Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
App to block ALL ads?
99 views
Skip to first unread message
The Real Bev
May 25, 2021, 5:42:44 PM5/25/21
to
Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too. I accepted
the necessity of these until one popped up and SCREAMED at me. That's
absolutely unacceptable. I can't remember what I was doing at the time
(last week, maybe) or I would complain directly to the author.
I can't imagine how anybody wanting to sell something would think that
scaring the shit out of potential customers would be a good idea.
--
Cheers, Bev
"I love deadlines... especially the whooshing sound
they make as they go by." -Douglas Adams
the necessity of these until one popped up and SCREAMED at me. That's
absolutely unacceptable. I can't remember what I was doing at the time
(last week, maybe) or I would complain directly to the author.
I can't imagine how anybody wanting to sell something would think that
scaring the shit out of potential customers would be a good idea.
--
Cheers, Bev
"I love deadlines... especially the whooshing sound
they make as they go by." -Douglas Adams
nospam
May 25, 2021, 5:57:04 PM5/25/21
to
In article <s8jr0i$c4f$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
use content filtering on your local network.
it will get most ads, but not all of them, since the content blocking
filters are always one step behind the ad companies, who find new ways
to circumvent the blocking.
> I accepted
> the necessity of these until one popped up and SCREAMED at me. That's
> absolutely unacceptable. I can't remember what I was doing at the time
> (last week, maybe) or I would complain directly to the author.
what you were doing was using an app which had a loud ad.
stop using that app and the problem goes away, at least until you
encounter a new app that has the same or similar loud ad.
> I can't imagine how anybody wanting to sell something would think that
> scaring the shit out of potential customers would be a good idea.
you scare easily.
use content filtering on your local network.
it will get most ads, but not all of them, since the content blocking
filters are always one step behind the ad companies, who find new ways
to circumvent the blocking.
> I accepted
> the necessity of these until one popped up and SCREAMED at me. That's
> absolutely unacceptable. I can't remember what I was doing at the time
> (last week, maybe) or I would complain directly to the author.
stop using that app and the problem goes away, at least until you
encounter a new app that has the same or similar loud ad.
> I can't imagine how anybody wanting to sell something would think that
> scaring the shit out of potential customers would be a good idea.
Eli the Bearded
May 25, 2021, 7:13:11 PM5/25/21
to
In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
Browser ones are harder to stop.
> use content filtering on your local network.
data).
> it will get most ads, but not all of them, since the content blocking
> filters are always one step behind the ad companies, who find new ways
> to circumvent the blocking.
cannot be (100%) solved.
>> I accepted
>> the necessity of these until one popped up and SCREAMED at me.
control over the ads that appear with it. They instead have enlisted
services to provide ads and give them payments. In such a situation the
best the author can do is notify the partner ad agency. The agency may
have not even directly provided it, but resold the spot. It can be
very difficult after the fact to know where a particular ad came from,
you need some IDs associated with the ad at the time of display.
>> I can't imagine how anybody wanting to sell something would think that
>> scaring the shit out of potential customers would be a good idea.
but somehow manage to be successful enough to sustain the business.
> you scare easily.
Jump to conclusions much there, nospam?
Elijah
------
advertising: micropayments done in the most shitty way
nospam
May 25, 2021, 7:38:03 PM5/25/21
to
In article <eli$21052...@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have ads, although nowhere
near as many.
> > use content filtering on your local network.
>
> An outside the device filter won't work on a new network (eg, cellular
> data).
it does if the device is configured to do so.
there are cloud solutions for exactly this scenario.
> > it will get most ads, but not all of them, since the content blocking
> > filters are always one step behind the ad companies, who find new ways
> > to circumvent the blocking.
>
> I believe ad blocking is effectively the Halting Problem, which provably
> cannot be (100%) solved.
>
> >> I accepted
> >> the necessity of these until one popped up and SCREAMED at me.
>
> In many cases the provider of a resource (app, webpage) has no direct
> control over the ads that appear with it. They instead have enlisted
> services to provide ads and give them payments. In such a situation the
> best the author can do is notify the partner ad agency. The agency may
> have not even directly provided it, but resold the spot. It can be
> very difficult after the fact to know where a particular ad came from,
> you need some IDs associated with the ad at the time of display.
>
> >> I can't imagine how anybody wanting to sell something would think that
> >> scaring the shit out of potential customers would be a good idea.
>
> There are so many advertising tactics out there that I find baffling,
> but somehow manage to be successful enough to sustain the business.
>
> > you scare easily.
>
> Jump to conclusions much there, nospam?
not at all.
she stated she was scared by an ad on a phone.
think about that. being scared by an *ad*. on a phone.
the ad might be annoying (many of them are), but it's hardly scary. it
cannot inflict harm.
it's also the result of a user action, something she explicitly did to
cause the ad to start. ads don't randomly start playing while the phone
is not being used. ad companies want the user's attention.
mute the volume or quit the app. problem solved.
uninstall the app and future problems avoided.
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> >> Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
>
> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
> Browser ones are harder to stop.
that is not a guarantee either. sometimes there aren't alternatives to
> >> Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
>
> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
> Browser ones are harder to stop.
ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have ads, although nowhere
near as many.
> > use content filtering on your local network.
>
> An outside the device filter won't work on a new network (eg, cellular
> data).
there are cloud solutions for exactly this scenario.
> > it will get most ads, but not all of them, since the content blocking
> > filters are always one step behind the ad companies, who find new ways
> > to circumvent the blocking.
>
> I believe ad blocking is effectively the Halting Problem, which provably
> cannot be (100%) solved.
>
> >> I accepted
> >> the necessity of these until one popped up and SCREAMED at me.
>
> In many cases the provider of a resource (app, webpage) has no direct
> control over the ads that appear with it. They instead have enlisted
> services to provide ads and give them payments. In such a situation the
> best the author can do is notify the partner ad agency. The agency may
> have not even directly provided it, but resold the spot. It can be
> very difficult after the fact to know where a particular ad came from,
> you need some IDs associated with the ad at the time of display.
>
> >> I can't imagine how anybody wanting to sell something would think that
> >> scaring the shit out of potential customers would be a good idea.
>
> There are so many advertising tactics out there that I find baffling,
> but somehow manage to be successful enough to sustain the business.
>
> > you scare easily.
>
> Jump to conclusions much there, nospam?
she stated she was scared by an ad on a phone.
think about that. being scared by an *ad*. on a phone.
the ad might be annoying (many of them are), but it's hardly scary. it
cannot inflict harm.
it's also the result of a user action, something she explicitly did to
cause the ad to start. ads don't randomly start playing while the phone
is not being used. ad companies want the user's attention.
mute the volume or quit the app. problem solved.
uninstall the app and future problems avoided.
Eli the Bearded
May 25, 2021, 7:58:27 PM5/25/21
to
In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
>> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
> that is not a guarantee either. sometimes there aren't alternatives to
> ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have ads, although nowhere
> near as many.
If it has ads, I don't install it (or if mistakenly installed, it
> ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have ads, although nowhere
> near as many.
gets uninstalled). That solves in-app ads. No app is so indispensible
that I've needed to break that rule yet.
What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
Non-monetary pleas for me to do something, eg Firefox asking me to look
at Pocket, I write off as "not ads". YMMV.
Elijah
------
ads in webpages are not "in-app ads"
kelown
May 25, 2021, 9:04:41 PM5/25/21
to
>> Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
AdClear is a VPN firewall and system-wide ad-blocker that does a great
job of blocking ads over your phone.You can also block apps that don't
need Internet access except for serving ads.
https://www.seven.com
paul
May 25, 2021, 10:12:55 PM5/25/21
to
nospam wrote on 25.05.2021 18:38
In my humblest of opinions, if someone is seeing ads, something is wrong.
*What functionality do we need that doesn't come with an adfree app anyway?*
> uninstall the app and future problems avoided.
When I test apps, they get a one-strike-you're-out condition, one of which
is whether they display ads or not.
Luckily, when I search for apps in Google Play (via the Aurora Store), I
explicitly set the filter to not include apps with ads so I never see them.
In my humble opinion, if someone is constantly seeing ads, it's proof that
something is very wrong. I don't know what is wrong - but something is.
*What functionality do we need that doesn't come with an adfree app anyway?*
> sometimes there aren't alternatives to ad-supported apps
I must have a few hundred apps and, offhand to my knowledge, none have ads.
In my humblest of opinions, if someone is seeing ads, something is wrong.
*What functionality do we need that doesn't come with an adfree app anyway?*
> uninstall the app and future problems avoided.
is whether they display ads or not.
Luckily, when I search for apps in Google Play (via the Aurora Store), I
explicitly set the filter to not include apps with ads so I never see them.
In my humble opinion, if someone is constantly seeing ads, it's proof that
something is very wrong. I don't know what is wrong - but something is.
*What functionality do we need that doesn't come with an adfree app anyway?*
paul
May 25, 2021, 10:19:20 PM5/25/21
to
Eli the Bearded wrote on 26.05.2021 01:58
> What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
This is a basic question I'd love to know the answer to also.
What app functionality do a lot of people need that doesn't have an
alternative which doesn't have any ads?
While I have hundreds of apps on my phone, I admit I don't do some things
like game playing that a lot of people do so let's not name specific brands
but overall functionality as I'm sure there are certain games that you can
only get with ads if you must have _that_ game.
What do you need to do on a phone that doesn't have ad free apps to do it?
> What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
What app functionality do a lot of people need that doesn't have an
alternative which doesn't have any ads?
While I have hundreds of apps on my phone, I admit I don't do some things
like game playing that a lot of people do so let's not name specific brands
but overall functionality as I'm sure there are certain games that you can
only get with ads if you must have _that_ game.
What do you need to do on a phone that doesn't have ad free apps to do it?
paul
May 25, 2021, 10:24:27 PM5/25/21
to
kelown wrote on 26.05.2021 03:04
> AdClear is a VPN firewall and system-wide ad-blocker that does a great
> job of blocking ads over your phone.You can also block apps that don't
> need Internet access except for serving ads.
> https://www.seven.com
+1 on AdClear.
For the OP I would also vouch for AdClear although as I recall there was
some controversy between Google & AdClear that I don't remember the details
of (did they get kicked off of Google Play?).
I used AdClear for years but I didn't really need it.
My last two phones each had hundreds of apps & I am not using AdClear & yet
I haven't seen an ad in ages (I can't remember when I last saw an ad).
I'd first ask what functionality we need that has ads before installing
AdClear but AdClear also seems to do the trick (as might a good hosts file
if rooted).
I'd also let people know that the GP search is easy for ad free apps.
> AdClear is a VPN firewall and system-wide ad-blocker that does a great
> job of blocking ads over your phone.You can also block apps that don't
> need Internet access except for serving ads.
> https://www.seven.com
For the OP I would also vouch for AdClear although as I recall there was
some controversy between Google & AdClear that I don't remember the details
of (did they get kicked off of Google Play?).
I used AdClear for years but I didn't really need it.
My last two phones each had hundreds of apps & I am not using AdClear & yet
I haven't seen an ad in ages (I can't remember when I last saw an ad).
I'd first ask what functionality we need that has ads before installing
AdClear but AdClear also seems to do the trick (as might a good hosts file
if rooted).
I'd also let people know that the GP search is easy for ad free apps.
Alan Baker
May 25, 2021, 11:01:04 PM5/25/21
to
On 2021-05-25 7:12 p.m., paul wrote:
> nospam wrote on 25.05.2021 18:38
>> sometimes there aren't alternatives to ad-supported apps
>
> I must have a few hundred apps and, offhand to my knowledge, none have ads.
>
So in reality, you haven't the slightest clue but for perhaps a handful.
> nospam wrote on 25.05.2021 18:38
>> sometimes there aren't alternatives to ad-supported apps
>
> I must have a few hundred apps and, offhand to my knowledge, none have ads.
>
The Real Bev
May 26, 2021, 12:17:48 AM5/26/21
to
On 05/25/2021 04:58 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>>> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
>> that is not a guarantee either. sometimes there aren't alternatives to
>> ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have ads, although nowhere
>> near as many.
>
> If it has ads, I don't install it (or if mistakenly installed, it
> gets uninstalled). That solves in-app ads. No app is so indispensible
> that I've needed to break that rule yet.
>
> What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
The one that immediately comes to mind is 'Classic Words' which is a
> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>>> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
>> that is not a guarantee either. sometimes there aren't alternatives to
>> ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have ads, although nowhere
>> near as many.
>
> If it has ads, I don't install it (or if mistakenly installed, it
> gets uninstalled). That solves in-app ads. No app is so indispensible
> that I've needed to break that rule yet.
>
> What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
proper Scrabble game with 5 or more levels of difficulty. That was the
only 'real' one I could find. The ads only arrive when I have a wifi
connection. I don't think that was the source of the screaming ad.
I tried a number of 'gallery' apps, and the one I liked best has ads.
Same with the other apps that have ads. As long as they're just bands
across the top or bottom of the screen I can tolerate/ignore them.
Anybody who wastes money trying to sell me something makes me smile.
Remember there was a short video that asked you to do something that
required concentration and after 15 seconds or so a screaming horror
popped up? It was sort of like that, but different.
> Non-monetary pleas for me to do something, eg Firefox asking me to look
> at Pocket, I write off as "not ads". YMMV.
--
Cheers, Bev
"...so she told me it was either her or the ham radio, over."
paul
May 26, 2021, 12:49:33 AM5/26/21
to
The Real Bev wrote on 26.05.2021 06:17
guess you're stuck with the ads (or with blocking them via AdClear).
https://adclear.com
> I tried a number of 'gallery' apps, and the one I liked best has ads.
That's interesting as a picture gallery app doesn't have a lot of things to
do, does it (that the others don't do)?
Searching F-Droid via Aurora Droid for free open source gallery apps nets
Simple Gallery Pro (minimum SDK 21)
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.simplemobiletools.gallery.pro/
LeafPic Revived (minimum SDK 21)
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.alienpants.leafpicrevived/
PhotoChiotte (minimum SDK 21)
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/la.daube.photochiotte/
Camera Roll (minimum SDK 19) (deprecated)
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/us.koller.cameraroll/
A Photo Manager (minimum SDK 14)
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/de.k3b.android.androFotoFinder/
Using Aurora to search Google Play there are too many to list them all.'
These are Google free, GSF free, free, and ad free gallery apps.
Gallery Ad Free (target SDK 30)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.Gallery.App
Simple Gallery (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobiletools.gallery
Gallery Ad Free (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.adfreegallery
Gallery Lite (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sybu.simplegallery
Gallery Ad free (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=adfree.gallery
Gallery Ad free (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.Gallery.Pro
EZ Gallery (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jag.essentialgallery
Gallery Ad Free (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.adfree.Gallery
Gallery (target SDK 28)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=pw.claco.gallery
Gallery ICS (target SDK 19)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.moblynx.galleryicsold
I stopped there as I had installed each of those to test out at a later date
(as I am wont to do) but note each of these gallery apps is Google free, GSF
free, ad free, and of course free.
I didn't even bother to finish the list and there are certainly tons more if
you're willing to have the gallery app depend on Google Services Framework.
However one of those should be acceptable for your needs, shouldn't it?
What special thing do you need a photo/screenshot gallery app to do anyway?
I can't imagine any app that I use that I can't find a replacement for that
doesn't have any ads where all it takes, AFAIK, are decent search tools.
> Same with the other apps that have ads. As long as they're just bands
> across the top or bottom of the screen I can tolerate/ignore them.
While I've seen what you talk about I can't think of an app that I have that
has any ads, even those innocuous ones. Certainly never full screen ads.
> Anybody who wastes money trying to sell me something makes me smile.
:-)
They invented stupid people because others needed to make money off them.
> The one that immediately comes to mind is 'Classic Words' which is a
> proper Scrabble game with 5 or more levels of difficulty.
I don't play games on a phone but if you need _that_ specific game, then I
> proper Scrabble game with 5 or more levels of difficulty.
guess you're stuck with the ads (or with blocking them via AdClear).
https://adclear.com
> I tried a number of 'gallery' apps, and the one I liked best has ads.
do, does it (that the others don't do)?
