and none of the ads, just think of the reverse - maybe the site owners want all the ads and none of the content. What do you say we meet in the middle? Or maybe you think that we don't have any expenses and we do all this just from the goodness of our hearts?

Why do you feel that you have the right to take advantage of my work for free - in fact more than free because your very presence on my site costs me some money?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: websites?
by marcus0263 on Wed 21st Mar 2012 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: websites?"
marcus0263 Member since:
2007-06-02

Unfortunatly the obscene amount of in your face banner, popup, etc ads that infest the net make adblock a necessity. Just like spam filters for email.

A a site owner myself I see no problems with adblock, fact is I encourage them. Then again my revenue model doesn't revolve around ads.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: websites?
by Morgan on Thu 22nd Mar 2012 02:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: websites?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I will use an ad blocker for general web browsing i.e. random page searches and such. The sites that I frequent like OSNews, Engadget, Questionable Content, etc. I will whitelist as a way of thanking them for providing content I want to read.

For sites that already get my money, such as Amazon, Newegg, Geeks.com, and so on, I use the ad blocker because I'm already lining their pockets by purchasing goods there.

As for the accusation of "attacking" your users, I don't know about that but your language was quite inflammatory in the message in question. I know I can get a bit flowery when I get into a heated discussion but that was bad enough to make me wonder how you really see your site visitors.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: websites?
by maccouch on Wed 21st Mar 2012 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: websites?"
maccouch Member since:
2012-03-14

apart from your "a tad violent" phrasing, the issue is that i cant/is-not-viable to selectively use the adblock. I enable it and it sits there doing its job. I don't even remember it anymore.

What do you propose? that i deliberately go into each site with adblock disabled and then enable it if the website uses too many ads or ads that are not my-taste-suitable? that's just dreaming.

I agree with you that ads can be non-annoying or obtruding but unfortunately 99.9% of the ads today in 99.999% of the websites are. How can we tell them apart?

ideally, and if i could just ask that from the internet deities, Adblock would be standard on every browser with two small changes:

1) that i can whitelist ad-networks.
exampe: the Fusion Ads on most mac centric blogs/websites are pretty nice. one ad per page and content is relevant to the add and vice-versa.

2) that i can say: "i want to see at most N adds" and then the Adnetworks and Website managers would order their adds in importance order on the website code.
So, if you just can show me 2 adds, what will they be? you can't shove 99 ads trough my throat, so please just chose 2!

That would probably satisfy both parties and would make a usable system. but unfortunately it seems too reasonable to actually get a change in the race-to-the-bottom tech world we live in.

------

i had a quick reflection on our disability to be reasonable like this on my blog: http://www.maccouch.com/2012/02/tv-is-broken-moderation/ and i think i will probably just post this comment there also. Maybe here and there someone will read it and help us to make it happen.

Edited 2012-03-21 12:27 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: websites?
by pandronic on Wed 21st Mar 2012 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: websites?"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

The "violent phrasing" is directed at people who take all the work that site owners do for granted. Most site owners are not rich, they are normal people, some do this for a living and can be dependent on the ad revenue to pay their mortgages and put their kids through school. Then some asshole (I'm not talking about you ;) ) comes and proclaims from behind his computer monitor that site owners should basically work for free for his enjoyment or benefit. How is that fair?

What I'm saying is that what I'd like to offer my users is a "take it or leave it" kind of deal - this is my website - either you use all of it, or none of it. Am I not reasonable?

That being said, I despise advertising. I think that a product should succeed or fail based on its merits and not on marketing campaigns and budgets. But that is not the world we live in. I'm also a fan of reasonably priced paywalls with proper trials. But then an asshole comes with crappy, but ad-supported "free" content and most users will go for that even if they would be better off paying for content in the long run, instead of wasting their time with half-baked copypasta. But again, that's the world we live in.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: websites?
by drcouzelis on Wed 21st Mar 2012 20:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: websites?"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

Then some asshole comes and proclaims from behind his computer monitor that site owners should basically work for free for his enjoyment or benefit. How is that fair?


I'm not saying that you have to work for free. I'm saying that people are not morally obligated to allow advertisements to be downloaded and displayed on their computers.

I assume someone will then respond to this with, "But then how will the website owner make money?" Well, I don't know, but if I did, I'd probably be rich.

Personally, I choose to browse the Internet without advertisements. I also have a website that I host for free without advertisements, but that's probably irrelavant since I only get about 10 visitors per month...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: websites?
by Neolander on Wed 21st Mar 2012 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: websites?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

At work, I browse the web using a first-gen eMac equipped with insufficient RAM for its current OS (512MB, and it had 384MB when I got it). You should try it too, it gives some perspective as for why people with slow machines and/or crappy network connection can make the decision to block every ad without being complete douchebags.

Then of course, I am okay with ads on my personal laptop, on which they are not much of an annoyance as long as they do not start to use obnoxious Flash animations.

