back to article Samsung trolls Google, adds adblockers to phones

Samsung has added built-in ad-blocking capabilities to its Android browser in its latest OTA (over-the-air) update to its Lollipop 5.0 devices, which include the Galaxy S6. Samsung’s internet browser now supports third-party ad-blockers such as Adblock Fast. Firefox’s browser supports ad-blocking plug-ins, while to firewall …

  1. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Happy

    If nothing else ...

    I have this article to thank for NoRootFirewall

    1. BillG
      Devil

      Re: If nothing else ...

      For me, mobile ads are reaching the same tipping point as full browser ads, but even more so.

      I absolutely will not tolerate mobile browser ads that play video as soon as I open the page. The unwanted attention-getting noise, the slowing of my browser and phone, the battery drain - then there's the hunt on the browser page to find the video to stop it.

      I also object to the official-looking ads that imitate an Android interface with "You have one unread messages". Yes, I'm experienced enough to know it's an ad but how many others will fall for it, click, and then get duped?

      On my rooted Android I use an adblocker to block ads on my apps ONLY when the ads interfere with the operation of the app. I gladly pay $3 or so for the non-ad supported version. But the mobile browser ads are really trying my patience.

      1. asdf

        Re: If nothing else ...

        Pointing at privoxy running on your router is also a good option for unrooted still under warranty phones.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: If nothing else ...

          But what about when you're on the go? And BTW, NRF doesn't work on LTE because NRF is IPv4-only (LTE supports IPv6).

          1. asdf

            Re: If nothing else ...

            Can't speak for others but I just use Red Browser on iOS (basically like Tor browser for iOS) which comes with ad blocking and tor built in for the rare times I browse on cellular data or public wifi. Its only a buck or something and well worth it.

            1. Charles 9

              Re: If nothing else ...

              Thing is, none of these do much for ads in APPS, for which you need an OS-level firewall to block.

              1. asdf

                Re: If nothing else ...

                Privoxy does but yeah OS app ad blocking on cellular without root is not trivial especially on iOS. That said at least for my work flow I see virtually no ads anywhere when I am roaming around on cellular. The iOS base apps get criticized but they work for me and they don't serve me ads (ones I use anyway) and the other apps I use on cellular I generally paid for to avoid the free but malware ad swinging garbage (who much do you save).

      2. h4rm0ny

        Re: If nothing else ...

        Same here. I too would be happy enough to make small payments for content. The only barrier is the hassle of a million different subscription programs. Give me a micropayment provider that I could top up and which would handle small transactions to sites I visit anonymously, and I would cheerfully do so in exchange for no ads.

        And it's not so much the ads that bother me (auto-play video excepted) as it is the tracking. THAT is where it's gone too far.

  2. cbars Bronze badge

    Shocking survey results

    People don't like annoying things that stop them doing what they're trying to do (watch videos, read, whatever).

    People don't like paying for things if they don't have to.

    People can want mutually exclusive things (though that isn't necessarily the case here).

    Wonder how much that survey cost, and whether it was using random sampling or quotas...

  3. Ol'Peculier

    Adblock have an Android browser in Google Play that is, in the main, pretty good at blocking ads.

    1. jason 7

      Yeah it's what I've been using the past few months. Works really well and no extreme measures required.

  4. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Holmes

    "Surprising findings"

    It's not *paying* I object to.

    It's paying 100s of individual itty-bitty subscriptions.

    The day someone (and it may be Google. Or Apple. Or Amazon) can find a way to charge me a*single* daily/weekly/monthly/premium, and allow me direct access to *whatever I want*, is the day I will take their hand off.

    Those El-Reggerrs who agree, and would also subscribe, upvote me (I predict there will be loads).

    The fact no such service exists, despite "market pressure" is a very good sign the market is well fucked.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Surprising findings"

      Something like this?

      https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/

      1. JimmyPage Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Something like this?

        "not available in your country"

        so no. Nothing like that.

      2. Gene Cash Silver badge

        Re: "Surprising findings"

        That is the first time I've seen that "contributor" link... how long before it's discontinued like 90% of the rest of Google's services?

      3. veti Silver badge

        Re: "Surprising findings"

        @Lost all faith... "Join the waitlist. Contributor is not yet available in your country."

        So yeah, point well proved there.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Surprising findings"

      Sigh,

      it's like a playground here, isn't it ?