Searching F-Droid via Aurora Droid for free open source gallery apps nets
Simple Gallery Pro (minimum SDK 21)
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.simplemobiletools.gallery.pro/
LeafPic Revived (minimum SDK 21)
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.alienpants.leafpicrevived/
PhotoChiotte (minimum SDK 21)
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/la.daube.photochiotte/
Camera Roll (minimum SDK 19) (deprecated)
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/us.koller.cameraroll/
A Photo Manager (minimum SDK 14)
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/de.k3b.android.androFotoFinder/
Using Aurora to search Google Play there are too many to list them all.'
These are Google free, GSF free, free, and ad free gallery apps.
Gallery Ad Free (target SDK 30)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.Gallery.App
Simple Gallery (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobiletools.gallery
Gallery Ad Free (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.adfreegallery
Gallery Lite (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sybu.simplegallery
Gallery Ad free (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=adfree.gallery
Gallery Ad free (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.Gallery.Pro
EZ Gallery (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jag.essentialgallery
Gallery Ad Free (target SDK 29)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.adfree.Gallery
Gallery (target SDK 28)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=pw.claco.gallery
Gallery ICS (target SDK 19)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.moblynx.galleryicsold
I stopped there as I had installed each of those to test out at a later date
(as I am wont to do) but note each of these gallery apps is Google free, GSF
free, ad free, and of course free.
I didn't even bother to finish the list and there are certainly tons more if
you're willing to have the gallery app depend on Google Services Framework.
However one of those should be acceptable for your needs, shouldn't it?
What special thing do you need a photo/screenshot gallery app to do anyway?
I can't imagine any app that I use that I can't find a replacement for that
doesn't have any ads where all it takes, AFAIK, are decent search tools.
> Same with the other apps that have ads. As long as they're just bands
> across the top or bottom of the screen I can tolerate/ignore them.
has any ads, even those innocuous ones. Certainly never full screen ads.
> Anybody who wastes money trying to sell me something makes me smile.
They invented stupid people because others needed to make money off them.
Andy Burns
May 26, 2021, 3:27:06 AM5/26/21
to
The Real Bev wrote:
> Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
AFAIK, only possible on a rooted device, where it can filter DNS
> Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
requests, if you only use it on wifi at home, maybe you could use a
piHole, but I doubt that covers many people's usage.
nospam
May 26, 2021, 8:12:40 AM5/26/21
to
In article <eli$21052...@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
or have a paid tier to remove ads that is not cost-effective if it's
only used on occasion.
since my ad blocking is very effective, i don't care if an app is ad
supported or not. if it does what i need, then i use the app. the ads
are blocked, so just about every app is ad-free.
worst case, i see a blank box where the ad would go, which means the
developers are not very good and can't be bothered to check for errors.
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> >> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
> > that is not a guarantee either. sometimes there aren't alternatives to
> > ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have ads, although nowhere
> > near as many.
>
> If it has ads, I don't install it (or if mistakenly installed, it
> gets uninstalled). That solves in-app ads. No app is so indispensible
> that I've needed to break that rule yet.
>
> What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
there are plenty of apps that either do not have an ad-free alternative
> >> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
> > that is not a guarantee either. sometimes there aren't alternatives to
> > ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have ads, although nowhere
> > near as many.
>
> If it has ads, I don't install it (or if mistakenly installed, it
> gets uninstalled). That solves in-app ads. No app is so indispensible
> that I've needed to break that rule yet.
>
> What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
or have a paid tier to remove ads that is not cost-effective if it's
only used on occasion.
since my ad blocking is very effective, i don't care if an app is ad
supported or not. if it does what i need, then i use the app. the ads
are blocked, so just about every app is ad-free.
worst case, i see a blank box where the ad would go, which means the
developers are not very good and can't be bothered to check for errors.
Kees Nuyt
May 26, 2021, 9:34:49 AM5/26/21
to
advertises the piHole as the DNS server in the routers' DHCP
setup. That is enough to avoid many ads and some tracking.
When I'm away from home, connected with wifi or mobile data, I
route all traffic from my phone and tablet through my
piVPN/openVPN server at home, so it uses the same DNS, i.e.
piHole.
For me, that works fine. Of course the bandwidth of piVPN
running on a Raspberry Pi 3 is somewhat limited, but I don't
watch videos on the road anyway.
Perfect for mail / chat / weather / browsing etc..
--
Regards,
Kees Nuyt
paul
May 26, 2021, 9:44:21 AM5/26/21
to
nospam wrote on 26.05.2021 14:12
It's OK if your belief system is based on no facts but if I ask for a fact
then don't just mindlessly reply that your belief system is devoid of facts.
*Name one*.
>
> since my ad blocking is very effective, i don't care if an app is ad
> supported or not. if it does what i need, then i use the app. the ads
> are blocked, so just about every app is ad-free.
As I have asked everyone here who claims they must use apps with ads,
just name functionality you feel you need that you can't find without apps.
>
> worst case, i see a blank box where the ad would go, which means the
> developers are not very good and can't be bothered to check for errors.
I see those in web pages given my PC hosts file blocks most inpage ads.
*What functionality do you need you claim you can't find adfree apps for?*
> there are plenty of apps that either do not have an ad-free alternative
> or have a paid tier to remove ads that is not cost-effective if it's
> only used on occasion.
So far nobody but The Real Bev even remotely tried to back up that up.
> or have a paid tier to remove ads that is not cost-effective if it's
> only used on occasion.
It's OK if your belief system is based on no facts but if I ask for a fact
then don't just mindlessly reply that your belief system is devoid of facts.
*Name one*.
>
> since my ad blocking is very effective, i don't care if an app is ad
> supported or not. if it does what i need, then i use the app. the ads
> are blocked, so just about every app is ad-free.
just name functionality you feel you need that you can't find without apps.
>
> worst case, i see a blank box where the ad would go, which means the
> developers are not very good and can't be bothered to check for errors.
*What functionality do you need you claim you can't find adfree apps for?*
Theo
May 26, 2021, 10:27:33 AM5/26/21
to
certain ad server IPs. The rest of the traffic they pass through to your
regular internet connection (ie there aren't a real VPN with their own
servers etc).
One I can think of is:
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard
which has an adblock hosts file option if you install the .apk, but not via
the Play Store (funny that, can't imagine why Google doesn't like adblocking)
Theo
The Real Bev
May 26, 2021, 11:25:30 AM5/26/21
to
On 05/26/2021 07:27 AM, Theo wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> > Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
>>
>> AFAIK, only possible on a rooted device, where it can filter DNS
>> requests, if you only use it on wifi at home, maybe you could use a
>> piHole, but I doubt that covers many people's usage.
>
> There are apps that provide a VPN service, which blackhole traffic to
> certain ad server IPs. The rest of the traffic they pass through to your
> regular internet connection (ie there aren't a real VPN with their own
> servers etc).
>
> One I can think of is:
> https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard
That seems like the most useful suggestion thus far. Thanks!
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> > Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
>>
>> AFAIK, only possible on a rooted device, where it can filter DNS
>> requests, if you only use it on wifi at home, maybe you could use a
>> piHole, but I doubt that covers many people's usage.
>
> There are apps that provide a VPN service, which blackhole traffic to
> certain ad server IPs. The rest of the traffic they pass through to your
> regular internet connection (ie there aren't a real VPN with their own
> servers etc).
>
> One I can think of is:
> https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard
> which has an adblock hosts file option if you install the .apk, but not via
> the Play Store (funny that, can't imagine why Google doesn't like adblocking)
Frank Slootweg
May 26, 2021, 11:52:31 AM5/26/21
to
The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/25/2021 04:58 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> > In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> >>> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
> >> that is not a guarantee either. sometimes there aren't alternatives to
> >> ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have ads, although nowhere
> >> near as many.
> >
> > If it has ads, I don't install it (or if mistakenly installed, it
> > gets uninstalled). That solves in-app ads. No app is so indispensible
> > that I've needed to break that rule yet.
> >
> > What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
>
> The one that immediately comes to mind is 'Classic Words' which is a
> proper Scrabble game with 5 or more levels of difficulty. That was the
> only 'real' one I could find. The ads only arrive when I have a wifi
> connection. I don't think that was the source of the screaming ad.
$DRIFT ON
> > In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> >>> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
> >> that is not a guarantee either. sometimes there aren't alternatives to
> >> ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have ads, although nowhere
> >> near as many.
> >
> > If it has ads, I don't install it (or if mistakenly installed, it
> > gets uninstalled). That solves in-app ads. No app is so indispensible
> > that I've needed to break that rule yet.
> >
> > What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
>
> The one that immediately comes to mind is 'Classic Words' which is a
> proper Scrabble game with 5 or more levels of difficulty. That was the
> only 'real' one I could find. The ads only arrive when I have a wifi
> connection. I don't think that was the source of the screaming ad.
My previous Huawei (Y560-L02) phone with Android 5.1.1 had the nice
functionality that you could allow/disallow Internet access - Mobile
or/and Wi-Fi - on a per-app basis.
Such a feature would solve your problem with the ads in the 'Classic
Words' game.
However, my current Samsung Galaxy A51 phone with Android 10/11 does
not seem to have that functionality or anything similar.
Was this Huawei feature the odd-on-out?
$DRIFT OFF
[...]
AJL
May 26, 2021, 12:21:00 PM5/26/21
to
On 5/26/2021 7:27 AM, Theo wrote:
> There are apps that provide a VPN service, which blackhole traffic to
> certain ad server IPs. The rest of the traffic they pass through to your
> regular internet connection (ie there aren't a real VPN with their own
> servers etc).
>
> One I can think of is:
> https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard
> which has an adblock hosts file option if you install the .apk, but not via
> the Play Store (funny that, can't imagine why Google doesn't like adblocking)
If you use Google in any way (bet you do) then the ads are one way that
> There are apps that provide a VPN service, which blackhole traffic to
> certain ad server IPs. The rest of the traffic they pass through to your
> regular internet connection (ie there aren't a real VPN with their own
> servers etc).
>
> One I can think of is:
> https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard
> which has an adblock hosts file option if you install the .apk, but not via
> the Play Store (funny that, can't imagine why Google doesn't like adblocking)
you pay for her services. That said:
I see no ads in my Gmail service. I of course pay with my data in the
cloud. But of course it has to squeeze in between my health provider
data, my credit card data, my various (4) government's data, my ISP
data, my online purchase data, my phone provider data, my utility
provider data, etc, etc, etc. Those who have no data in the cloud raise
your hand. I thought so...
The apps in the Google Play Store are plainly marked if they contain ads
or not so one can choose all ad free downloads if wanted. My experience
is that many ad free apps are duds. YMMV. In most cases I just prefer to
pay the few bucks to remove the ads or buy the app if pay only. I don't
mind paying for a developer's hard work. YMMV.
And there are umpteen ad blockers available in the Chrome Web Store
though I don't use one. For my browser news reading I just use a
JavaScript on-off switch, reader view button, and cookie killer switch.
They kill most of the annoying ads for me. YMMV.
paul
May 26, 2021, 12:57:05 PM5/26/21
to
Frank Slootweg wrote on 26.05.2021 10:52
> My previous Huawei (Y560-L02) phone with Android 5.1.1 had the nice
> functionality that you could allow/disallow Internet access - Mobile
> or/and Wi-Fi - on a per-app basis.
Let's see if we can find a setting to set the Wi-Fi access per app.
First place I look is in permissions under Settings > Apps > Your apps
Taking "Chrome" as my example (which I have "disabled") there's only
Camera, Contacts, Location, Microphone, & Storage (all disabled)
But there's also a section for "Mobile data" which I looked into.
Allow background data usage = on/off
Allow data usage while Data server is on = on/off
It's not clear to me what a "Data server" is and a search for "Android data
server" didn't bring up anything that clued me in as to what it really is.
One conclusion we can potentially make is the OP can restrict mobile data on
a per-app basis, but that doesn't tell us anything about Wi-Fi access.
So I move on to the Android 11 Settings > Connections > Wi-Fi section where
under "Data usage" there's a section for "Wi-Fi data usage" which, for
Chrome (which is disabled) there are those _same_ two options again!
Allow background data usage = on/off
Allow data usage while Data server is on = on/off
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......... does that mean the switch applies to both Wi-Fi and
to mobile data? If so, that means we can turn on or off "data" (which I have
to assume is both Wi-Fi & Cellular Data at this point) on a per app basis.
Notice it says "background" data in one option and "Data server" in the
other so we need to dig deeper into what "foreground" data means and what
that "Data server" is (because I don't know what a "Data server" is yet).
BTW, there's also a "Data saver" option in Settings > Connections > Data
usage which says "Data saver helps cut down your data usage by preventing
apps from using data in the background". Turn on now = yes/no
And of course there's a "Mobile data = on/off" option, which when you turn
it on allows another Android 11 option for "Mobile data only apps = on/off"
which, when I turn it on, I get the description of "Select apps that you
want to always use mobile data, even when you're connected to Wi-Fi. This is
useful if a certain app is blocked on a work or school Wi-Fi network."
There is a long list of apps with only a yes/no toggle after that option.
As a test, I set Aloha Lite to "on" in that mobile-data-only setting.
With Wi-Fi & MobileData on, it connected to the net.
With Wi-Fi off & MobileData on, it connected to the net.
With Wi-Fi on & MobileData off, it connected to the net. Huh? WTF?
With Wi-Fi off & MobileData off, it didn't connect to the net.
Drat. It shouldn't have worked with MobileData off & Wi-Fi on, but it did.
Let me know if you find something different or have added input so that
everyone benefits from each and every effort we apply to help others.
> My previous Huawei (Y560-L02) phone with Android 5.1.1 had the nice
> functionality that you could allow/disallow Internet access - Mobile
> or/and Wi-Fi - on a per-app basis.
> However, my current Samsung Galaxy A51 phone with Android 10/11 does
> not seem to have that functionality or anything similar.
I have an A-series on Android 11 which (I think) would be similar to yours.
> not seem to have that functionality or anything similar.
Let's see if we can find a setting to set the Wi-Fi access per app.
First place I look is in permissions under Settings > Apps > Your apps
Taking "Chrome" as my example (which I have "disabled") there's only
Camera, Contacts, Location, Microphone, & Storage (all disabled)
But there's also a section for "Mobile data" which I looked into.
Allow background data usage = on/off
Allow data usage while Data server is on = on/off
It's not clear to me what a "Data server" is and a search for "Android data
server" didn't bring up anything that clued me in as to what it really is.
One conclusion we can potentially make is the OP can restrict mobile data on
a per-app basis, but that doesn't tell us anything about Wi-Fi access.
So I move on to the Android 11 Settings > Connections > Wi-Fi section where
under "Data usage" there's a section for "Wi-Fi data usage" which, for
Chrome (which is disabled) there are those _same_ two options again!
Allow background data usage = on/off
Allow data usage while Data server is on = on/off
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......... does that mean the switch applies to both Wi-Fi and
to mobile data? If so, that means we can turn on or off "data" (which I have
to assume is both Wi-Fi & Cellular Data at this point) on a per app basis.
Notice it says "background" data in one option and "Data server" in the
other so we need to dig deeper into what "foreground" data means and what
that "Data server" is (because I don't know what a "Data server" is yet).
BTW, there's also a "Data saver" option in Settings > Connections > Data
usage which says "Data saver helps cut down your data usage by preventing
apps from using data in the background". Turn on now = yes/no
And of course there's a "Mobile data = on/off" option, which when you turn
it on allows another Android 11 option for "Mobile data only apps = on/off"
which, when I turn it on, I get the description of "Select apps that you
want to always use mobile data, even when you're connected to Wi-Fi. This is
useful if a certain app is blocked on a work or school Wi-Fi network."
There is a long list of apps with only a yes/no toggle after that option.
As a test, I set Aloha Lite to "on" in that mobile-data-only setting.
With Wi-Fi & MobileData on, it connected to the net.
With Wi-Fi off & MobileData on, it connected to the net.
With Wi-Fi on & MobileData off, it connected to the net. Huh? WTF?
With Wi-Fi off & MobileData off, it didn't connect to the net.
Drat. It shouldn't have worked with MobileData off & Wi-Fi on, but it did.
Let me know if you find something different or have added input so that
everyone benefits from each and every effort we apply to help others.