Edited 2012-03-21 17:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: websites?
by bouhko on Wed 21st Mar 2012 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE: websites?"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

I had to use Google to find the link to
http://www.osnews.com/subscribe

Shouldn't you try to make it a bit more visible ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: websites?
by marcus0263 on Wed 21st Mar 2012 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE: websites?"
marcus0263 Member since:
2007-06-02

"As such, with just a bare 1G connection, I'm well within my right to remove ads from web pages to speed up page loading.


I have fairly good Internet here, but ads still slow page loading and waste my precious laptop battery. According to your standards it's well within my right to block ads on osnews, but if everybody does it, how will you survive? Will you launch a paid version? OSNews Gold?


We have a paid, ad-free version, actually. Other than that - lots of people block ads on OSNews, and I don't see how we have any right to tell you not to.
"
Wow, for as long as I've been coming here wasn't aware of the ad free. Just signed up

Reply Score: 1

developer's point of view
by siimo on Wed 21st Mar 2012 05:47 UTC
siimo
Member since:
2006-06-22

It doesn't matter if it is ok or not. But what matters is, if developers are not making money from ads due to everyone using adblock, there will be a lot fewer free apps.

Reply Score: 3

RE: developer's point of view
by pandronic on Wed 21st Mar 2012 10:50 UTC in reply to "developer's point of view"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

This.

And if you want to split hairs ... it's not moral. An ad-supported version is not a free version. It's a fucking ad-supported version. The nerve of some people ... Self-entitled pricks. Just get the paid version or find another app if you don't like the ads.

Reply Score: 3

RE: developer's point of view
by marcus0263 on Wed 21st Mar 2012 21:02 UTC in reply to "developer's point of view"
marcus0263 Member since:
2007-06-02

Most all ad infested freeware without a pay adfree option I've found to be shit at best or nothing but malware.

Reply Score: 1

I do block them
by Hussein on Wed 21st Mar 2012 07:19 UTC
Hussein
Member since:
2008-11-22

by buying the non-ad version of the app.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Wed 21st Mar 2012 07:27 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

If the ads are impacting my bandwidth, slowing performance, causing elevated data and/or battery usage, or anything else that affects either my wallet or my experience, I have absolutely no problem blocking them.

Would doing so cause any moral impact for me? Not in the least. Like most others, I have no problem paying the few bucks most mobile apps cost. But, I have never and will never get reeled into advertising within software. Whether the ads are blocked or not, my money does not change hands because of such advertising. If I block ads, it's not causing 'you' any profit loss.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Tractor
by Tractor on Wed 21st Mar 2012 09:23 UTC
Tractor
Member since:
2006-08-18

I'm not sure that "battery drain" is the best reason to cut off ads. It's a good enough one, but there are even more important ones.

You may more legitimately complain about the bandwidth cost of these ads and trackers, which is a real killer. It ends up on Your bill. Require a refund !

I'm the kind of person who believe there are even better reasons :
- you may complain about the simple fact of being tracked, something which by the way is illegal in many countries, but nonetheless done by unscrupulous ad agencies
- and what about the visual nuisance of these ads, why should i let my brain be noised by these forged lies (although on this last point, it is completely dependant on the application layout, some doing much better than others)

Inoquitous ads are, in my opinion, acceptable. Prominent ones are not, and alas it is the norm in this shitty industry.
I'm not even mentioning "tricky ads", which tries to make you "click" on them by inadvertance, putting the layout where your fingers have the most chances to be present, to generate inflated trafic and revenue.

Reply Score: 1

Not paying with cash
by Fishbowler on Wed 21st Mar 2012 12:09 UTC
Fishbowler
Member since:
2012-03-21

If I buy an app from the market, I pay with cash for the functionality the developer has taken the time to develop.

When I "buy" a free app, I'm paying with the inconvenience of viewing adverts for the same functionality they've taken the time to develop.

If you block the adverts, I can't see any sizeable distinction that doesn't make this theft.

A opposition to adverts or the extra resources they drain is akin to an opposition to goldfish and the time & resources they require to keep alive - if you don't like goldfish, only buy the tanks that don't have any in.

Yes, I know that's a crap analogy, but you knew there were ads when you downloaded the app. Downloading it under the knowledge that your ad blocker will "negate that payment" is the same as my pockets "negating that payment" in the local shop.

I'm in favour of adverts in general. The more the advertiser knows about me, the more adverts go from irrelevant annoyances to contextually relevant recommendations for things I might actually want whilst simultaneously rewarding the presenter of the recommendation of delivering it to me.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Not paying with cash
by chmeee on Wed 21st Mar 2012 13:10 UTC in reply to "Not paying with cash"
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

Wholeheartedly agree. I haven't yet paid for an app for my android phone, because the ad supported versions are 'sufficient', and oftentimes I end up using the app once or twice in a month, so I can live with the ads. Are ads annoying? Not really, they live at the bottom of the screen and suck up a little bandwidth periodically, it's not a big deal. If I do end up using apps more frequently, I'll reconsider the ad versions (hey, the market at work!). But I will not block ads in apps.