      Presumably "JimmyPage" is a newbie, and doesn't realise how an invitation to upvote is translated in RegSpeak :)

      1. Kurt Meyer

        @AC Re: "Surprising findings"

        "Presumably "JimmyPage" is a newbie, and doesn't realise how an invitation to upvote is translated in RegSpeak"

        Your presumption is incorrect. I myself am one of El Reg's newer members, and far, far, far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer.

        But I did notice the little silver badge next to Jimmy Page's handle.

        So, along with your condescending "Sigh", which is, itself, an automatic down vote in my opinion, you'd get one for being thick.

        Bon appétit

    3. bazza Silver badge

      Re: "Surprising findings"

      Online advertising in the UK costs every wage earner here about £230 per year (cost of goods in the shops to pay for the advertising), whether or not you actually have a smart phone. I'd say a £10/month fee for online services would represent extremely good value, provided that meant no more online ads.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Some people like adverts

    Surprising, I know. Some people prefer push shopping, and think it makes their life easier. Well, they're probably easier to influence too. Attempting to force adverts on people who dislike them seems a painful way to generate honest revenue...

    1. asdf

      Re: Some people like adverts

      >Attempting to force adverts on people who dislike them seems a painful way to generate honest revenue...

      Think you need to check Alphabet (Google's) financials to see how lucrative it can be though. Think I heard they might even pass Apple market cap wise soon.

  6. AMBxx Silver badge
    Trollface

    How long

    How long until Samsung introduce an advert selling service that the blocker doesn't block?

  7. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    Two fingers to google then?

    sorta like Apple did with IOS a while back and probably somone else before that.

    Perhaps the Chocolate Factory might get the idea that people do not want adverts blasted at them from right left and centre 24.7

    Adverts are not the answer to Life, the Universe and Mad Men.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Two fingers to google then?

      Given their current financials, it might as well be. Look, until it puts them in the red, Google/Alphabet won't budge. Fiduciary duty mandates it.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Every device that I browse on runs an ad blocker.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Well of course they do. The web is unusable otherwise.

      The decline of advertising is a positive feedback loop. Advertisers react to ad-blocking by squeezing the remaining audience, which then shrinks.

      1. Charles 9

        Then the adwalls start popping up everywhere and people are left with a choice: bend over or bow out...of the Internet.

    2. Dr Potatohead
      Stop

      Phew! Thank goodness. Now we can all sleep tonight...

      One of the main points of the article is that for access to some content you *must* watch ads. You try watching any content from channel 4 with an ad blocker enabled.

      If its a toss up between watching a few ads and being able to watch the latest episode of catastrophe, or neither, I'll watch and ad or two to enjoy the content. Its when the ads are too intrusive to make the content you want to access not worth it that we get a problem, and we are approaching that in many corners of the internet.

    3. DropBear

      "Every device that I browse on runs an ad blocker."

      Same here. No idea what this content is that I'm supposed to watch ads to access.

  9. This post has been deleted by its author

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Galaxy Note 2

    Recent did this myself on my Galaxy Note 2 since Samsung & O2 refuse to keep Android up to date on it.

    Cyanogenmod, Privacy Guard, AdAway, Firefox, Adblock Edge, Ghostery. I now have no adverts anywhere except those sites and Apps I actively want to support (El reg etc.)

    I'm back in control and Advertisers can f***k themselves and their malware spewing shite.

  11. dajames

    Adverts are not the essence of the problem ...

    Well, not all of the problem.

    I dislike advertising and I very seldom respond positively to any advert or to the products or services it attempts to promote, but if an advert can generate a little income for the provider of a site like El Reg or for the author of a phone app I use then I'm happy -- well, not happy, but content -- to tolerate it ...

    ... but only so long as it doesn't cause delays, cost me an unreasonable amount in bandwidth, annoy me (e.g.by flickering and flashing or by displaying video or making a noise), or expose me to malware.

    If advertising wasn't such crap I'd mind it less.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Adverts are not the essence of the problem ...

      Trouble is, the ONLY way to get phone-goers attention these days is to be loud and proud. Odds are if ads were as unobtrusive as you wanted, people wouldn't even notice them (which is why banner ads are not really in vogue these days).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Adverts are not the essence of the problem ...

        Perhaps the goal of advertising should be redefined to not include being noticed. Like a crying baby at a play, the best ads do not stand out.