Eli the Bearded
May 26, 2021, 1:17:10 PM5/26/21
to
In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
> there are plenty of apps that either do not have an ad-free alternative
> or have a paid tier to remove ads that is not cost-effective if it's
> only used on occasion.
Last I checked, that's not a direct answer to my question. And I don't
>> What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
> there are plenty of apps that either do not have an ad-free alternative
> or have a paid tier to remove ads that is not cost-effective if it's
> only used on occasion.
care what _you_ consider "cost-effective". I'm asking for what apps have
no non-ad-supported alternatives.
(To address The Real Bev's example, games are very difficult to define
"alternatives" for. My idea of an acceptable alternative might not be
hers.)
Elijah
------
has few app "needs" really
paul
May 26, 2021, 1:19:55 PM5/26/21
to
Theo wrote on 26.05.2021 16:27
In the past I used AdClear which, I think worked (but I don't generally
download apps with ads so I'm probably not a good test of these as ad
blockers).
I think AdClear has the same issue with Google Play for some strange reason.
https://github.com/SEVENNetworks/AdClear/releases
Looking at NetGuard you have to dig a little bit to find the latest APK.
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases
Where this appears to be the current stable version of NetGuard.
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases/download/2.295/NetGuard-v2.295-release.apk
When I opened it up it asks for some permissions and then says "You can
allow or deny Wi-Fi or mobile internet access by tapping on the icons next
to an app" which may be a good way to allow/deny Internet to any given app.
Inside of NetGuard is a list of your apps where I scrolled down to "Chrome"
and to the right I tapped the "Wi-Fi" and "MobileData" icons.
There were other NetGuard settings for each app such as the "Conditions"
Allow Wi-Fi when screen is on (yes/no)
Allow mobile whyen screen is on (yes/no)
Block when roaming (mine was grayed out)
Allow in lockdown mode (yes/no)
Interestingly for the OP there was an option to log access attempts.
Enable logging of blocked addresses only (yes/no)
Enable filtering to log allowed addresses too (yes/no)
Enable access notifications for newly logged addresses (yes/no)
Notify Internet access attempts (yes/no)
Obviously that two-minute test just scratched the surface but I would say
from my experience testing programs that this NetGuard is a keeper.
Thank you Theo!
> https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard
> which has an adblock hosts file option if you install the .apk, but not via
> the Play Store (funny that, can't imagine why Google doesn't like adblocking)
Thanks for the pointer to NetGuard which is new to me.
> which has an adblock hosts file option if you install the .apk, but not via
> the Play Store (funny that, can't imagine why Google doesn't like adblocking)
In the past I used AdClear which, I think worked (but I don't generally
download apps with ads so I'm probably not a good test of these as ad
blockers).
I think AdClear has the same issue with Google Play for some strange reason.
https://github.com/SEVENNetworks/AdClear/releases
Looking at NetGuard you have to dig a little bit to find the latest APK.
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases
Where this appears to be the current stable version of NetGuard.
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases/download/2.295/NetGuard-v2.295-release.apk
When I opened it up it asks for some permissions and then says "You can
allow or deny Wi-Fi or mobile internet access by tapping on the icons next
to an app" which may be a good way to allow/deny Internet to any given app.
Inside of NetGuard is a list of your apps where I scrolled down to "Chrome"
and to the right I tapped the "Wi-Fi" and "MobileData" icons.
There were other NetGuard settings for each app such as the "Conditions"
Allow Wi-Fi when screen is on (yes/no)
Allow mobile whyen screen is on (yes/no)
Block when roaming (mine was grayed out)
Allow in lockdown mode (yes/no)
Interestingly for the OP there was an option to log access attempts.
Enable logging of blocked addresses only (yes/no)
Enable filtering to log allowed addresses too (yes/no)
Enable access notifications for newly logged addresses (yes/no)
Notify Internet access attempts (yes/no)
Obviously that two-minute test just scratched the surface but I would say
from my experience testing programs that this NetGuard is a keeper.
Thank you Theo!
paul
May 26, 2021, 1:38:25 PM5/26/21
to
AJL wrote on 26.05.2021 18:20
> The apps in the Google Play Store are plainly marked if they contain ads
> or not so one can choose all ad free downloads if wanted.
This isn't for AJL - my advice is for people who want good search results.
So please take the advice below not "aimed" at AJL but aimed at most users.
Trust me that AJL is wrong - but what matters to you is what's right.
*My opinion is you should _NEVER SEE_ any apps with ads in a good search.*
Period.
(You can always loosen the filter later - but that filter should exist.)
*The _only_ apps you should see in a decent 1st search are "ad free" apps.*
Period.
Only if there are no decent free apps should you need to loosen the filter.
Which almost never happens (in my experience).
The whole point of an app search is for it to be powerful in the 1st place!
Why should your eyes have to do a visual search to pick the needle out of
the haystack as AJL suggests? I think the _filter_ should do that for you.
Google Play doesn't provide any decent filters.
Period.
If you use Google Play searches, then you're wasting your time.
You're trying to _visually_ find a good app in a haystack of bad apps.
If you use the Aurora Store (which searches Google Play) you get a host of
filtering options, one of which is to not see any apps that have ads.
Period.
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aurora.store/
> My experience is that many ad free apps are duds. YMMV.
My experience is the dumber the search the dumber the results.
Likewise, the smarter the search the smarter the results.
I have _only_ free apps with ads - and I pick the best apps on the planet.
Anyone who claims what AJL claimed, I think, is just saying they don't know
how to search properly. And that's OK.
But AJL's conclusion is wrong.
I only post this, not for AJL (as he won't change his mind anyway).
I post this for _others_ so they don't come to the same conclusion he did.
He thinks he finds bad apps because good apps don't exist.
The reason people find bad apps is their search isn't a good one (IMHO).
The proof is my apps are the best on the planet - and none of them have ads.
Test me.
I'm never afraid of facts.
> In most cases I just prefer to
> pay the few bucks to remove the ads or buy the app if pay only. I don't
> mind paying for a developer's hard work. YMMV.
YMMV. I prefer to find the best apps on the planet.
They're always free (as far as I know).
I'm never afraid of facts.
When I say something - it's backed up by facts.
Name an app that you have to pay for that I can't do better, for free?
>
> And there are umpteen ad blockers available in the Chrome Web Store
> though I don't use one.
Chrome web store?
If people use Chrome, then that's a problem in and of itself.
> For my browser news reading I just use a
> JavaScript on-off switch, reader view button, and cookie killer switch.
> They kill most of the annoying ads for me. YMMV.
I think it's folly to try to add myriad extensions to make a web browser do
what any one person wants it to do.
My philosophical approach is to pick a web browser that _inherently_ does
what you want it to do, e.g., Tor, Aloha Lite, UngoogledChrome, Opera, Epic,
Brave, DuckDuckGo, etc.
As AJL said, YMMV.
My suggestion is to use a good search & find the best apps instead of using
a bad search and then trying to patch up all the problems of the bad apps.
> The apps in the Google Play Store are plainly marked if they contain ads
> or not so one can choose all ad free downloads if wanted.
So please take the advice below not "aimed" at AJL but aimed at most users.
Trust me that AJL is wrong - but what matters to you is what's right.
*My opinion is you should _NEVER SEE_ any apps with ads in a good search.*
Period.
(You can always loosen the filter later - but that filter should exist.)
*The _only_ apps you should see in a decent 1st search are "ad free" apps.*
Period.
Only if there are no decent free apps should you need to loosen the filter.
Which almost never happens (in my experience).
The whole point of an app search is for it to be powerful in the 1st place!
Why should your eyes have to do a visual search to pick the needle out of
the haystack as AJL suggests? I think the _filter_ should do that for you.
Google Play doesn't provide any decent filters.
Period.
If you use Google Play searches, then you're wasting your time.
You're trying to _visually_ find a good app in a haystack of bad apps.
If you use the Aurora Store (which searches Google Play) you get a host of
filtering options, one of which is to not see any apps that have ads.
Period.
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aurora.store/
> My experience is that many ad free apps are duds. YMMV.
Likewise, the smarter the search the smarter the results.
I have _only_ free apps with ads - and I pick the best apps on the planet.
Anyone who claims what AJL claimed, I think, is just saying they don't know
how to search properly. And that's OK.
But AJL's conclusion is wrong.
I only post this, not for AJL (as he won't change his mind anyway).
I post this for _others_ so they don't come to the same conclusion he did.
He thinks he finds bad apps because good apps don't exist.
The reason people find bad apps is their search isn't a good one (IMHO).
The proof is my apps are the best on the planet - and none of them have ads.
Test me.
I'm never afraid of facts.
> In most cases I just prefer to
> pay the few bucks to remove the ads or buy the app if pay only. I don't
> mind paying for a developer's hard work. YMMV.
They're always free (as far as I know).
I'm never afraid of facts.
When I say something - it's backed up by facts.
Name an app that you have to pay for that I can't do better, for free?
>
> And there are umpteen ad blockers available in the Chrome Web Store
> though I don't use one.
If people use Chrome, then that's a problem in and of itself.
> For my browser news reading I just use a
> JavaScript on-off switch, reader view button, and cookie killer switch.
> They kill most of the annoying ads for me. YMMV.
what any one person wants it to do.
My philosophical approach is to pick a web browser that _inherently_ does
what you want it to do, e.g., Tor, Aloha Lite, UngoogledChrome, Opera, Epic,
Brave, DuckDuckGo, etc.
As AJL said, YMMV.
My suggestion is to use a good search & find the best apps instead of using
a bad search and then trying to patch up all the problems of the bad apps.
Frank Slootweg
May 26, 2021, 1:52:36 PM5/26/21
to
paul <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote on 26.05.2021 10:52
>
> > My previous Huawei (Y560-L02) phone with Android 5.1.1 had the nice
> > functionality that you could allow/disallow Internet access - Mobile
> > or/and Wi-Fi - on a per-app basis.
> > However, my current Samsung Galaxy A51 phone with Android 10/11 does
> > not seem to have that functionality or anything similar.
>
> I have an A-series on Android 11 which (I think) would be similar to yours.
> Let's see if we can find a setting to set the Wi-Fi access per app.
[...]
> Frank Slootweg wrote on 26.05.2021 10:52
>
> > My previous Huawei (Y560-L02) phone with Android 5.1.1 had the nice
> > functionality that you could allow/disallow Internet access - Mobile
> > or/and Wi-Fi - on a per-app basis.
> > However, my current Samsung Galaxy A51 phone with Android 10/11 does
> > not seem to have that functionality or anything similar.
>
> I have an A-series on Android 11 which (I think) would be similar to yours.
> Let's see if we can find a setting to set the Wi-Fi access per app.
Never mind. The NetGuard app [1], which was mentioned elsewhere in
this thread, seems to do exactly what my Huawei 5.1.1 phone did. Even
the UI looks similar. I would not have thought of calling this
functionality a 'firewall', but I guess it sort of is.
I gather that the NetGuard app can solve The Real Bev's problem with
the ads in the 'Classic Words' game.
[1]
'NetGuard'
<https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard>
This page points to www.netguard.me, which in turn points to the Google
Play page:
'NetGuard - no-root firewall'
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.faircode.netguard>
nospam
May 26, 2021, 2:18:16 PM5/26/21
to
In article <eli$21052...@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
i do not keep a list of which apps have and do not have ad-free
alternatives and i'm not about to go searching millions of apps to find
examples. if you're that interested, you can search the various app
stores. they definitely exist.
it's *extra* work for a developer to create an ad-supported and ad-free
version (two apps versus one) or offer an in-app purchase to remove
them. many developers do, but certainly not all of them.
as for cost-effective, if the price to remove ads is higher than what
someone wants to pay, then there is effectively not an ad-free version
available.
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> >> What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
> > there are plenty of apps that either do not have an ad-free alternative
> > or have a paid tier to remove ads that is not cost-effective if it's
> > only used on occasion.
>
> Last I checked, that's not a direct answer to my question. And I don't
> care what _you_ consider "cost-effective". I'm asking for what apps have
> no non-ad-supported alternatives.
i have seen many of them in the past nearly 15 years of mobile apps.
> >> What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
> > there are plenty of apps that either do not have an ad-free alternative
> > or have a paid tier to remove ads that is not cost-effective if it's
> > only used on occasion.
>
> Last I checked, that's not a direct answer to my question. And I don't
> care what _you_ consider "cost-effective". I'm asking for what apps have
> no non-ad-supported alternatives.
i do not keep a list of which apps have and do not have ad-free
alternatives and i'm not about to go searching millions of apps to find
examples. if you're that interested, you can search the various app
stores. they definitely exist.
it's *extra* work for a developer to create an ad-supported and ad-free
version (two apps versus one) or offer an in-app purchase to remove
them. many developers do, but certainly not all of them.
as for cost-effective, if the price to remove ads is higher than what
someone wants to pay, then there is effectively not an ad-free version
available.
AJL
May 26, 2021, 2:19:25 PM5/26/21
to
On 5/26/2021 10:38 AM, paul wrote:
> Name an app that you have to pay for that I can't do better, for
> free?
Can't. Or rather don't know. I don't waste my time searching for a free
> Name an app that you have to pay for that I can't do better, for
> free?
app when the one I've tried and like only costs ten bucks or less. If
one has to worry about spending a one time fee of ten bucks or less for
an app, life must be very difficult indeed.
> Chrome web store? If people use Chrome, then that's a problem in and
> of itself.
driven Google actually does allow ad blockers in its browser.
BTW I also use Firefox and (gasp) Edge with the same add-ons. In Android
I use (besides Chrome) Firefox and Little Browser.
> I think it's folly to try to add myriad extensions to make a web
> browser do what any one person wants it to do.
wants to do.
> My philosophical approach is to pick a web browser that _inherently_
> does what you want it to do, e.g., Tor, Aloha Lite, UngoogledChrome,
> Opera, Epic, Brave, DuckDuckGo, etc.
> As AJL said, YMMV.
Yup.
> My suggestion is to use a good search & find the best apps instead of
> using a bad search and then trying to patch up all the problems of
> the bad apps.
Eli the Bearded
May 26, 2021, 2:45:25 PM5/26/21
to
In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> i have seen many of them in the past nearly 15 years of mobile apps.
Yet you can't seem to name any.
> i do not keep a list of which apps have and do not have ad-free
> alternatives and i'm not about to go searching millions of apps to find
> examples. if you're that interested, you can search the various app
> stores. they definitely exist.
ad-free. So...
> it's *extra* work for a developer to create an ad-supported and ad-free
> version (two apps versus one) or offer an in-app purchase to remove
> them. many developers do, but certainly not all of them.
niche app that is only available in ad-supported, then that creates an
opening for a different developer to create a competing version that is
ad-free. I believe that happens often, but I can't be sure it happens
all the time.
> as for cost-effective, if the price to remove ads is higher than what
> someone wants to pay, then there is effectively not an ad-free version
> available.
otherwise ad-supported apps is a burden that is too high for me. By
you choosing to exclude the threshold your strawman would be willing to
pay, you are effectively saying there's no free equivilent, which may
well be true. That's why I want you to _not_ consider the price.
Elijah
------
strawmen have notoriously empty wallets
paul
May 26, 2021, 2:51:52 PM5/26/21
to
Frank Slootweg wrote on 26.05.2021 19:52
> Never mind. The NetGuard app [1], which was mentioned elsewhere in
> this thread, seems to do exactly what my Huawei 5.1.1 phone did. Even
> the UI looks similar. I would not have thought of calling this
> functionality a 'firewall', but I guess it sort of is.
Funny you mention NetGuard Frank because I concluded _exactly_ what you did.
It only took me a few minutes on NetGuard to consider it a definite keeper!
In contrast the Android 11 GUI is confusing but the NetGuard option was for
each app in the list you could turn Wi-Fi and/or MobileData on or off.
That's simple!
Like it should be.
Theo knows what he's talking about!
(Better than I do for sure!)
> I gather that the NetGuard app can solve The Real Bev's problem with
> the ads in the 'Classic Words' game.