Reply Score: 1

Advertisers waste resources
by soulrebel123 on Wed 21st Mar 2012 12:29 UTC
soulrebel123
Member since:
2009-05-13

ads' waste starts with the gasoline that takes advertisers to work in the morning. It's too bad that one can block only the last steps in the chain, i.e. download and visualization.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by PieterGen
by PieterGen on Wed 21st Mar 2012 13:50 UTC
PieterGen
Member since:
2012-01-13

We as consumers are strange folks - we find it OK to pay € 2 for a cup of coffee, or € 500 for a smartphone, but € 0,50 for an app is "too expensive"

That being said, it's OK to block ads. I do it on the desktop as well.......

Reply Score: 2

Block 'em If You Want
by shollomon on Wed 21st Mar 2012 14:49 UTC
shollomon
Member since:
2008-07-06

And sleep well at night. Your phone, your bandwidth, your eyeballs. If developers don't like it, they can publish their apps another way. Personally I like the Titanium Backup/Juice Defender model. There is a free version with limited functionality and multiple levels of pay functionality, buy what you need.

Mostly I don't have any ad supported apps on my phone except weather apps. Ad supported apps seem buggy and lack features. I pay for MobiSystem Office Suite 5, Titanium Backup, DropSync, PowerAmp, Dice Player, etc. But I'm a firm believer in rooting and installing AdFree. I might not install AdFree if my browser gave me an option to block ads.

Reply Score: 1

nnealson
Member since:
2006-02-15

Is blocking web site ads and app ads similar to changing the radio station when the music stops and the ads begin or changing the TV channel when the show stops and the commercials begin?

Edited 2012-03-21 15:50 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by maxsideburn
by maxsideburn on Wed 21st Mar 2012 18:23 UTC
maxsideburn
Member since:
2011-01-04

It is ALWAYS acceptable to block, smash, or otherwise destroy ANY type of advertisement. We are bombarded with it 24/7 like some kind of plague.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by motang
by motang on Wed 21st Mar 2012 19:46 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

I don't like ads in my app and when there is an option for me to buy my favorite apps then I opt to buying them instead of using the free ones with ad.

Reply Score: 1

That's easy
by leos on Thu 22nd Mar 2012 22:30 UTC
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

You write for a website that is ad-supported. Are you ok with everyone blocking the ads on OSnews? No? Then you're not allowed to block ads that support other people either. Sorry, trying to justify it with technical issues is not a valid argument.

The app developer has decided to use ads to make money from their app. You blocking it is just like pirating the paid app.

Reply Score: 2

RE: That's easy
by ilovebeer on Fri 23rd Mar 2012 03:46 UTC in reply to "That's easy"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

The app developer has decided to use ads to make money from their app. You blocking it is just like pirating the paid app.

A person maintaining control over what gets downloaded on their phone/computer/etc. is certainly not the same as piracy.

There's absolutely no reason anyone should have to give up their right to control what/where/when/why/how on their own property. Software writers who use bad or flawed financial models is no exception. Period.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: That's easy
by Neolander on Fri 23rd Mar 2012 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE: That's easy"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

"The app developer has decided to use ads to make money from their app. You blocking it is just like pirating the paid app."

A person maintaining control over what gets downloaded on their phone/computer/etc. is certainly not the same as piracy.

There's absolutely no reason anyone should have to give up their right to control what/where/when/why/how on their own property. Software writers who use bad or flawed financial models is no exception. Period.

Making it illegal to block ads would not be more or less logical as stating that people can own a storage medium without owning its contents. It would pretty much be the same solution to the same problem : due to a fear of lost revenue, the property rights of users are partially revoked.

As it stands, piracy is illegal while blocking ads isn't. But at the core, it is exactly the same issue.

Edited 2012-03-23 08:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: That's easy
by ilovebeer on Sat 24th Mar 2012 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's easy"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

As it stands, piracy is illegal while blocking ads isn't. But at the core, it is exactly the same issue.

Everything becomes equal if you break it down far enough.

I completely disagree. Piracy is achieved by altering code, using faked or stolen credentials, etc. A pirate intends to circumvent the protection with the sole purpose of using the full software without obtaining legal means to do so.

Ad-blockers do not alter code. They do not apply fake or stolen credentials. And, people who use them do not do so with the intent of circumventing protection to obtain full use of the software.

So say that piracy and ad-blocking is the same thing is absolutely ridiculous. The law doesn't support that theory and neither does common sense.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by mullerm
by mullerm on Sun 25th Mar 2012 18:55 UTC
mullerm
Member since:
2010-08-18

Of course, it´s ok. You are paying for bandwith to you ISP. So, root your phone, install "adree", install "LBE Privacy", block every APP, install Firefox, install "Adblock Plus"...

Reply Score: 1