Google bans security and privacy app from Google Play store

[Ashley]

Disconnect Mobile is a service created by a group of former Google engineers and a consumer and privacy rights attorney. Their open source software is designed to stop companies from tracking you without your consent. It also blocks domains known to be hosts of malware. For those familiar with Ghostery, Ad Block, and one of the many malware domain tracking plug-ins this should be a familiar set of features however Disconnect blocks ads even in apps.

 

Images thanks to Disconnect Mobile on the iTunes App Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/disconnect-mobile/id880693493?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D8

 

What I find interesting to piggy-back on the Forbes article about Disconnect. In the aftermath of the NSA news and the general trend of increased tracking and erosion or privacy we've seen new privacy and security centric apps take off in popularity. For example: Snapchat as many photos uploaded daily as Facebook and Instagram (can't remember my source on that one, but I did read it somewhere in the last month or so). Blackphone is an Android fork with encrypted calling and other privacy and security features, Personal.com, Silent Circle, SpiderOak the list goes on and on.

 

Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/blocking-consumer-choice-googles-dangerous-ban-privacy-security-app

[Fulgrim]

Still don't get why people waste their money on products like these "smartphones". That cash could be spent on more important things, like alcohol. 

[Trik'Stari]

Still don't get why people waste their money on products like these "smartphones". That cash could be spent on more important things, like alcohol. 

HERE HERE!

[Ashley]

Still don't get why people waste their money on products like these "smartphones". That cash could be spent on more important things, like alcohol. 

 

 

HERE HERE!

I like vodka as much as the next... Forum member apparently.

 

But smartphones aren't going away anytime soon. Even if you think they're stupid.

[Builder]

"Don't be evil!" they said. "We support open source software!" they said.

 

LIES. ALL LIES.

[Ashley]

"Don't be evil!" they said. "We support open source software!" they said.

 

LIES. ALL LIES.

Well to be fair. They still have rules. I could make an open source virus, would you be mad if Google banned that?

We just have to be sure the "lines" are drawn in the right places.

[Builder]

Well to be fair. They still have rules. I could make an open source virus, would you be mad if Google banned that?

We just have to be sure the "lines" are drawn in the right places.

This is far from a virus. It's pretty clear they blocked it because they suspect it decreases ad revenue.

[Thecrazyswede]

Still don't get why people waste their money on products like these "smartphones". That cash could be spent on more important things, like alcohol. 

 

Or gasoline for your fun toys called cars

[Ashley]

This is far from a virus. It's pretty clear they blocked it because they suspect it decreases ad revenue.

I didn't mean to call Disconnect Mobile a virus. I was making a point that Google has to block things at a certain point when rules are broken.

On the one hand, yes they did block this because ultimately it hurts their bottom line. But the fact it hurts their bottom line reflects the industry moving to data-driven revenue streams. We got the Internet for "free" because of this and many people willingly jumped on the opportunity. Now were starting to reconsider, and hopefully new platforms with other monetization methods result from this. (Microsoft/Apple here is your chance!)

[Builder]

-snip-

That's actually a misconception promoted by Google. I remember a time when the internet was free AND had no ads. It was a short period, but it did exist.

[Ashley]

That's actually a misconception promoted by Google. I remember a time when the internet was free AND had no ads. It was a short period, but it did exist.

What is a misconception? That people were informed in their decision to use data-mining services?

And back then you didn't get nearly as complicated or bandwidth-intensive services, people didn't make a living off the net, and it was in the very early times an academic/military tool which means they got money to support it from elsewhere. Nowadays news, media, and a myriad of other industries need to make their living online and if you aren't paying them they need to put food on their plate somehow. Servers cost money, ISP connectivity costs money, labor costs money.

[Vacsol]

HERE HERE!

fun fact, the word "Vodka" comes from "voda" which is Russian for "water".

so "vodka" means "little water"

[qwertywarrior]

edit my bad

[Builder]

What is a misconception? That people were informed in their decision to use data-mining services?

And back then you didn't get nearly as complicated or bandwidth-intensive services, people didn't make a living off the net back then. Nowadays news, media, and a myriad of other industries need to make their living online and if you aren't paying them they need to put food on their plate somehow. Servers cost money, ISP connectivity costs money, labor costs money.

The misconception is that the internet needs targeted ads to survive. It doesn't.

 

I don't deny that people make livings off the internet, but there are ways to do it other than advertising that are even more effective than advertising.

[kuddlesworth9419]

HERE HERE!

 

Well Vodka does mean water in Russian.

[Ashley]

The misconception is that the internet needs targeted ads to survive. It doesn't.

 

I don't deny that people make livings off the internet, but there are ways to do it other than advertising that are even more effective than advertising.

I didn't mean to say that it needs targeted ads. However it does need a revenue stream. Ads are a way of accomplishing this without getting money from the user.

 

Unfortunately something more like this may happen: you know how Sprint has the unlimited Facebook/Twitter/social media plan? Well if you can first get your site big enough to get recognized, then get a major carrier or ISP to make you part of a data plan maybe they would give you some of that margin. Like a website "retailer".

[WanderingFool]

That's actually a misconception promoted by Google. I remember a time when the internet was free AND had no ads. It was a short period, but it did exist.

I have had the internet since dial-up days, and I don't ever remember a time where there were no ads.