>
> [1]
> 'NetGuard'
> <https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard>
> This page points to www.netguard.me, which in turn points to the Google
> Play page:
> 'NetGuard - no-root firewall'
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.faircode.netguard>
Knowing that we were warned the Google Play version of NetGuard is dumbed
down in some ways I went directly with the latest NetGuard APK on GitHub.
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases/download/2.295/NetGuard-v2.295-release.apk
> Never mind. The NetGuard app [1], which was mentioned elsewhere in
> this thread, seems to do exactly what my Huawei 5.1.1 phone did. Even
> the UI looks similar. I would not have thought of calling this
> functionality a 'firewall', but I guess it sort of is.
It only took me a few minutes on NetGuard to consider it a definite keeper!
In contrast the Android 11 GUI is confusing but the NetGuard option was for
each app in the list you could turn Wi-Fi and/or MobileData on or off.
That's simple!
Like it should be.
Theo knows what he's talking about!
(Better than I do for sure!)
> I gather that the NetGuard app can solve The Real Bev's problem with
> the ads in the 'Classic Words' game.
>
> [1]
> 'NetGuard'
> <https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard>
> This page points to www.netguard.me, which in turn points to the Google
> Play page:
> 'NetGuard - no-root firewall'
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.faircode.netguard>
down in some ways I went directly with the latest NetGuard APK on GitHub.
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases/download/2.295/NetGuard-v2.295-release.apk
paul
May 26, 2021, 3:04:38 PM5/26/21
to
Eli the Bearded wrote on 26.05.2021 20:45
>> i have seen many of them in the past nearly 15 years of mobile apps.
>
> Yet you can't seem to name any.
Unfortunately people like nospam are the bane of Usenet.
He can never name any fact which underlies his belief system.
What's worse is his belief system is very strongly held.
And yet nospam's belief system is always found to be based on nothing.
>> i do not keep a list of which apps have and do not have ad-free
>> alternatives and i'm not about to go searching millions of apps to find
>> examples. if you're that interested, you can search the various app
>> stores. they definitely exist.
>
> At the moment, I have all the apps I think I need, and they are all
> ad-free. So...
Like you, I'm not afraid of the facts.
I challenge anyone to claim there's an app functionality they must have that
they can't find on Android that isn't free (& usually also ad free).
>> it's *extra* work for a developer to create an ad-supported and ad-free
>> version (two apps versus one) or offer an in-app purchase to remove
>> them. many developers do, but certainly not all of them.
>
> It's also a source of differentiation and competition.
Plenty of apps costs money on Google Play which are free on F-Droid.
An example is OSMAnd~, and FTP Servers, and Simple Mobile tools, etc.
Also plenty of apps are dumbed down on Google Play versus elsewhere.
An example is this new NetGuard that Theo pointed Frank and me to today.
Notice my belief system is _always_ based on actual facts.
It's what distinguishes me from nospam who owns only religious beliefs.
I can _always_ name an app that fits the statements that I claim.
While people like nospam (& Alan Baker & Joerg, et. al) can never do that.
>> as for cost-effective, if the price to remove ads is higher than what
>> someone wants to pay, then there is effectively not an ad-free version
>> available.
>
> The cost of maintaining ad-blocking infrastructure to remove ads from
> otherwise ad-supported apps is a burden that is too high for me. By
> you choosing to exclude the threshold your strawman would be willing to
> pay, you are effectively saying there's no free equivilent, which may
> well be true. That's why I want you to _not_ consider the price.
I've used AdClear in the past and as per Theo in this thread, both Frank and
I installed NetGuard where I found that "cost of setting it up" to be zero.
I have NetGuard running now so we'll see what that cost is but to me what
nospam is claiming is always wrong since nospam's entire belief system is
based on no facts at all.
The main place nospam survives is Apple newsgroups where I don't need to
explain to Android owners the iOS bar is set rather low in terms of facts.
>> i have seen many of them in the past nearly 15 years of mobile apps.
>
> Yet you can't seem to name any.
He can never name any fact which underlies his belief system.
What's worse is his belief system is very strongly held.
And yet nospam's belief system is always found to be based on nothing.
>> i do not keep a list of which apps have and do not have ad-free
>> alternatives and i'm not about to go searching millions of apps to find
>> examples. if you're that interested, you can search the various app
>> stores. they definitely exist.
>
> At the moment, I have all the apps I think I need, and they are all
> ad-free. So...
I challenge anyone to claim there's an app functionality they must have that
they can't find on Android that isn't free (& usually also ad free).
>> it's *extra* work for a developer to create an ad-supported and ad-free
>> version (two apps versus one) or offer an in-app purchase to remove
>> them. many developers do, but certainly not all of them.
>
> It's also a source of differentiation and competition.
An example is OSMAnd~, and FTP Servers, and Simple Mobile tools, etc.
Also plenty of apps are dumbed down on Google Play versus elsewhere.
An example is this new NetGuard that Theo pointed Frank and me to today.
Notice my belief system is _always_ based on actual facts.
It's what distinguishes me from nospam who owns only religious beliefs.
I can _always_ name an app that fits the statements that I claim.
While people like nospam (& Alan Baker & Joerg, et. al) can never do that.
>> as for cost-effective, if the price to remove ads is higher than what
>> someone wants to pay, then there is effectively not an ad-free version
>> available.
>
> The cost of maintaining ad-blocking infrastructure to remove ads from
> otherwise ad-supported apps is a burden that is too high for me. By
> you choosing to exclude the threshold your strawman would be willing to
> pay, you are effectively saying there's no free equivilent, which may
> well be true. That's why I want you to _not_ consider the price.
I installed NetGuard where I found that "cost of setting it up" to be zero.
I have NetGuard running now so we'll see what that cost is but to me what
nospam is claiming is always wrong since nospam's entire belief system is
based on no facts at all.
The main place nospam survives is Apple newsgroups where I don't need to
explain to Android owners the iOS bar is set rather low in terms of facts.
Eli the Bearded
May 26, 2021, 3:34:25 PM5/26/21
to
In comp.mobile.android, paul <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Unfortunately people like nospam are the bane of Usenet.
> He can never name any fact which underlies his belief system.
I have a good idea who I'm dealing with -- with you and with nospam. I
> Unfortunately people like nospam are the bane of Usenet.
> He can never name any fact which underlies his belief system.
am making a deliberate attempt to get nospam to justify his assertion.
> What's worse is his belief system is very strongly held.
> And yet nospam's belief system is always found to be based on nothing.
very narrow, reason for the things he claims. Absolute claims require
absolutes, which don't always exist. Just as one very luckily shaped
nickle-iron meteor will satisfy Bertrand Russell.
Elijah
------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
paul
May 26, 2021, 3:36:56 PM5/26/21
to
AJL wrote on 26.05.2021 13:19
>> Name an app that you have to pay for that I can't do better, for
>> free?
>
> Can't. Or rather don't know.
I've asked that question for years.
Nobody has yet found an app functionality that most of us want that doesn't
already exist for free on Android.
I've asked on iOS and it _certainly_ is the case that plenty of app
functionalities on iOS don't exist and worse - if they do exist - they're
not free - and worse - if they're free they have obnoxious ads.
But not on Android.
Nobody yet has come up with an app that underlies their belief system.
Note you can pick a _specific_ game, or a specific browser, or a specific
site app (like Facebook) but that's not what we're talking about here.
> I don't waste my time searching for a free
> app when the one I've tried and like only costs ten bucks or less.
No problem.
You substitute money for brains.
It happens all the time.
You think you're the only one who does that?
> If
> one has to worry about spending a one time fee of ten bucks or less for
> an app, life must be very difficult indeed.
Notice how you attack intelligent people who are smarter than you are?
You _blame_ them for your lack of app searching skills.
That's OK.
It's expected of people like you.
That's why I said my response wasn't to teach you anything.
You can't be taught.
My response was purposefully helpful advice to people who are smarter than
you who _can_ benefit from knowing there are intelligent app search options.
>> Chrome web store? If people use Chrome, then that's a problem in and
>> of itself.
>
> Most folks do use Chrome. But I was just pointing out that that nasty ad
> driven Google actually does allow ad blockers in its browser.
>
> BTW I also use Firefox and (gasp) Edge with the same add-ons. In Android
> I use (besides Chrome) Firefox and Little Browser.
Today, there are mainly two kinds left - Mozilla based & Chromium based.
I aim for "ungoogled" chromium-based browsers & privacy based browsers.
https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-android/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.opera.browser
https://epicbrowser.com/android.html
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.torproject.torbrowser
etc.
>
>> I think it's folly to try to add myriad extensions to make a web
>> browser do what any one person wants it to do.
>
> Not that much different than switching browsers to do what one
> wants to do.
These are two philosophies both of which have pros and cons.
One is to pick a general purpose browser & fix it to do what you want.
The other is to pick a specific purpose browser that does what you want.
We could discus the merits and demerits of each but suffice to say those two
philosophies exist & that most people (of course) choose the route you did.
But most people aren't all that smart either so it's to be expected.
>> My suggestion is to use a good search & find the best apps instead of
>> using a bad search and then trying to patch up all the problems of
>> the bad apps.
>
> Or find a paid app you really like and spend pocket change for it...
I agree with you that there's a sucker born every day and that's OK.
In the (paraphrased) words of, I think it was, The Real Bev, "I laugh when
people try to get me to pay for something that I don't even need to pay for
simply because I can far more easily get it for free."
>> Name an app that you have to pay for that I can't do better, for
>> free?
>
> Can't. Or rather don't know.
Nobody has yet found an app functionality that most of us want that doesn't
already exist for free on Android.
I've asked on iOS and it _certainly_ is the case that plenty of app
functionalities on iOS don't exist and worse - if they do exist - they're
not free - and worse - if they're free they have obnoxious ads.
But not on Android.
Nobody yet has come up with an app that underlies their belief system.
Note you can pick a _specific_ game, or a specific browser, or a specific
site app (like Facebook) but that's not what we're talking about here.
> I don't waste my time searching for a free
> app when the one I've tried and like only costs ten bucks or less.
You substitute money for brains.
It happens all the time.
You think you're the only one who does that?
> If
> one has to worry about spending a one time fee of ten bucks or less for
> an app, life must be very difficult indeed.
You _blame_ them for your lack of app searching skills.
That's OK.
It's expected of people like you.
That's why I said my response wasn't to teach you anything.
You can't be taught.
My response was purposefully helpful advice to people who are smarter than
you who _can_ benefit from knowing there are intelligent app search options.
>> Chrome web store? If people use Chrome, then that's a problem in and
>> of itself.
>
> Most folks do use Chrome. But I was just pointing out that that nasty ad
> driven Google actually does allow ad blockers in its browser.
>
> BTW I also use Firefox and (gasp) Edge with the same add-ons. In Android
> I use (besides Chrome) Firefox and Little Browser.
I aim for "ungoogled" chromium-based browsers & privacy based browsers.
https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-android/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.opera.browser
https://epicbrowser.com/android.html
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.torproject.torbrowser
etc.
>
>> I think it's folly to try to add myriad extensions to make a web
>> browser do what any one person wants it to do.
>
> Not that much different than switching browsers to do what one
> wants to do.
One is to pick a general purpose browser & fix it to do what you want.
The other is to pick a specific purpose browser that does what you want.
We could discus the merits and demerits of each but suffice to say those two
philosophies exist & that most people (of course) choose the route you did.
But most people aren't all that smart either so it's to be expected.
>> My suggestion is to use a good search & find the best apps instead of
>> using a bad search and then trying to patch up all the problems of
>> the bad apps.
>
> Or find a paid app you really like and spend pocket change for it...
In the (paraphrased) words of, I think it was, The Real Bev, "I laugh when
people try to get me to pay for something that I don't even need to pay for
simply because I can far more easily get it for free."
paul
May 26, 2021, 3:54:59 PM5/26/21
to
Eli the Bearded wrote on 26.05.2021 21:34
It's hard to figure out _why_ nospam says the things he says.
In general he's almost always wrong - so you have to ask yourself why.
I don't know why nospam says the things he says.
It's like he believes in a flat earth damn the facts.
It may simply be that nospam _hates_ the way things are.
So he simply denies that they exist.
As for me, if it takes you more than 10 seconds to figure me out, you're a
moron because I'm as wide open on my feelings as any human can possibly be.
It insults your own intelligence when you claim "I have a good idea" of whom
you're dealing with. That says, to me, you are "thinking" you're a genius
for figuring out that which is obvious.
Am I clear or do I need to be more explicit with people like you who think
you're geniuses when you claim you can figure out what is obvious to all?
Let me know if I need to be more clear as I am here to TEACH people stuff.
> I am making a deliberate attempt to get nospam to justify his assertion.
I've asked for years for nospam to "name just one fact" that underlies his
entire belief system and he _always_ fails that, the simplest test of all.
His entire belief system is purely imaginary and is also very strongly held.
The closest thing to it is a religious belief system that he can't prove.
>
>> What's worse is his belief system is very strongly held.
>> And yet nospam's belief system is always found to be based on nothing.
>
> I suspect you are wrong there. I believe he sometimes has a valid, if
> very narrow, reason for the things he claims.
I've studied nospam for almost a decade now (maybe more, maybe less).
His belief system is religious.
As such it can't be shaken.
Neither can he support it with facts.
Which is why he failed to support his belief system when you (and I) asked.
> Absolute claims require
> absolutes, which don't always exist. Just as one very luckily shaped
> nickle-iron meteor will satisfy Bertrand Russell.
Absolutes work well in colloquial speech which Usenet is.
Otherwise we'd be footnoting the hell out of everything.
Each Usenet message would look like an Apple ad on battery life claims.
*The battery lasts long!* /(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)/
(1) Except when it's cold outside.
(2) Except when it ages in just one year.
(3) Except when you use streaming apps.
(4) Except when it isn't replaced every year.
(5) Except when it's not left on the charger all the time.
Suffice to say that absolutes suffice in colloquial conversation as
otherwise this would look like a legal contract filled with disclaimers &
caveats.
Anyone who disputes just the absolute didn't understand the statement.
As always, if I'm not clear with you - let me know.
I can be even more blunt with you if you continue to be dense.
--
If I haven't mentioned it yet, I consider both you & nospam stupid.
You are no more intelligent than Alan Baker or Joerg Lorenz is.
As always, if I'm not being clear with you - just let me know.
> I have a good idea who I'm dealing with -- with you and with nospam.
"whom"
It's hard to figure out _why_ nospam says the things he says.
In general he's almost always wrong - so you have to ask yourself why.
I don't know why nospam says the things he says.
It's like he believes in a flat earth damn the facts.
It may simply be that nospam _hates_ the way things are.
So he simply denies that they exist.
As for me, if it takes you more than 10 seconds to figure me out, you're a
moron because I'm as wide open on my feelings as any human can possibly be.
It insults your own intelligence when you claim "I have a good idea" of whom
you're dealing with. That says, to me, you are "thinking" you're a genius
for figuring out that which is obvious.
Am I clear or do I need to be more explicit with people like you who think
you're geniuses when you claim you can figure out what is obvious to all?
Let me know if I need to be more clear as I am here to TEACH people stuff.
> I am making a deliberate attempt to get nospam to justify his assertion.
entire belief system and he _always_ fails that, the simplest test of all.
His entire belief system is purely imaginary and is also very strongly held.
The closest thing to it is a religious belief system that he can't prove.
>
>> What's worse is his belief system is very strongly held.
>> And yet nospam's belief system is always found to be based on nothing.
>
> I suspect you are wrong there. I believe he sometimes has a valid, if
> very narrow, reason for the things he claims.
His belief system is religious.
As such it can't be shaken.
Neither can he support it with facts.
Which is why he failed to support his belief system when you (and I) asked.
> Absolute claims require
> absolutes, which don't always exist. Just as one very luckily shaped
> nickle-iron meteor will satisfy Bertrand Russell.
Otherwise we'd be footnoting the hell out of everything.
Each Usenet message would look like an Apple ad on battery life claims.
*The battery lasts long!* /(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)/
(1) Except when it's cold outside.
(2) Except when it ages in just one year.
(3) Except when you use streaming apps.
(4) Except when it isn't replaced every year.
(5) Except when it's not left on the charger all the time.
Suffice to say that absolutes suffice in colloquial conversation as
otherwise this would look like a legal contract filled with disclaimers &
caveats.
