1. Introducing Channels - a new way to chat with other Android users!
    Dismiss Notice

Ad Free Android


Last Updated:

  1. wej1976

    wej1976 Active Member This Topic's Starter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    3
    Now I dont want to say that Ads are a good thing however the removal of ads from free apps has an adverse effect. In the short term yes it is nice to have the small banner ads "removed / blanked" however what your actually doing is removing the revenue capability's of the app that your using (prolly for free) which in turn will mean that that small back bedroom developer will be faced with no more income from the ad hosting that his app is doing.

    As far as I understand (and I'm sure you guys n gals will correct me) even if a punter doesn't click through to the link on the ad the very fact that an app shoes the ad is enough to generate a certain % of hard cash.

    Are the ads really that intrusive, I used to use ad blocking aps in chrome till I read this article Now I just ignore them but let them at least show themselves. I do still take offence to some of them that open up in a little window. But I'd rather be annoyed and still have access to the site than be pissed off due to the site collapsing.

    The apps are free, let them at least earn their few cents.

    Just my two pense worth, flame away :)

    Will
     

    Advertisement
    zetagi, ming0616 and MisterMixelpix like this.
  2. Lukehluke

    Lukehluke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    781
    Likes Received:
    24
    You are correct.

    If everyone had to remove ads then there would be a lot of paid applications instead of some amazing free applications.
     
  3. Goldy

    Goldy Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    5
    and you are correct too,

    I prefer having free apps with ads, and they really aren't that intrusive as they have been positioned by the developer and not just all over the place
     
  4. Thefoodman52

    Thefoodman52 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,314
    Likes Received:
    329
    The thing I hate is applications that 'publishers' rip from some forum, upload to the market, actually SAY in the description that it's not theirs, then put ads in it to make money off it. They didn't do anything, why should they be paid? It's like hiring someone in a bakery to sit around and eat all the food, then give them the most money per hour over the people actually doing the work.
     
  5. jev

    jev Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    17
    Whilst I certainly agree with your statement I wished there was a way to block certain categories of ads only. I do not tolerate any advertising of political and/or religious nature on something so personal as my phone / PDA. Unfortunately, the ads that show in android contain a lot of religious content and I have no means other than blocking them all if I don't want to see them. Too bad for the developers that do not provide paid versions of their programs.
     
  6. DenverRalphy

    DenverRalphy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    85
    I don't think I could name any one specific ad that has displayed in any app I've used on an Android device. That's how unobtrusive they are.
     
  7. bluenova

    bluenova OK Computer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    Likes Received:
    244
    The whole Paid apps / Ad supported apps is really a hangover from the Iphone/Win mobile way of working. My hope would be that as Android is open source more open source apps would be available for Android.

    Developers are beginning to realise that Ad revenue really doesn't do much more than cover server costs and are moving towards an open source model because their initiative is a love for the app and not really a way to make a living.

    An example is Bloo (Facebook app) the developer has been closed source with Ad revenue till now but doesn't make a living from it and it struggling to find time to develop it with his full time job, so it is likely he will be going open source. This will give the possibility for other developers that would like a class Facebook app to jump aboard or add code to specific areas of the app that they have improved.

    As someone who has been involved in several open source projects I know that donations from people that want to keep the app going can far outweigh Ad revenue and certainly covers basic server costs.
     
  8. OTTERapp

    OTTERapp Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    2
    Does anyone favor a simple ad service on for free apps? We want something easy to use and administrate. Thanks,

    Erik Wood, owner
    Otter - One Touch Text Response
     
  9. blackvyper

    blackvyper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    17
    Personally I would rather pay for an app than have ads for some restaurant I never heard of flashed at me but since I started putting my support behind the devs at: BigTinCan I haven't seen any ads.. go figure.
     
  10. White Hawk

    White Hawk New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    I believe I have the right to determine what content is downloaded onto my phone. This means that if I don't wish to be bothered by adverts, I have the right to block them.

    I am always happy to pay for software that I use. If I use free software that I find particularly impressive/useful, I tend to take the time to make a donation to the developer. If a developer releases ad-supported software and fails to release a paid-for, ad-free version, this does not affect my right to determine what content is accessed and retrieved by my phone, regardless of whether it impacts their capacity to generate revenue.

    I exercise this freedom by using AdFree. If AdFree interrupts the flow of revenue to a developer whose application is installed upon my phone, there is something seriously wrong with their financial plans. If they feel that they have the right to continue generating revenue from an application installed upon my personal device for an indefinite (and possibly unlimited) period, that is their opinion, and I am under no obligation to respect it.

    If I might offer a scenario for consideration, I think it might make my position clearer. If I have a building with a large, empty space available on an external wall, I can offer that space to an advertising agency, and generate revenue by displaying adverts in that space.

    Now, my phone's screen does not have a large, empty, unused space on it. Every pixel on this tiny screen has a purpose, which means that screen real estate comes at a higher premium, logically, than an unused wall. Being a SAMOLED screen, the pixels also have a limited lifespan (and yes, after nearly a year of use, it is possible to see where some of those LEDs have already started to fade), which means that any use of those pixels without my consent should be compensated for. They are technically perishables, and every use takes them a little closer to the end of their useful life.

    If I factor in the use of my bandwidth (for which I pay a monthly premium), my local storage media (which also has a limited lifespan and must be replaced at cost eventually), and my time and energy wasted in the mere observation of these adverts (considering how small that screen is, it's not as though I have many other places to look), all I need to do in order to start generating revenue is convince developers that they are morally obligated to make a financial concession for all the above, right?

    Perhaps I can attempt to strengthen my case by suggesting that any individuals attempting to avoid paying this surcharge to me would be contemptible and deserving of scorn. This would be emotional blackmail, legally ambiguous, and entirely unfair... wouldn't it?

    Yes, it would. The door only swings one way, you see; I must endure being made to feel bad for not wishing to be bombarded by adverts on my personal device, and taking steps pursuant to my wishes, by developers who think that the work they put into the product should be paid for in perpetuity.

    In my line of work, I provide services from which my clients continue to benefit long after the labour was undertaken. Do I have the right, morally, to oblige them thenceforth to accept a daily lecture on the benefits of using my services, at the risk of having such benefits removed if they refuse? I spend plenty of my free time doing research, writing scripts, and learning new tricks to support my work role - how many decades should I insist that a client wears my business card on his forehead in order to compensate me for doing my job properly, rather than simply paying me for my time?

    If a developer wants to make money from their software, they can charge me appropriately for it. If this does not provide them with adequate compensation for their time, they can work quicker or charge more... or perhaps, improve the quality of their software so that more people purchase it.

    If a developer believes that they have the inalienable right to generate revenue indefinitely from an application installed on my personal devices, and that I should feel bad for downloading their "FREE" software (yes, that is the very word most often included in the software's description; this implies that the software is provided without charge) while failing to allow access to potentially harmful and offensive content that would otherwise be utilising my bandwidth, my storage, my screen space, and my time - well, there is only one appropriate response to that sentiment:

    You know where you can stick that with a handful of sand, don't you?
    __________

    Edit: I just realised how old this thread was (only months, but that's what... decades in internet forum terms).

    Sorry...
     

Share This Page

Loading...