        How is it that we can spend all this time redoing apps and icons to be flat and basic and declare it the greatest design and art and then have these ads that are so... opposite. I have never intentionally clicked, tapped or otherwise selected an ad in my life. I have had stuff jump around on a page, redirect or pop up to try to make me accidentally click it. This should be treated as unathorized access to a computer and be a felony, if 'social engineering' can be considered a crime.

      2. veti Silver badge

        Re: Adverts are not the essence of the problem ...

        @Charles 9: I think a more accurate way to put it would be "loud and proud ads get more attention, thereby drowning out the quieter ones". And we're stuck with a race to the bottom of the quality pool, with all the beauty and love that entails.

        No, the real trouble here is that if advertisers can't advertise, they will find other ways to get their message across. Note: will. (Because those who do, will quickly out-compete those who don't, and we'll all have to live with the winners of that Darwinian struggle.)

        And that's why there's so much obviously-bought-and-paid-for "editorial" content on the web. We can look forward to a lot more advertorials, crowding out whatever's left of decent journalism online.

        TL;DR: We should be careful what we wish for.

    2. Lysenko

      Re: Adverts are not the essence of the problem ...

      I'm not happy about ads anywhere, not even here. What I want is an AdBlocker with two modes: Mode 1 functions as normal and Mode 2 allows the ad to download but shoves it directly to dev/null NOT my screen/speakers.

      That way I can support sites like El Reg and still remain de facto free of the pestilential trash.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    refusing to serve content to browsers with an active ad-blocker

    fine by me, it's only fair.

    1. Steven Roper

      Re: refusing to serve content to browsers with an active ad-blocker

      Yep, absolutely. Just like it's only fair that any site that behaves like that, gets added to our company firewall blocklist so it never darkens our screens again.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: refusing to serve content to browsers with an active ad-blocker

        What happens if one of them happens to be the ONLY supplier of something critical to your business that's too capital-intensive to roll yourself?

    2. Number6

      Re: refusing to serve content to browsers with an active ad-blocker

      Same here, if I click on a link that tells me me I have to disable my ad blocker to view the content then I just go elsewhere. When I get one that promises to fully compensate me for my losses should their adverts contain malware then I might consider removing the ad blocker.

  13. godshatter

    The ads are bad enough, but my fight lately has been with sites that use a ridiculous number of javascript domains to deploy their crappy websites and to track you around the web. I run noscript on my desktop pcs and only enable a small subset of those domains. This site has five domains, news sites average around 10 to 15, I've seen sites with far more than that. I enable the one or two that make sense, and if the site still refuses to work I move on.

    I haven't done anything to my android phone about this yet, so I use it as a last resort when I need to look something up. It's sobering to see the unfiltered internet, since I've been using adblockers and noscript pretty much since they've been released.

    1. Adam 52 Silver badge

      From your perspective the ad blockers are a good thing then because they're forcing sites to put everything under one domain.

    2. bazza Silver badge

      The huge mass of Javascript that seems to accompany a lot of websites these days is beginning to make browsing slow even on a good desktop. I can't believe how many CPU cycles are being used these days to render and display really quite simple stuff.

      Layers and layers of libraries, scripting languages etc. might be fast and convenient for developers, but they're wrecking the end user experience.

      1. Martin Budden Silver badge

        Layers and layers of libraries, scripting languages etc. might be fast and convenient for developers, but they're wrecking the end user experience.

        As a developer I totally agree with you. I remember the days when web page file size was all-important, now nobody seems to care. Most of my fellow developers have the attitude that it's more convenient to just bung in the MegaAwesome library which has a function for that tiny little thing you need to do because it's easier to add multimegabytes of bloat which will never be used than spending three minutes writing and testing a few lines of js. Madness. Now where's me false teeth and pipe?

        1. Charles 9

          Web page size was important because people were still connecting to the Internet on 14.4kbps modems (I know I did, upgrading to a 28.8k in the late 90's was considered a big step up until I built a machine that could tap the campus Ethernet network). With overhead, that meant you pretty much had to cram everything into documents of a few KB or less to avoid the user (or browser) giving up. Nowadays, dial-up Internet is considered Stone Age (since even the boonies can use satellite).

    3. wsm

      White noise

      NoScript it is for me as well. I get a surprising amount of white space in the right column of my browser now.

  14. Dan 55 Silver badge

    What are you going to do about it, Alphabet?

    Pretty obvious I would have thought, change the Play Services licencing terms to not allow ad blockers.