Anyone who disputes just the absolute didn't understand the statement.
As always, if I'm not clear with you - let me know.
I can be even more blunt with you if you continue to be dense.
--
If I haven't mentioned it yet, I consider both you & nospam stupid.
You are no more intelligent than Alan Baker or Joerg Lorenz is.
As always, if I'm not being clear with you - just let me know.
The Real Bev
May 26, 2021, 4:19:48 PM5/26/21
to
got around Scrabble's patent/copyright/whatever, but I'm glad they did.
If I forget my Nook reader, that's what I do while waiting out of the
house.
I don't see how people can regard a phone as an adequate substitute for
a computer, or even a chromebook.
> has few app "needs" really
--
Cheers, Bev
"Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft[0], recently referred to LINUX as a
cancer. Unsurprisingly, that's incorrect; LINUX was released on
August 25th, 1991 and is therefore a virgo." -- Kevin L
AJL
May 26, 2021, 5:22:40 PM5/26/21
to
On 5/26/2021 12:36 PM, paul wrote:
> You substitute money for brains.
> You substitute money for brains.
> Notice how you attack intelligent people who are smarter than you
> are?
> are?
> You can't be taught.
> My response was purposefully helpful advice to people who are smarter
> than you
> My response was purposefully helpful advice to people who are smarter
> than you
> But most people aren't all that smart either so it's to be expected.
> there's a sucker born every day and that's OK.
I had given up on Arlen. I had hopes for this sock. Unfortunately not to
be. You can have the very last word...
kelown
May 26, 2021, 9:48:48 PM5/26/21
to
> In the past I used AdClear which, I think worked (but I don't generally
> download apps with ads so I'm probably not a good test of these as ad
> blockers).
>
> I think AdClear has the same issue with Google Play for some strange reason.
> https://github.com/SEVENNetworks/AdClear/releases
bans apps that provide system-wide ad-blocking protection, such as AdClear.
kelown
May 26, 2021, 10:32:17 PM5/26/21
to
> In my humblest of opinions, if someone is seeing ads, something is wrong.
> *What functionality do we need that doesn't come with an adfree app anyway?*
There is no ad-free freeware automation app that substitutes for the
intuitiveness of MacroDroid. Some apps are one-of-a-kind.
kelown
May 26, 2021, 10:51:35 PM5/26/21
to
> For the OP I would also vouch for AdClear although as I recall there was
> some controversy between Google & AdClear that I don't remember the details
> of (did they get kicked off of Google Play?).
Google Play Store doesn't allow apps that block ads over the entire
phone. Ad-blockers for web browsers are acceptable because the blocking
is limited only to that app.
paul
May 27, 2021, 2:24:10 AM5/27/21
to
kelown wrote on 26.05.2021 21:32
>> *What functionality do we need that doesn't come with an adfree app anyway?*
>
> There is no ad-free freeware automation app that substitutes for the
> intuitiveness of MacroDroid. Some apps are one-of-a-kind.
Thanks kelown for your purposefully helpful answer to the question posed.
The first thing I did when I saw your note was look up what "MacroDroid" is.
https://macrodroid.com/ (Target SDK 29) (4.3 rating) (5M downloads)
I just installed MacroDroid - Device Automation by ArloSoft (v 5.14.1)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.arlosoft.macrodroid
Interestingly in my constantly evolving dozen folders of active software
tests is a folder for Android automation which contains these other apps
IFTTT (com.ifttt.ifttt)
Automate (com.llamalab.automate)
But I wasn't previously aware of macrodroid because my filters are set
strictly to keep out apps with ads, so I'll test it out as I'm working on a
wifi automation solution using these ad free potential solutions.
WiFi Automatic (de.j4velin.wifiAutoOff)
Wifi Auto (com.theanykey.wifiauto)
Wifi Auto (com.vlab.tools.wifiauto)
Auto-Wifi (com.alivezoned.autowifi)
Thanks.
>> *What functionality do we need that doesn't come with an adfree app anyway?*
>
> There is no ad-free freeware automation app that substitutes for the
> intuitiveness of MacroDroid. Some apps are one-of-a-kind.
The first thing I did when I saw your note was look up what "MacroDroid" is.
https://macrodroid.com/ (Target SDK 29) (4.3 rating) (5M downloads)
I just installed MacroDroid - Device Automation by ArloSoft (v 5.14.1)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.arlosoft.macrodroid
Interestingly in my constantly evolving dozen folders of active software
tests is a folder for Android automation which contains these other apps
IFTTT (com.ifttt.ifttt)
Automate (com.llamalab.automate)
But I wasn't previously aware of macrodroid because my filters are set
strictly to keep out apps with ads, so I'll test it out as I'm working on a
wifi automation solution using these ad free potential solutions.
WiFi Automatic (de.j4velin.wifiAutoOff)
Wifi Auto (com.theanykey.wifiauto)
Wifi Auto (com.vlab.tools.wifiauto)
Auto-Wifi (com.alivezoned.autowifi)
Thanks.
paul
May 27, 2021, 2:45:37 AM5/27/21
to
kelown wrote on 27.05.2021 04:51
Thanks for clarifying what the confusion was about AdClear on Google Play
versus the (better) AdClear found in the official sites not on Google Play.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.seven.adclear.fsb
https://adclear.com/
https://github.com/SEVENNetworks/AdClear
I just downloaded AdClear to test it out again (9.15.0.815-ga from GitHub)
https://github.com/SEVENNetworks/AdClear/releases/download/v9.15.0.815-ga/AdClear.apk
Given both use some kind of "local VPN" that I really don't understand how
it works in the least, do you know if it can co-exist with Theo's NetGuard?
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases/download/2.295/NetGuard-v2.295-release.apk
BTW, does the same Google Play caveat for NetGuard exist as for AdClear that
the (better) version to get is that which is _not_ on Google Play?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.faircode.netguard
https://netguard.me/
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/
versus the (better) AdClear found in the official sites not on Google Play.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.seven.adclear.fsb
https://adclear.com/
https://github.com/SEVENNetworks/AdClear
I just downloaded AdClear to test it out again (9.15.0.815-ga from GitHub)
https://github.com/SEVENNetworks/AdClear/releases/download/v9.15.0.815-ga/AdClear.apk
Given both use some kind of "local VPN" that I really don't understand how
it works in the least, do you know if it can co-exist with Theo's NetGuard?
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases/download/2.295/NetGuard-v2.295-release.apk
BTW, does the same Google Play caveat for NetGuard exist as for AdClear that
the (better) version to get is that which is _not_ on Google Play?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.faircode.netguard
https://netguard.me/
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/
nospam
May 27, 2021, 7:34:41 AM5/27/21
to
In article <eli$21052...@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> > i have seen many of them in the past nearly 15 years of mobile apps.
>
> Yet you can't seem to name any.
as i said, i don't keep a list of such apps. i definitely recall seeing
> > i have seen many of them in the past nearly 15 years of mobile apps.
>
> Yet you can't seem to name any.
some, because i wanted to remove ads and it wasn't an option.
however, if i happen to find one in the future, i'll make a note of it.
> > i do not keep a list of which apps have and do not have ad-free
> > alternatives and i'm not about to go searching millions of apps to find
> > examples. if you're that interested, you can search the various app
> > stores. they definitely exist.
>
> At the moment, I have all the apps I think I need, and they are all
> ad-free. So...
ad-free versions of the same app.
> > it's *extra* work for a developer to create an ad-supported and ad-free
> > version (two apps versus one) or offer an in-app purchase to remove
> > them. many developers do, but certainly not all of them.
>
> It's also a source of differentiation and competition. If there is some
> niche app that is only available in ad-supported, then that creates an
> opening for a different developer to create a competing version that is
> ad-free. I believe that happens often, but I can't be sure it happens
> all the time.
app.
> > as for cost-effective, if the price to remove ads is higher than what
> > someone wants to pay, then there is effectively not an ad-free version
> > available.
>
> The cost of maintaining ad-blocking infrastructure to remove ads from
> otherwise ad-supported apps is a burden that is too high for me.
a pihole is under $20 for everything and blocks much more than just
ads.
there are also free options if $20 is a problem, which are actually
easier to set up and manage than a pihole.
that's hardly a burden.
> By
> you choosing to exclude the threshold your strawman would be willing to
> pay, you are effectively saying there's no free equivilent, which may
> well be true. That's why I want you to _not_ consider the price.
at some point, the price to remove ads is no longer worth it, which
means you either tolerate the ads in the free version or find another
solution.
one app i use offers a bundle of additional features for $5/month which
includes removing ads. none of the features are of any interest to me,
so the only benefit of paying is for ad removal. there are yearly plans
for less, but it's still much too expensive to just remove ads.
paul
May 27, 2021, 10:42:41 AM5/27/21
to
nospam wrote on 27.05.2021 13:34
> at some point, the price to remove ads is no longer worth it, which
> means you either tolerate the ads in the free version or find another
> solution.
The advertisement truth...
*The more _intelligent_ the person is - the fewer ads they will see.*
*Conversely, the _dumber_ the person is - the more ads they will see.*
Some are so dumb that they'll literally _pay_ someone to get rid of ads.
They pay to get rid of ads they never should have had in the 1st place!
The technical detail...
In reality it's more about the more _technically competent_ a person is.
The more technically competent they are, the more they are _resourceful_.
One of those resources is a _good search engine_ (eg Aurora or Auroradroid).
I use 'em both & don't see any ads (even as I have _hundreds_ of apps).
> at some point, the price to remove ads is no longer worth it, which
> means you either tolerate the ads in the free version or find another
> solution.
*The more _intelligent_ the person is - the fewer ads they will see.*
*Conversely, the _dumber_ the person is - the more ads they will see.*
Some are so dumb that they'll literally _pay_ someone to get rid of ads.
They pay to get rid of ads they never should have had in the 1st place!
The technical detail...
In reality it's more about the more _technically competent_ a person is.
The more technically competent they are, the more they are _resourceful_.
One of those resources is a _good search engine_ (eg Aurora or Auroradroid).
I use 'em both & don't see any ads (even as I have _hundreds_ of apps).
Theo
May 27, 2021, 10:45:46 AM5/27/21
to
paul <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Given both use some kind of "local VPN" that I really don't understand how
> it works in the least, do you know if it can co-exist with Theo's NetGuard?
Android can't chain VPNs. You can install both apps, but only one can be
> Given both use some kind of "local VPN" that I really don't understand how
> it works in the least, do you know if it can co-exist with Theo's NetGuard?
active at once.
> BTW, does the same Google Play caveat for NetGuard exist as for AdClear that
> the (better) version to get is that which is _not_ on Google Play?
the store, just the adblocking hosts file option is missing on that version.
The better version is to install the .apk. It is also on F-Droid.
Theo
paul
May 27, 2021, 12:08:52 PM5/27/21
to
Theo wrote on 27.05.2021 16:45
and the NetGuard "local VPN" can't both be running at the same time.
If I had to choose one app over the other it would be NetGuard because it
allows me to set on a per-app basis the apps access to Wi-Fi and/or
MobileData.
AdClear isn't needed if we choose apps that simply don't have ads.
>
>> BTW, does the same Google Play caveat for NetGuard exist as for AdClear that
>> the (better) version to get is that which is _not_ on Google Play?
>
> NetGuard is primarily an app firewall, not an adblocker.
Thanks for explaining ad blocking isn't in the NetGuard Google Play version.
I am not rooted but on my Windows PC I use the MVP hosts ad blocking file.
https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
This description of NetGuard adblocking doesn't mention needing to be rooted
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md
I'll test if NetGuard ad blocking works without root with this file:
https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
Do you know, offhand, if a non rooted phone can adblock with NetGuard?
> So it exists in
> the store, just the adblocking hosts file option is missing on that version.
> The better version is to install the .apk. It is also on F-Droid.
I think NetGuard could be a healthy tool for blocking app's access to the
network if I think they don't need Internet access (for example, since I
don't use "Chrome" or the "Google" app, I can block their Internet access).
I'm not yet sure what the utility is of blocking _just_ Wi-Fi or _just_
cellular data is yet though - but that's a need the OP had ask for on Hulu.
(Offhand I can't think of why I'd want to block one but not the other.)
Overall, this NetGuard is a keeper as both Frank & I instantly determined.
Thanks!
> Android can't chain VPNs. You can install both apps, but only one can be
> active at once.
Thanks Theo for answering that the AdClear "local VPN" (whatever that is)
> active at once.
and the NetGuard "local VPN" can't both be running at the same time.
If I had to choose one app over the other it would be NetGuard because it
allows me to set on a per-app basis the apps access to Wi-Fi and/or
MobileData.
AdClear isn't needed if we choose apps that simply don't have ads.
>
>> BTW, does the same Google Play caveat for NetGuard exist as for AdClear that
>> the (better) version to get is that which is _not_ on Google Play?
>
> NetGuard is primarily an app firewall, not an adblocker.
I am not rooted but on my Windows PC I use the MVP hosts ad blocking file.
https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
This description of NetGuard adblocking doesn't mention needing to be rooted
https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md
I'll test if NetGuard ad blocking works without root with this file:
https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
Do you know, offhand, if a non rooted phone can adblock with NetGuard?
> So it exists in
> the store, just the adblocking hosts file option is missing on that version.
> The better version is to install the .apk. It is also on F-Droid.
network if I think they don't need Internet access (for example, since I
don't use "Chrome" or the "Google" app, I can block their Internet access).
I'm not yet sure what the utility is of blocking _just_ Wi-Fi or _just_
cellular data is yet though - but that's a need the OP had ask for on Hulu.
(Offhand I can't think of why I'd want to block one but not the other.)
Overall, this NetGuard is a keeper as both Frank & I instantly determined.
Thanks!
Eli the Bearded
May 27, 2021, 1:49:54 PM5/27/21
to
In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> At the moment, I have all the apps I think I need, and they are all
>> ad-free. So...
> that's says nothing about the existence of both ad-supported and
> ad-free versions of the same app.
This is moving the goal posts. The challenge is not some app having
>> At the moment, I have all the apps I think I need, and they are all
>> ad-free. So...
> that's says nothing about the existence of both ad-supported and
> ad-free versions of the same app.
ad-supported and ad-free versions. The challenge is the (broader) some
app having no non-ad-free equivilents. Refresher from up-thread:
Message-ID: <eli$21052...@qaz.wtf>
In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
> that is not a guarantee either. sometimes there aren't
> alternatives to ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have
> ads, although nowhere near as many.
What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
> so you admit that there aren't always ad-free versions of a particular
> app.
Having moved goal-posts, you try to claim victory.
> app.
>> The cost of maintaining ad-blocking infrastructure to remove ads from
>> otherwise ad-supported apps is a burden that is too high for me.
> what burden??
>
> a pihole is under $20 for everything and blocks much more than just
> ads.
configuration. It requires network connections. It requires power. It
doesn't help me when I'm not on that local network unless I jump through
hoops. It doesn't blackhole DNS when DNS over HTTPS is used.
I can spend money to buy apps that do what I want and avoid that burden,
so that is what I do.
> there are also free options if $20 is a problem, which are actually
> easier to set up and manage than a pihole.
>
> that's hardly a burden.
fixing the leaks is the burden.
>> By you choosing to exclude the threshold your strawman would be
>> willing to pay, you are effectively saying there's no free
>> equivilent, which may well be true. That's why I want you to _not_
>> consider the price.
> there is no strawman. the price must always be considered.
>
> at some point, the price to remove ads is no longer worth it, which
> means you either tolerate the ads in the free version or find another
> solution.
ad-supported version for free" is a very dubious claim. Can you back
that up, or is your strawman only willing to spend $20 once on a pihole
and never a cent again, because that is "no longer worth it"?
> one app i use offers a bundle of additional features for $5/month
> which includes removing ads. none of the features are of any interest
> to me, so the only benefit of paying is for ad removal. there are
> yearly plans for less, but it's still much too expensive to just
> remove ads.
(or lower yearly subscription) or it's not worth having at all.
I don't want to play the game of "outsmarting advertisers" to get
software for free. I'll use true free software when it works for
me and for the rest I'd rather encourage those app authors who charge
a fee rather than trying to cheat the system.