 

Also it can be very dangerous for google to greenlight apps that clearly violate other apps terms of service.  You can do whatever you like in your own app, but the instant it starts affecting other apps revenue I have a problem with it.  The issue is this doesn't just block the malicous tracking ads, but it blocks all ads.  So many developers would be less likely to offer free apps, or you could see an increase in microtransactions.  The thing is, if you don't like ads in an app don't use an app or purchase one of the apps that don't have ads.  All I see this as is Google trying to protect developers from other developers who think that all ads are evil. *it would be different if it still allowed the ads through but broke the tracking features*

 

In a more extreme case, I ask you this.  Is it right to use an ad blocker if the developer offers an ad free version (but at a cost) and an ad supported version for free?

 

As a note you mentioned that there are more effective ways to make a living than advertising, feel free to list them...because advertising for apps is from my perspective still one of the most profitable, other than selling them for a cost or micro-transactions (which isn't always practical).

[Builder]

I have had the internet since dial-up days, and I don't ever remember a time where there were no ads. Funny. I don't recall ads in the early 90s.

 

Also it can be very dangerous for google to greenlight apps that clearly violate other apps terms of service.  You can do whatever you like in your own app, but the instant it starts affecting other apps revenue I have a problem with it.  The issue is this doesn't just block the malicous tracking ads, but it blocks all ads.  So many developers would be less likely to offer free apps, or you could see an increase in microtransactions.  The thing is, if you don't like ads in an app don't use an app or purchase one of the apps that don't have ads.  All I see this as is Google trying to protect developers from other developers who think that all ads are evil. *it would be different if it still allowed the ads through but broke the tracking features* Nearly all ads track you, that's the point. If there's an increase in micro transactions, that's fine with me. I'd much prefer a one time payment than constant psychological warfare.

 

In a more extreme case, I ask you this.  Is it right to use an ad blocker if the developer offers an ad free version (but at a cost) and an ad supported version for free? I'd say no, but I'm an iOS user. This isn't allowed by the iOS APIs. Also people actually spend money on apps on iOS so it's a bit of a different situation.

 

As a note you mentioned that there are more effective ways to make a living than advertising, feel free to list them...because advertising for apps is from my perspective still one of the most profitable, other than selling them for a cost or micro-transactions (which isn't always practical). It may not be practical on Android, but a lot of people sell apps on iOS, because iOS users spend more money on apps. That's one of the many reasons why small developers are more often than not iOS first.

[Ashley]

 

I have had the internet since dial-up days, and I don't ever remember a time where there were no ads. Funny. I don't recall ads in the early 90s.

 

Also it can be very dangerous for google to greenlight apps that clearly violate other apps terms of service.  You can do whatever you like in your own app, but the instant it starts affecting other apps revenue I have a problem with it.  The issue is this doesn't just block the malicous tracking ads, but it blocks all ads.  So many developers would be less likely to offer free apps, or you could see an increase in microtransactions.  The thing is, if you don't like ads in an app don't use an app or purchase one of the apps that don't have ads.  All I see this as is Google trying to protect developers from other developers who think that all ads are evil. *it would be different if it still allowed the ads through but broke the tracking features* Nearly all ads track you, that's the point. If there's an increase in micro transactions, that's fine with me. I'd much prefer a one time payment than constant psychological warfare.

 

In a more extreme case, I ask you this.  Is it right to use an ad blocker if the developer offers an ad free version (but at a cost) and an ad supported version for free? I'd say no, but I'm an iOS user. This isn't allowed by the iOS APIs. Also people actually spend money on apps on iOS so it's a bit of a different situation.

 

As a note you mentioned that there are more effective ways to make a living than advertising, feel free to list them...because advertising for apps is from my perspective still one of the most profitable, other than selling them for a cost or micro-transactions (which isn't always practical). It may not be practical on Android, but a lot of people sell apps on iOS, because iOS users spend more money on apps. That's one of the many reasons why small developers are more often than not iOS first.

 

And that sort of sums up Apple's response to Google/Android. Pay to get in and we can provide a great/smooth experience. Google meanwhile allows for tons of devices, creativity, customization, features, and a plethora of content and apps for far less, but monetization by ads and data collection.

[Builder]

And that sort of sums up Apple's response to Google/Android. Pay to get in and we can provide a great/smooth experience. Google meanwhile allows for tons of devices, creativity, customization, features, and a plethora of content and apps for far less, but monetization by ads and data collection.

That's Apples response to Android?

 

Wat?

 

Android was Google's response to iOS. That's evidenced by the change in design from the original prototype to the G1.

[Ashley]

That's Apples response to Android?

 

Wat?

 

Android was Google's response to iOS. That's evidenced by the change in design from the original prototype to the G1.

Response as in philosophy, not as in product.

[Builder]

Response as in philosophy, not as in product.

Well yes.

 

They emphasize good design over infinite customizability. As a result, they attract customers that will pay extra for quality. If that means paying more for apps, that's a good thing for their developers.

[TypeChaos]

@Builder

Why is it every time, you post in a thread, you always try to stay the whole Apple vs Android argument? The OP clearly didn't have anything to do with Apple at all. Just a quick look at your profile and it's all the same thing again and again.

[Builder]

@Builder

Why is it every time, you post in a thread, you always try to stay the whole Apple vs Android argument? The OP clearly didn't have anything to do with Apple at all. Just a quick look at your profile and it's all the same thing again and again.

Did you even read the post I responded to? I was asking for clarification.