Elijah
------
subscribes to Netflix, HBO, etc, to not see ad supported television
Eli the Bearded
May 27, 2021, 2:01:13 PM5/27/21
to
In comp.mobile.android, kelown <kel...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> There is no ad-free freeware automation app that substitutes for the
> intuitiveness of MacroDroid. Some apps are one-of-a-kind.
Isn't Macrodroid available in an ad-free "Pro" version?
> There is no ad-free freeware automation app that substitutes for the
> intuitiveness of MacroDroid. Some apps are one-of-a-kind.
I've never used it, and I can't think how I would use it, but it sort of
looks like IFTTT or Tasker has overlaps.
(I've never used IFTTT, but I have purchased and used Tasker in the
past. I don't have a current use for Tasker.)
Elijah
------
didn't find anything compelling at the Macrodroid website
paul
May 27, 2021, 5:09:36 PM5/27/21
to
paul wrote on 27.05.2021 18:08
> This description of NetGuard adblocking doesn't mention needing to be rooted
> https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md
>
> I'll test if NetGuard ad blocking works without root with this file:
> https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
>
> Do you know, offhand, if a non rooted phone can adblock with NetGuard?
After I downloaded the MVP Hosts file to the phone
https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
Interestingly NetGuard accepted that MVP hosts file (I think) using
3dots > Settings > Backup > Import hosts file (append)
And, concurrently, NetGuard downloaded a hosts file (I think) using
3dots > Settings > Backup > Hosts file download URL https://www.netguard.me/hosts
Subsequently pressing "Download hosts file" downloaded the following file
https://raw.gitbugusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts
By those actions, I think I added a hosts file to NetGuard.
Given the phone isn't rooted I'm notsure what it means to add a hosts file
to NetGuard though.
Can someone who knows explain what effect that new hosts file will have?
> This description of NetGuard adblocking doesn't mention needing to be rooted
> https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md
>
> I'll test if NetGuard ad blocking works without root with this file:
> https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
>
> Do you know, offhand, if a non rooted phone can adblock with NetGuard?
https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
Interestingly NetGuard accepted that MVP hosts file (I think) using
3dots > Settings > Backup > Import hosts file (append)
And, concurrently, NetGuard downloaded a hosts file (I think) using
3dots > Settings > Backup > Hosts file download URL https://www.netguard.me/hosts
Subsequently pressing "Download hosts file" downloaded the following file
https://raw.gitbugusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts
By those actions, I think I added a hosts file to NetGuard.
Given the phone isn't rooted I'm notsure what it means to add a hosts file
to NetGuard though.
Can someone who knows explain what effect that new hosts file will have?
Theo
May 27, 2021, 5:25:12 PM5/27/21
to
paul <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Given the phone isn't rooted I'm notsure what it means to add a hosts file
> to NetGuard though.
>
> Can someone who knows explain what effect that new hosts file will have?
Your internet traffic (from apps, browser, etc) goes into NetGuard's
> Given the phone isn't rooted I'm notsure what it means to add a hosts file
> to NetGuard though.
>
> Can someone who knows explain what effect that new hosts file will have?
fake-VPN. The VPN is just a non-root way for NetGuard to intercept the
traffic.
NetGuard applies firewall rules based on the app the traffic came from.
If the app is allowed to talk to the internet, it's allowed out via your
regular connection (wifi, LTE, etc), otherwise it's blocked.
The hosts file is input into the firewalling rules, so you can block traffic
to specific IPs (belonging to ad servers, for example).
Traffic that's blocked will appear to the app as if either the server
ignored the request, or is unreachable (I don't know which, presume the
latter)
The app will probably carry on but be unable to download any ads. It could
stick with the ads it downloaded last time, but if it's a fresh install it
won't have any ads to display.
A suitable block list may also prevent telemetry from going back to ad servers
to snitch on what you're doing.
This is different from the way a hosts file is usually used, which is to
block requests at the DNS level - ie:
makes adserver.eviladservice.com resolve to 127.0.0.1
which in practice means it's unreachable (since you aren't running a web
server locally)
In this case the firewall does the blocking IP-by-IP at the network level
(the hosts file lists adserver.eviladservice.com so the setup process looks
that up, finds its IP is 12.34.56.78 and makes a firewall rule to block IP
12.34.56.78).
But the result is the same.
Theo
paul
May 27, 2021, 8:05:07 PM5/27/21
to
Theo wrote on 27.05.2021 23:25
If I understand things (and I may not) under normal circumstances...
a. EvilApp on Android wants to connect to eviladserver.com on the net
b. The system 1st looks at the root filesystem /system/etc/hosts file
c. The eviladserver.com is either listed in that hosts file or it's not
If it's listed as "eviladserver.com 127.0.0.1" that's localhost
(so nothing happens)
If it's not listed, then a DNS server is consulted to find the IP address
(and that DNS server sends back the real IP address 123.123.123.123
Now, with NetGuard running, it seems NetGuard is "inserted" in that loop.
I'm not sure where but perhaps it goes sort of like this?
a. EvilApp on Android wants to connect to eviladserver.com on the net
b. The system first looks to NetGuard to see what EvilApp rules are set to
c. *NetGuard consults its ruleset to see if eviladserver.com is there*
d. The eviladserver.com is either listed in those rules or it's not
If it's listed as "eviladserver.com 127.0.0.1" nothing happens.
If it's not listed, then (probably) the "real" hosts file is contacted
e. If it's not in the "real" hosts then a DNS server will get the IP address
(and that DNS server sends back the real IP address 123.123.123.123
Is that "insertion" process kind of like how it works with NetGuard running?
(Notice I didn't mention the VPN but it must be "inserted" in there too.)
EvilApp --> asks for eviladserver.com --> NetGuard intercepts that request
and somehow routes it through its "local VPN" which blocks it somehow.
> This is different from the way a hosts file is usually used, which is to
> block requests at the DNS level - ie:
> makes adserver.eviladservice.com resolve to 127.0.0.1
Thanks for explaining how NetGuard uses the hosts file we fed it today.
> block requests at the DNS level - ie:
> makes adserver.eviladservice.com resolve to 127.0.0.1
If I understand things (and I may not) under normal circumstances...
a. EvilApp on Android wants to connect to eviladserver.com on the net
b. The system 1st looks at the root filesystem /system/etc/hosts file
c. The eviladserver.com is either listed in that hosts file or it's not
If it's listed as "eviladserver.com 127.0.0.1" that's localhost
(so nothing happens)
If it's not listed, then a DNS server is consulted to find the IP address
(and that DNS server sends back the real IP address 123.123.123.123
Now, with NetGuard running, it seems NetGuard is "inserted" in that loop.
I'm not sure where but perhaps it goes sort of like this?
a. EvilApp on Android wants to connect to eviladserver.com on the net
b. The system first looks to NetGuard to see what EvilApp rules are set to
c. *NetGuard consults its ruleset to see if eviladserver.com is there*
d. The eviladserver.com is either listed in those rules or it's not
If it's listed as "eviladserver.com 127.0.0.1" nothing happens.
If it's not listed, then (probably) the "real" hosts file is contacted
e. If it's not in the "real" hosts then a DNS server will get the IP address
(and that DNS server sends back the real IP address 123.123.123.123
Is that "insertion" process kind of like how it works with NetGuard running?
(Notice I didn't mention the VPN but it must be "inserted" in there too.)
EvilApp --> asks for eviladserver.com --> NetGuard intercepts that request
and somehow routes it through its "local VPN" which blocks it somehow.
nospam
May 30, 2021, 2:12:48 PM5/30/21
to
In article <eli$21052...@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
> The challenge is not some app having
> ad-supported and ad-free versions. The challenge is the (broader) some
> app having no non-ad-free equivilents. Refresher from up-thread:
as i said, they definitely exist.
>
> Message-ID: <eli$21052...@qaz.wtf>
> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> >> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
> > that is not a guarantee either. sometimes there aren't
> > alternatives to ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have
> > ads, although nowhere near as many.
>
> What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
>
> > so you admit that there aren't always ad-free versions of a particular
> > app.
>
> Having moved goal-posts, you try to claim victory.
no goalposts have been moved.
> >> The cost of maintaining ad-blocking infrastructure to remove ads from
> >> otherwise ad-supported apps is a burden that is too high for me.
> > what burden??
> >
> > a pihole is under $20 for everything and blocks much more than just
> > ads.
>
> Spending $20 on a pihole is not a complete solution.
nothing is 100% effective, but a pihole comes close and eliminates
nearly all ads, tracking, malware and whatever else the user wants.
> It requires
> configuration.
yep, which is very easy, takes very little time and only needs to be
done once.
> It requires network connections.
so do the ads you want to block.
if you eliminate the network connections, you also eliminate the ads.
it's also 100% effective.
> It requires power.
very little power. so little, in fact, that a raspberry pi zero could
be powered from a spare usb port.
> It
> doesn't help me when I'm not on that local network unless I jump through
> hoops.
a very small hoop, and there are plenty of solutions for that scenario.
> It doesn't blackhole DNS when DNS over HTTPS is used.
that depends how it's configured.
> I can spend money to buy apps that do what I want and avoid that burden,
> so that is what I do.
your money, your choice.
a pihole is cheap and *very* effective.
> > there are also free options if $20 is a problem, which are actually
> > easier to set up and manage than a pihole.
> >
> > that's hardly a burden.
>
> The money isn't the burden. The configuration and maintainance and
> fixing the leaks is the burden.
you are apparently unfamiliar with pihole. once it's set up, there's
very little ongoing maintenance, but if even that is too much, there
are alternatives that are both free *and* maintained by others.
> >> By you choosing to exclude the threshold your strawman would be
> >> willing to pay, you are effectively saying there's no free
> >> equivilent, which may well be true. That's why I want you to _not_
> >> consider the price.
> > there is no strawman. the price must always be considered.
> >
> > at some point, the price to remove ads is no longer worth it, which
> > means you either tolerate the ads in the free version or find another
> > solution.
>
> "This app only exists as a extremely expensive thing but there's
> ad-supported version for free" is a very dubious claim. Can you back
> that up, or is your strawman only willing to spend $20 once on a pihole
> and never a cent again, because that is "no longer worth it"?
what i said was there are ad-supported apps without an alternative.
sometimes there is not an ad-free option and sometimes the ad-free
option is expensive, effectively making it not an option.
a pihole is an additional tool in the arsenal, independent of what apps
are available.
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> >> At the moment, I have all the apps I think I need, and they are all
> >> ad-free. So...
> > that's says nothing about the existence of both ad-supported and
> > ad-free versions of the same app.
>
> This is moving the goal posts.
it is not.
> >> At the moment, I have all the apps I think I need, and they are all
> >> ad-free. So...
> > that's says nothing about the existence of both ad-supported and
> > ad-free versions of the same app.
>
> This is moving the goal posts.
> The challenge is not some app having
> ad-supported and ad-free versions. The challenge is the (broader) some
> app having no non-ad-free equivilents. Refresher from up-thread:
>
> Message-ID: <eli$21052...@qaz.wtf>
> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> >> My solution to in-app ads is to never install ad-supported apps.
> > that is not a guarantee either. sometimes there aren't
> > alternatives to ad-supported apps and sometimes paid apps have
> > ads, although nowhere near as many.
>
> What apps do _you_ find lack non-ad-supported alternatives?
>
> > so you admit that there aren't always ad-free versions of a particular
> > app.
>
> Having moved goal-posts, you try to claim victory.
> >> The cost of maintaining ad-blocking infrastructure to remove ads from
> >> otherwise ad-supported apps is a burden that is too high for me.
> > what burden??
> >
> > a pihole is under $20 for everything and blocks much more than just
> > ads.
>
> Spending $20 on a pihole is not a complete solution.
nearly all ads, tracking, malware and whatever else the user wants.
> It requires
> configuration.
yep, which is very easy, takes very little time and only needs to be
done once.
> It requires network connections.
so do the ads you want to block.
if you eliminate the network connections, you also eliminate the ads.
it's also 100% effective.
> It requires power.
very little power. so little, in fact, that a raspberry pi zero could
be powered from a spare usb port.
> It
> doesn't help me when I'm not on that local network unless I jump through
> hoops.
> It doesn't blackhole DNS when DNS over HTTPS is used.
> I can spend money to buy apps that do what I want and avoid that burden,
> so that is what I do.
a pihole is cheap and *very* effective.
> > there are also free options if $20 is a problem, which are actually
> > easier to set up and manage than a pihole.
> >
> > that's hardly a burden.
>
> The money isn't the burden. The configuration and maintainance and
> fixing the leaks is the burden.
very little ongoing maintenance, but if even that is too much, there
are alternatives that are both free *and* maintained by others.
> >> By you choosing to exclude the threshold your strawman would be
> >> willing to pay, you are effectively saying there's no free
> >> equivilent, which may well be true. That's why I want you to _not_
> >> consider the price.
> > there is no strawman. the price must always be considered.
> >
> > at some point, the price to remove ads is no longer worth it, which
> > means you either tolerate the ads in the free version or find another
> > solution.
>
> "This app only exists as a extremely expensive thing but there's
> ad-supported version for free" is a very dubious claim. Can you back
> that up, or is your strawman only willing to spend $20 once on a pihole
> and never a cent again, because that is "no longer worth it"?
sometimes there is not an ad-free option and sometimes the ad-free
option is expensive, effectively making it not an option.
a pihole is an additional tool in the arsenal, independent of what apps
are available.
Eli the Bearded
May 30, 2021, 6:16:00 PM5/30/21
to
In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> what i said was there are ad-supported apps without an alternative.
>
> sometimes there is not an ad-free option and sometimes the ad-free
> option is expensive, effectively making it not an option.
And I asked you to back that up, without making a judgement for someone
> what i said was there are ad-supported apps without an alternative.
>
> sometimes there is not an ad-free option and sometimes the ad-free
> option is expensive, effectively making it not an option.
else about what is "expensive". Instead you want to talk about piholes.
Elijah
------
obviously has a different idea of "burden" from nospam
nospam
May 30, 2021, 7:29:07 PM5/30/21
to
In article <eli$21053...@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
nothing requires a developer to create both an ad-supported and ad-free
version of an app. they can do either one or both.
i don't know why you think an app must have both an ad-supported and
ad-free version.
in some cases, the price for the ad-free version is not worth its
asking price, which is *exactly* the same situation as if the ad-free
version did not exist. the user must either go with the ad-supported
version with ads or find an alternative solution.
piholes and similar products are another method of blocking ads plus a
lot more, notably trackers, which almost certainly exist in ad-free
versions of apps.
it's very straightforward and i don't know why you are confused.
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> > what i said was there are ad-supported apps without an alternative.
> >
> > sometimes there is not an ad-free option and sometimes the ad-free
> > option is expensive, effectively making it not an option.
>
> And I asked you to back that up, without making a judgement for someone
> else about what is "expensive". Instead you want to talk about piholes.
that's a gross misrepresentation of what i said.
> > what i said was there are ad-supported apps without an alternative.
> >
> > sometimes there is not an ad-free option and sometimes the ad-free
> > option is expensive, effectively making it not an option.
>
> And I asked you to back that up, without making a judgement for someone
> else about what is "expensive". Instead you want to talk about piholes.
nothing requires a developer to create both an ad-supported and ad-free
version of an app. they can do either one or both.
i don't know why you think an app must have both an ad-supported and
ad-free version.
in some cases, the price for the ad-free version is not worth its
asking price, which is *exactly* the same situation as if the ad-free
version did not exist. the user must either go with the ad-supported
version with ads or find an alternative solution.
piholes and similar products are another method of blocking ads plus a
lot more, notably trackers, which almost certainly exist in ad-free
versions of apps.
it's very straightforward and i don't know why you are confused.
Eli the Bearded
Jun 1, 2021, 3:43:16 PM6/1/21
to
In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> that's a gross misrepresentation of what i said.
I think not.
> nothing requires a developer to create both an ad-supported and ad-free
> version of an app. they can do either one or both.
I said I avoid ads by not installing apps that are funded by
ads, and uninstalling ones that slip by my checks.
You claimed that for some apps there is no "alternative" but
ad-supported ones, so you recommend ad blocking.
Ever since then I've tried to get you to name an app with no
alternative.
I tend to post with a lot of spelling and a few grammar mistakes that I
don't see until I re-read the message a day or so later, so I'm trying
to be really patient with re-explaining my position in case I didn't
make it clear. You don't seem to be understanding me.
> i don't know why you think an app must have both an ad-supported and
> ad-free version.
features.
> in some cases, the price for the ad-free version is not worth its
> asking price, which is *exactly* the same situation as if the ad-free
inexpensive. And you can't seem to let go that someone might spend more
than some unspecified limit and therefore alternatives are not real. I
keep asking you to ignore that limit for this discussion.
> piholes and similar products are
alternatives.
Elijah
------
was careful not to include ad-free version from same author in the claim
paul
Jun 4, 2021, 12:51:01 PM6/4/21
to
nospam wrote on 30.05.2021 19:29
He's not enough of a man to admit he just made up his answer without facts.
He's more of a child who just says things without ever checking his facts.
The scariest request to nospam is simply to ask him to back up his claims.
He will ignore unless you persist and then he'll claim he never made them.
Even as everyone can see exactly what he repeatedly said.
He thinks we're as stupid as he clearly is.
Meanwhile the rest of us make claims that we can back up easily with facts.
It's what intelligent well-educated people do.
> i don't know why you think an app must have both an ad-supported and
> ad-free version.
It's always the same with nospam squirming when he gets caught in a fib.
> ad-free version.
He's not enough of a man to admit he just made up his answer without facts.
He's more of a child who just says things without ever checking his facts.
The scariest request to nospam is simply to ask him to back up his claims.
He will ignore unless you persist and then he'll claim he never made them.
Even as everyone can see exactly what he repeatedly said.
He thinks we're as stupid as he clearly is.
Meanwhile the rest of us make claims that we can back up easily with facts.
It's what intelligent well-educated people do.
Alan Baker
Jun 4, 2021, 12:54:23 PM6/4/21
to
On 2021-06-04 9:51 a.m., paul wrote:
> nospam wrote on 30.05.2021 19:29
>> i don't know why you think an app must have both an ad-supported and
>> ad-free version.
>
> It's always the same with nospam squirming when he gets caught in a fib.
>
> He's not enough of a man to admit he just made up his answer without facts.
> He's more of a child who just says things without ever checking his facts.
But it's enough for you to remove all context from that to which you are
> nospam wrote on 30.05.2021 19:29
>> i don't know why you think an app must have both an ad-supported and
>> ad-free version.
>
> It's always the same with nospam squirming when he gets caught in a fib.
>
> He's not enough of a man to admit he just made up his answer without facts.
> He's more of a child who just says things without ever checking his facts.
replying...
nospam
Jun 4, 2021, 1:21:07 PM6/4/21
to
In article <s9dllh$699$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
> Meanwhile the rest of us make claims that we can back up easily with facts.
> It's what intelligent well-educated people do.
that definitely disqualifies you.
wrote:
> Meanwhile the rest of us make claims that we can back up easily with facts.
> It's what intelligent well-educated people do.
nospam
Jun 4, 2021, 1:21:10 PM6/4/21
to
In article <eli$21060...@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
and ad-free versions.
they definitely do exist.
the choice is up to the developer how to monetize their app. some
choose to use ads, some choose to require payment, and some choose to
offer both options and let the user decide. some apps are completely
free.
> > i don't know why you think an app must have both an ad-supported and
> > ad-free version.
>
> An "alternative" can be an app from a different author with the same
> features.
you're actually making my point that an ad-free version of a given app
does not always exist.
there might be other similar apps but they're not exactly the same and
might not work as well for a particular task.
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> > nothing requires a developer to create both an ad-supported and ad-free
> > version of an app. they can do either one or both.
>
> Here's my quick summary:
>
> I said I avoid ads by not installing apps that are funded by
> ads, and uninstalling ones that slip by my checks.
>
> You claimed that for some apps there is no "alternative" but
> ad-supported ones, so you recommend ad blocking.
>
> Ever since then I've tried to get you to name an app with no
> alternative.
>
> I tend to post with a lot of spelling and a few grammar mistakes that I
> don't see until I re-read the message a day or so later, so I'm trying
> to be really patient with re-explaining my position in case I didn't
> make it clear. You don't seem to be understanding me.
as i said, i do not keep a list of which apps have both ad-supported
> > nothing requires a developer to create both an ad-supported and ad-free
> > version of an app. they can do either one or both.
>
> Here's my quick summary:
>
> I said I avoid ads by not installing apps that are funded by
> ads, and uninstalling ones that slip by my checks.
>
> You claimed that for some apps there is no "alternative" but
> ad-supported ones, so you recommend ad blocking.
>
> Ever since then I've tried to get you to name an app with no
> alternative.
>
> I tend to post with a lot of spelling and a few grammar mistakes that I
> don't see until I re-read the message a day or so later, so I'm trying
> to be really patient with re-explaining my position in case I didn't
> make it clear. You don't seem to be understanding me.
and ad-free versions.
they definitely do exist.
the choice is up to the developer how to monetize their app. some
choose to use ads, some choose to require payment, and some choose to
offer both options and let the user decide. some apps are completely
free.
> > i don't know why you think an app must have both an ad-supported and
> > ad-free version.
>
> An "alternative" can be an app from a different author with the same
> features.
does not always exist.
there might be other similar apps but they're not exactly the same and
might not work as well for a particular task.
Eli the Bearded
Jun 4, 2021, 3:15:07 PM6/4/21
to
In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> as i said, i do not keep a list of which apps have both ad-supported
> and ad-free versions.
>
> they definitely do exist.
You keep re-iterating this when that's not what I asked for. I asked for
> and ad-free versions.
>
> they definitely do exist.
apps that don't have an alternative that is ad free. You know, multiple
developers create competing apps, so most useful apps have competition.
(I don't think there was competition for using the FLIR camera on my
Cat Phone, but then again, there were no ads in the FLIR apps.)
> the choice is up to the developer how to monetize their app. some
> choose to use ads, some choose to require payment, and some choose to
> offer both options and let the user decide. some apps are completely
> free.
> you're actually making my point that an ad-free version of a given app
> does not always exist.
version of a given app" when I have always been claiming there is an
ad-free alternative.
> there might be other similar apps but they're not exactly the same and
> might not work as well for a particular task.
work as well.
Elijah
------
the FLIR app was supported by the cost of the hardware
sms
Jun 6, 2021, 10:24:00 AM6/6/21
to
On 5/26/2021 7:27 AM, Theo wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
>>
>> AFAIK, only possible on a rooted device, where it can filter DNS
>> requests, if you only use it on wifi at home, maybe you could use a
>> piHole, but I doubt that covers many people's usage.
>
> There are apps that provide a VPN service, which blackhole traffic to
> certain ad server IPs. The rest of the traffic they pass through to your
> regular internet connection (ie there aren't a real VPN with their own
> servers etc).
>
> One I can think of is:
> https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard
> which has an adblock hosts file option if you install the .apk, but not via
> the Play Store (funny that, can't imagine why Google doesn't like adblocking)
>
> Theo
Yes, that is a good option. Works well on Android. I use the adblock
hosts file on my desktop machines too.
For iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adguard-adblock-privacy/id1047223162>
appears to be similar. I don't know if Adguard allows importing custom
hosts files.
For standalone apps that don't use any network access you can just turn
off access to data, both Wi-Fi and cellular, for that app. For games
that don't need a network connection there are no more ads. Apple added
this capability to iOS in iOS 13 (Settings > General > Background App
Refresh); prior to iOS 13 you had to Jailbreak to get that capability.
Of course none of this gets rid of ads in apps like Facebook where the
apps are embedded in the feed.
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
>>
>> AFAIK, only possible on a rooted device, where it can filter DNS
>> requests, if you only use it on wifi at home, maybe you could use a
>> piHole, but I doubt that covers many people's usage.
>
> There are apps that provide a VPN service, which blackhole traffic to
> certain ad server IPs. The rest of the traffic they pass through to your
> regular internet connection (ie there aren't a real VPN with their own
> servers etc).
>
> One I can think of is:
> https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard
> which has an adblock hosts file option if you install the .apk, but not via
> the Play Store (funny that, can't imagine why Google doesn't like adblocking)
>
> Theo
Yes, that is a good option. Works well on Android. I use the adblock
hosts file on my desktop machines too.
For iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adguard-adblock-privacy/id1047223162>
appears to be similar. I don't know if Adguard allows importing custom
hosts files.
For standalone apps that don't use any network access you can just turn
off access to data, both Wi-Fi and cellular, for that app. For games
that don't need a network connection there are no more ads. Apple added
this capability to iOS in iOS 13 (Settings > General > Background App
Refresh); prior to iOS 13 you had to Jailbreak to get that capability.
Of course none of this gets rid of ads in apps like Facebook where the
apps are embedded in the feed.
nospam
Jun 6, 2021, 11:02:57 AM6/6/21
to
In article <eli$21060...@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
<*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> > as i said, i do not keep a list of which apps have both ad-supported
> > and ad-free versions.
> >
> > they definitely do exist.
>
> You keep re-iterating this when that's not what I asked for. I asked for
> apps that don't have an alternative that is ad free. You know, multiple
> developers create competing apps, so most useful apps have competition.
competing apps do not count, if they even exist.
> > as i said, i do not keep a list of which apps have both ad-supported
> > and ad-free versions.
> >
> > they definitely do exist.
>
> You keep re-iterating this when that's not what I asked for. I asked for
> apps that don't have an alternative that is ad free. You know, multiple
> developers create competing apps, so most useful apps have competition.
> (I don't think there was competition for using the FLIR camera on my
> Cat Phone, but then again, there were no ads in the FLIR apps.)
maker. there aren't any competing apps, other than buying an entirely
new camera. fortunately, there are no ads.
> > the choice is up to the developer how to monetize their app. some
> > choose to use ads, some choose to require payment, and some choose to
> > offer both options and let the user decide. some apps are completely
> > free.
>
> Gee thanks, I never knew that.
> > you're actually making my point that an ad-free version of a given app
> > does not always exist.
>
> You're persisting in claiming I think there is always an "ad-free
> version of a given app" when I have always been claiming there is an
> ad-free alternative.
again, what you call competing apps do not count. it's possible they
might be 'good enough', which means there is a non-monetary price to
pay to remove ads. if the user wants a specific app, a competing app is
not an option no matter how good it might be, even if it's free.
> > there might be other similar apps but they're not exactly the same and
> > might not work as well for a particular task.
>
> It is my opinion that the ones supported by ads are the ones that don't
> work as well.
nospam
Jun 6, 2021, 11:02:59 AM6/6/21
to
In article <s9ilpv$8tt$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> For standalone apps that don't use any network access you can just turn
> off access to data, both Wi-Fi and cellular, for that app. For games
> that don't need a network connection there are no more ads.
not true. many games have embedded ads. it's not like they didn't think
of that first, along with many other tricks.
> Apple added
> this capability to iOS in iOS 13 (Settings > General > Background App
> Refresh); prior to iOS 13 you had to Jailbreak to get that capability.
false. it was available well before that, no jailbreak required.
> Of course none of this gets rid of ads in apps like Facebook where the
> apps are embedded in the feed.
there are other methods that do, including on ios.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> For iOS
> <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adguard-adblock-privacy/id1047223162>
> appears to be similar. I don't know if Adguard allows importing custom
> hosts files.
that's just for safari, not device-wide.
> For iOS
> <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/adguard-adblock-privacy/id1047223162>
> appears to be similar. I don't know if Adguard allows importing custom
> hosts files.
> For standalone apps that don't use any network access you can just turn
> off access to data, both Wi-Fi and cellular, for that app. For games
> that don't need a network connection there are no more ads.
of that first, along with many other tricks.
> Apple added
> this capability to iOS in iOS 13 (Settings > General > Background App
> Refresh); prior to iOS 13 you had to Jailbreak to get that capability.
> Of course none of this gets rid of ads in apps like Facebook where the
> apps are embedded in the feed.
sms
Jun 6, 2021, 2:42:07 PM6/6/21
to
On 5/25/2021 9:17 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
<snip>
> The one that immediately comes to mind is 'Classic Words' which is a
> proper Scrabble game with 5 or more levels of difficulty. That was the
> only 'real' one I could find. The ads only arrive when I have a wifi
> connection. I don't think that was the source of the screaming ad.
For Classic Words just disabling Wi-Fi and cellular data access gets rid
of the ads. I did the same thing for the Hearts app that I use
sometimes. Without data access these apps can't serve up any ads.
They do offer Classic Words Plus which is an ad-free version, $4.99.
<snip>
> The one that immediately comes to mind is 'Classic Words' which is a
> proper Scrabble game with 5 or more levels of difficulty. That was the
> only 'real' one I could find. The ads only arrive when I have a wifi
> connection. I don't think that was the source of the screaming ad.
For Classic Words just disabling Wi-Fi and cellular data access gets rid
of the ads. I did the same thing for the Hearts app that I use
sometimes. Without data access these apps can't serve up any ads.
They do offer Classic Words Plus which is an ad-free version, $4.99.
sms
Jun 7, 2021, 10:35:24 AM6/7/21
to
On 5/26/2021 7:27 AM, Theo wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
>>
>> AFAIK, only possible on a rooted device, where it can filter DNS
>> requests, if you only use it on wifi at home, maybe you could use a
>> piHole, but I doubt that covers many people's usage.
>
> There are apps that provide a VPN service, which blackhole traffic to
> certain ad server IPs. The rest of the traffic they pass through to your
> regular internet connection (ie there aren't a real VPN with their own
> servers etc).
>
> One I can think of is:
> https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard
> which has an adblock hosts file option if you install the .apk, but not via
> the Play Store (funny that, can't imagine why Google doesn't like adblocking)
If you don't want to use Netguard for a hosts file, on Android devices
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> Not just in a browser -- the ones included with apps too.
>>
>> AFAIK, only possible on a rooted device, where it can filter DNS
>> requests, if you only use it on wifi at home, maybe you could use a
>> piHole, but I doubt that covers many people's usage.
>
> There are apps that provide a VPN service, which blackhole traffic to
> certain ad server IPs. The rest of the traffic they pass through to your
> regular internet connection (ie there aren't a real VPN with their own
> servers etc).
>
> One I can think of is:
> https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard
> which has an adblock hosts file option if you install the .apk, but not via
> the Play Store (funny that, can't imagine why Google doesn't like adblocking)
you can also manually edit your hosts file.
<https://www.modmy.com/how-modify-hosts-file-your-android-device>. A
good hosts file is essential for effective ad blocking. I use the
adblock hosts file on my Windows devices too. The advantage of Netguard
is that you don't have to keep manually updating the adblock hosts file.
Unfortunately, on iOS devices you can't edit the hosts file unless the
device is Jailbroken.
As you implied, there are obvious reasons as to why Google (and Apple)
don't want you to modify your hosts file!
nospam
Jun 7, 2021, 10:49:23 AM6/7/21
to
In article <s9lar9$g1u$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
that's an incredibly inefficient and not particularly good way to do
it.
> As you implied, there are obvious reasons as to why Google (and Apple)
> don't want you to modify your hosts file!
because it opens the door for nefarious apps to cause all sorts of
problems.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> adblock hosts file on my Windows devices too. The advantage of Netguard
> is that you don't have to keep manually updating the adblock hosts file.
> Unfortunately, on iOS devices you can't edit the hosts file unless the
> device is Jailbroken.
there is no need to edit a hosts file for ad blocking, and in fact,
> adblock hosts file on my Windows devices too. The advantage of Netguard
> is that you don't have to keep manually updating the adblock hosts file.
> Unfortunately, on iOS devices you can't edit the hosts file unless the
> device is Jailbroken.
that's an incredibly inefficient and not particularly good way to do
it.
> As you implied, there are obvious reasons as to why Google (and Apple)
> don't want you to modify your hosts file!
problems.
Eli the Bearded
Jun 7, 2021, 4:16:59 PM6/7/21
to
In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded > <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> You keep re-iterating this when that's not what I asked for. I asked for
>> apps that don't have an alternative that is ad free. You know, multiple
>> developers create competing apps, so most useful apps have competition.
> competing apps do not count, if they even exist.
This is a point of disagreement. If I had wanted to limit it to "must be
>> You keep re-iterating this when that's not what I asked for. I asked for
>> apps that don't have an alternative that is ad free. You know, multiple
>> developers create competing apps, so most useful apps have competition.
> competing apps do not count, if they even exist.
an ad free version of the same app" I'd have said so. I specified an
"alternative".
>> You're persisting in claiming I think there is always an "ad-free
>> version of a given app" when I have always been claiming there is an
>> ad-free alternative.
> not always, such as the example *you* gave.
an app that has ads but no alternatives.
> again, what you call competing apps do not count. it's possible they
> might be 'good enough', which means there is a non-monetary price to
> pay to remove ads. if the user wants a specific app, a competing app is
> not an option no matter how good it might be, even if it's free.
nothing else providing the same features will be games, and those apps
will probably have similar but not exactly the same alternatives that
are ad free either now or not so long from now.
Apps that provide specific non-game features will, I postulate, have
non-ad supported alternatives.
That said, you have not provided any specific examples.
>> It is my opinion that the ones supported by ads are the ones that don't
>> work as well.
> that depends on the app. they are two unrelated things.
an app is ad supported, the financial incentive is making ads work and
the app good enough. When an app is supported by direct payments, the
financial incentive is making the app work to justify the cost. Thus I
believe ad-supported business models are at odds with working as well as
possible.
Elijah
------
completely free apps have little /financial/ incentive to very good
sms
Jun 7, 2021, 5:00:43 PM6/7/21
to
On 6/7/2021 1:16 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
<snip>
> completely free apps have little /financial/ incentive to very good
Well free apps with advertising have even a greater financial incentive
to be good versus apps where you pay once and can use it forever. In
order to generate revenue the free apps need to get a lot of users using
the apps a lot.
In any case, the original question, "App to block ALL ads?" is not that
simple. Effective ad blocking requires several individual components.
1. A web browser that blocks ads, such as Adblock Plus. On computers you
can also install an Anti Adblock Detector that prevents web sites from
detecting your Ad Blocker and refusing to serve up content. I don't know
of any Anti Adblock detector for Android, maybe someone here does.
2. An app that blocks individual apps from using data, either Wi-Fi or
cellular, if the app is standalone and uses data only for ads.
3. An extensive hosts file (this is one advantage of Android over iOS).
A good hosts file will literally have tens of thousands of entries.
This is still not going to get rid of ALL ads, but it's a good start.
<snip>
> completely free apps have little /financial/ incentive to very good
to be good versus apps where you pay once and can use it forever. In
order to generate revenue the free apps need to get a lot of users using
the apps a lot.
In any case, the original question, "App to block ALL ads?" is not that
simple. Effective ad blocking requires several individual components.
1. A web browser that blocks ads, such as Adblock Plus. On computers you
can also install an Anti Adblock Detector that prevents web sites from
detecting your Ad Blocker and refusing to serve up content. I don't know
of any Anti Adblock detector for Android, maybe someone here does.
2. An app that blocks individual apps from using data, either Wi-Fi or
cellular, if the app is standalone and uses data only for ads.
3. An extensive hosts file (this is one advantage of Android over iOS).
A good hosts file will literally have tens of thousands of entries.
This is still not going to get rid of ALL ads, but it's a good start.
nospam
Jun 7, 2021, 7:28:23 PM6/7/21
to
In article <s9m1dq$mbk$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
sometimes only one browser.
> 2. An app that blocks individual apps from using data, either Wi-Fi or
> cellular, if the app is standalone and uses data only for ads.
blocking all data is a bad solution.
ad-blocking needs to block certain types of data (ads, trackers, etc.)
while allowing other types of data (user content, etc.), which can be
tricky.
> 3. An extensive hosts file (this is one advantage of Android over iOS).
> A good hosts file will literally have tens of thousands of entries.
a hosts file is a bad solution.
there are much better options, ones that are more effective and
significantly easier to manage.
> This is still not going to get rid of ALL ads, but it's a good start.
nothing is 100%.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. A web browser that blocks ads, such as Adblock Plus. On computers you
> can also install an Anti Adblock Detector that prevents web sites from
> detecting your Ad Blocker and refusing to serve up content. I don't know
> of any Anti Adblock detector for Android, maybe someone here does.
content blockers can be useful, but they are limited to just browsers,
>
> 1. A web browser that blocks ads, such as Adblock Plus. On computers you
> can also install an Anti Adblock Detector that prevents web sites from
> detecting your Ad Blocker and refusing to serve up content. I don't know
> of any Anti Adblock detector for Android, maybe someone here does.
sometimes only one browser.
> 2. An app that blocks individual apps from using data, either Wi-Fi or
> cellular, if the app is standalone and uses data only for ads.
ad-blocking needs to block certain types of data (ads, trackers, etc.)
while allowing other types of data (user content, etc.), which can be
tricky.
> 3. An extensive hosts file (this is one advantage of Android over iOS).
> A good hosts file will literally have tens of thousands of entries.
there are much better options, ones that are more effective and
significantly easier to manage.
> This is still not going to get rid of ALL ads, but it's a good start.
Eric Pozharski
Jun 8, 2021, 5:33:10 AM6/8/21
to
with <eli$21060...@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Eli the Bearded > <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
*SKIP*
> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Eli the Bearded > <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>>> It is my opinion that the ones supported by ads are the ones that
>>> don't work as well.
>> that depends on the app. they are two unrelated things.
> I don't think so. The app author wants to get paid for paid apps. When
> an app is ad supported, the financial incentive is making ads work and
> the app good enough. When an app is supported by direct payments, the
> financial incentive is making the app work to justify the cost. Thus I
> believe ad-supported business models are at odds with working as well
> as possible.
Good economics thinking, everyone must aspire to.
>>> don't work as well.
>> that depends on the app. they are two unrelated things.
> I don't think so. The app author wants to get paid for paid apps. When
> an app is ad supported, the financial incentive is making ads work and
> the app good enough. When an app is supported by direct payments, the
> financial incentive is making the app work to justify the cost. Thus I
> believe ad-supported business models are at odds with working as well
> as possible.
p.s. They won't.
--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
paul
Jun 8, 2021, 10:04:35 AM6/8/21
to
nospam wrote on 08.06.2021 01:28
aren't used to anyone ever backing up their statements with actual facts.
The iOS owners believe EVERYTHING they're told without ever checking facts.
So nospam thinks we're as stupid as they are - and yet - we check our facts.
The fact is for PCs, a hosts file is an excellent solution, and one which
I've been using for decades. However on non-root Android it's not possible.
But system-wide VPN-based ad blockers work (which don't require root).
AdClear works reasonably well on Android (forget iOS - it's a toy OS).
I'm using NetGuard firewall on Android (as per this thread) which can block
Internet for any app (via data or wi-fi or both and which has many settings)
and even where NetGuard isn't set to block, it tells me the calls apps make.
None of this is possible on iOS (essentially because iOS is a toy OS).
> there are much better options, ones that are more effective and
> significantly easier to manage.
As usual, nospam is used to playing with iOS owners so the bar is set low.
He can't name a _single_ system-wide free solution that is "much better."
Given I always back up my assertions, people like nospam (who must not be
well educated becasue they'd fail everything always just guessing wrong),
I ask nospam the same adult question I always ask him (that he fails).
Name this "much better" option for system wide free ad free ad blocking.
>> 3. An extensive hosts file (this is one advantage of Android over iOS).
>> A good hosts file will literally have tens of thousands of entries.
>
> a hosts file is a bad solution.
I think the reason nospam says this stuff is he plays with iOS people who
>> A good hosts file will literally have tens of thousands of entries.
>
> a hosts file is a bad solution.
aren't used to anyone ever backing up their statements with actual facts.
The iOS owners believe EVERYTHING they're told without ever checking facts.
So nospam thinks we're as stupid as they are - and yet - we check our facts.
The fact is for PCs, a hosts file is an excellent solution, and one which
I've been using for decades. However on non-root Android it's not possible.
But system-wide VPN-based ad blockers work (which don't require root).
AdClear works reasonably well on Android (forget iOS - it's a toy OS).
I'm using NetGuard firewall on Android (as per this thread) which can block
Internet for any app (via data or wi-fi or both and which has many settings)
and even where NetGuard isn't set to block, it tells me the calls apps make.
None of this is possible on iOS (essentially because iOS is a toy OS).
> there are much better options, ones that are more effective and
> significantly easier to manage.
He can't name a _single_ system-wide free solution that is "much better."
Given I always back up my assertions, people like nospam (who must not be
well educated becasue they'd fail everything always just guessing wrong),
I ask nospam the same adult question I always ask him (that he fails).
Name this "much better" option for system wide free ad free ad blocking.
paul
Jun 8, 2021, 10:09:31 AM6/8/21
to
sms wrote on 07.06.2021 16:35
https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
I tested that many times and while it used to work, it no longer does.
(based on my personal tests over the years)
I often can _read_ the Android hosts file without being root.
But I can't any longer write to it.
So you shouldn't say this without testing it first as on the Android
newsgroup we aren't like the Apple owners who don't check any facts.
Luckily NetGuard (which was suggested in this thread) has its own
local-VPN-based hosts file which works without needing to be rooted.
https://raw.gitbugusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts
> If you don't want to use Netguard for a hosts file, on Android devices
> you can also manually edit your hosts file.
> <https://www.modmy.com/how-modify-hosts-file-your-android-device>
While there are many excellent ad blocking hosts files out there, e.g.,
> you can also manually edit your hosts file.
> <https://www.modmy.com/how-modify-hosts-file-your-android-device>
https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
I tested that many times and while it used to work, it no longer does.
(based on my personal tests over the years)
I often can _read_ the Android hosts file without being root.
But I can't any longer write to it.
So you shouldn't say this without testing it first as on the Android
newsgroup we aren't like the Apple owners who don't check any facts.
Luckily NetGuard (which was suggested in this thread) has its own
local-VPN-based hosts file which works without needing to be rooted.
https://raw.gitbugusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts
paul
Jun 8, 2021, 10:15:49 AM6/8/21
to
sms wrote on 07.06.2021 23:00
(the "you" is plural)
I have as functional an Android device as anyone here, I would think.
All of which are free (most are open source). And I never see ads.
IMHO, the most effective solution is to learn how to search for apps which
do the job (usually I filter at nothing below 4 point ratings for example),
and which are free and google free, and which don't ever show any ads.
Why can I do this but others (claim) they can't?
What do I know that they don't know about finding good apps sans ads?
What functionality do you need on Android that you can only get with apps
that annoy you with ads anyway?
I'm sure such annoying situations may exist - but I can't name one offhand.
Bearing in mind I test a _lot_ of apps (scores per week).....
*Why can I find the functionality I need without ads and others can't?*
> This is still not going to get rid of ALL ads, but it's a good start.
*What functionality do you need that you can't find an app sans ads?*
(the "you" is plural)
I have as functional an Android device as anyone here, I would think.
All of which are free (most are open source). And I never see ads.
IMHO, the most effective solution is to learn how to search for apps which
do the job (usually I filter at nothing below 4 point ratings for example),
and which are free and google free, and which don't ever show any ads.
Why can I do this but others (claim) they can't?
What do I know that they don't know about finding good apps sans ads?
What functionality do you need on Android that you can only get with apps
that annoy you with ads anyway?
I'm sure such annoying situations may exist - but I can't name one offhand.
Bearing in mind I test a _lot_ of apps (scores per week).....
*Why can I find the functionality I need without ads and others can't?*
sms
Jun 8, 2021, 10:28:32 AM6/8/21
to
On 6/8/2021 12:26 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
> with <eli$21060...@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> Eli the Bearded > <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
> *SKIP*
>>>> It is my opinion that the ones supported by ads are the ones that
>>>> don't work as well.
>>> that depends on the app. they are two unrelated things.
>> I don't think so. The app author wants to get paid for paid apps. When
>> an app is ad supported, the financial incentive is making ads work and
>> the app good enough. When an app is supported by direct payments, the
>> financial incentive is making the app work to justify the cost. Thus I
>> believe ad-supported business models are at odds with working as well
>> as possible.
>
> Good economics thinking, everyone must aspire to.
>
> p.s. They won't.
LOL, I've paid for some g-d awful apps and have used some great
> with <eli$21060...@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> Eli the Bearded > <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
> *SKIP*
>>>> It is my opinion that the ones supported by ads are the ones that
>>>> don't work as well.
>>> that depends on the app. they are two unrelated things.
>> I don't think so. The app author wants to get paid for paid apps. When
>> an app is ad supported, the financial incentive is making ads work and
>> the app good enough. When an app is supported by direct payments, the
>> financial incentive is making the app work to justify the cost. Thus I
>> believe ad-supported business models are at odds with working as well
>> as possible.
>
> Good economics thinking, everyone must aspire to.
>
> p.s. They won't.
ad-supported apps.
The ideal model appears to be an app where you can choose to either view
ads or pay to remove ads.
The best paid app I have used is Torque Pro. Ironically, it's only on
Android because iOS doesn't support the Bluetooth Serial Port Profile.
nospam
Jun 8, 2021, 10:48:13 AM6/8/21
to
In article <s9nuqe$c6q$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
bluetooth le, which is much more reliable, easier for the user to use
and also for the developer to write apps. btdt.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> The best paid app I have used is Torque Pro. Ironically, it's only on
> Android because iOS doesn't support the Bluetooth Serial Port Profile.
that's because bluetooth spp is obsolete, having been replaced with
> The best paid app I have used is Torque Pro. Ironically, it's only on
> Android because iOS doesn't support the Bluetooth Serial Port Profile.
bluetooth le, which is much more reliable, easier for the user to use
and also for the developer to write apps. btdt.
paul
Jun 8, 2021, 2:04:12 PM6/8/21
to
sms wrote on 08.06.2021 16:28
model is the app that is open source which all the payware & adware apps
copy because it's just so good.
Free on F-Droid
Adware/Payware on Google Play.
Same app. Two different repositories.
We ran into this with the GPS satnav apps for example, where it sure was
coincidental that the payware/adware apps looked almost EXACTLY like the
freeware open source apps.
I always back up my claims so another perhaps ideal model is an app like
OSMAnd which has an open source free version on some repositories but a
payware version on Google Play.
I'm fine with that model (which I've seen a bunch of apps use, like
SimpleMobileTools and FTP Server (free), etc.).
Those who are ignorant (or who want to support developers by paying them
directly) can get the Google Play app - while those who want the FOSS app
just get it from the F-Droid or website repositories.
In my opinion, this dual-nature model (payware or ads on Google Play, free
on F-Droid) is a "more" ideal model than the one Steve proposed above.
But to each his/her own.
> The ideal model appears to be an app where you can choose to either view
> ads or pay to remove ads.
Everyone will have a different ideal model perhaps, but for me, the ideal
> ads or pay to remove ads.
model is the app that is open source which all the payware & adware apps
copy because it's just so good.
Free on F-Droid
Adware/Payware on Google Play.
Same app. Two different repositories.
We ran into this with the GPS satnav apps for example, where it sure was
coincidental that the payware/adware apps looked almost EXACTLY like the
freeware open source apps.
I always back up my claims so another perhaps ideal model is an app like
OSMAnd which has an open source free version on some repositories but a
payware version on Google Play.
I'm fine with that model (which I've seen a bunch of apps use, like
SimpleMobileTools and FTP Server (free), etc.).
Those who are ignorant (or who want to support developers by paying them
directly) can get the Google Play app - while those who want the FOSS app
just get it from the F-Droid or website repositories.
In my opinion, this dual-nature model (payware or ads on Google Play, free
on F-Droid) is a "more" ideal model than the one Steve proposed above.
But to each his/her own.
Eric Pozharski
Jun 9, 2021, 5:33:10 AM6/9/21
to
with <s9nuqe$c6q$1...@dont-email.me> sms wrote:
> On 6/8/2021 12:26 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>> with <eli$21060...@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Eli the Bearded > <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
*SKIP*
Are you GPT[1] by any chance?
> On 6/8/2021 12:26 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>> with <eli$21060...@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Eli the Bearded > <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
*SKIP*
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT_(language_model)>
0 new messages