    1. FF22

      Re: What are you going to do about it, Alphabet?

      Samsung could just ship the blocker pre-installed on their phones or make it available in their own app store which is already available on all their phones, so, they would not be affected by Play Store terms. Google would have to put that prohibition right into the Play Services License Agreement or into the one they have to Samsung in order to forbid it.

      However, I don't think licence agreements are enough to stop this in its tracks, because there's no clear distinction between what an ad blocker, what a tracking blocker, what a content filter, etc. is. Technically they're practically all working the exact same way, and it only depends on their actual filter lists what their net effect is in the end. So you can't really catch them with legalese.

      My guess is that with the blocker war escalating Google will have to start to block ad blockers on their own services, too, at a technical level. Once they do that, ad blockers will become a thing of the past - because really, both the law and the technological advantage is at the content creators side. It will be a pain in the ass for the users - but hey, they can only blame themselves for starting and escalating the blocker war.

      1. MrDamage Silver badge

        Re: What are you going to do about it, Alphabet?

        Whatever you're smoking, I want a kilo.

        Blaming the end users for starting the blocker war, is like blaming those who had no debts, loans, or credit cards for the GFC.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What are you going to do about it, Alphabet?

          I want some too. However, I'd put money on FF22's prediction.

      2. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: What are you going to do about it, Alphabet?

        "both the law and the technological advantage is at the content creators side"

        Technical advantage maybe, but the law? The law is really going to uphold "in order to view our content we require you to view something from some other site - we don't know exactly what and we don't know exactly who provides it and we don't know exactly what they do with information gleaned from you and we don't know if this stuff is even safe for you or your system . . . but we get paid to shove this down your throats so we're making it a requirement" ?

        It might be worth some people remembering that a browser is expected to convert markup into a readable form, and as such the user has numerous options at their disposal - whether or not to show images, whether or not to allow scripts to run, whether or not to override font style/colour settings...

        For me, scripts are disabled until I know/trust the site. Then scripts for that site are permitted. Third party scripts only if there is a specific technical reason. If I'm looking at www.xyzzy.whatever, there's no valid technical reason for that fetch to include a dozen unrelated sites.

        My machine, my choice. If I'm the one that'll have to clean up the mess from a tainted advert or a family member falling for bad social engineering, the simplest way is to not let the stuff even get on the machine in the first place.

      3. veti Silver badge

        Re: What are you going to do about it, Alphabet?

        @FF22: where to begin...

        OK. Google could, at its absolute discretion, prevent you from accessing any page they control - including without limitation their Play Store, their search pages, Google Apps and gmail - unless you allow ads to be shown along with it. That's absolutely within their technical capabilities. They know it, we know it, Samsung knows it.

        At the time of writing, they've chosen not to do that. Instead they've chosen to support ad blockers in their own browser. I wonder why.

        But whatever makes you say that "both the law and technological advantage is at the content creators' side"? The law, in so far as it's ruled at all on the subject, has so far ruled consistently in favour of ad blockers - and I for one find it hard to imagine how that's likely to change. "Being selective in what you download and display" is what a web browser is for.

        Outlawing ad blockers in general would be basically tantamount to outlawing browsing, and forcing us all to treat the web as mildly-interactive TV. Maybe when a few billions more have been poured into buying the laws to support it, that'll become feasible. Until then - if your business model is predicated on forcing browsers to watch your ads, I strongly suggest you find another job.

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: What are you going to do about it, Alphabet?

          >>"That's absolutely within their technical capabilities. They know it, we know it, Samsung knows it."

          I'm not convinced of that. Unless they control the entire stack of my device, what stops me from routing anything I identify as an ad to /dev/null ? Or just setting it to not display? It's less the bandwidth that bothers me than the distraction. Even if it were the bandwidth that bothers someone, a proxy of some kind is conceivable that re-serves the wanted content to my bandwidth constrained device whilst holding back the ads. Of course you might think that SSL on the page would interfere with that, but a MITM attack is plenty possible - if one party trusts the MITM as you would in this scenario.

          Whilst Google could certainly make it harder, I'm not certain they can prevent surfing a site without ads.

          1. Charles 9

            Re: What are you going to do about it, Alphabet?

            "I'm not convinced of that. Unless they control the entire stack of my device, what stops me from routing anything I identify as an ad to /dev/null ?"

            With Marshmallow, they pretty much get you from the ground floor. Even without dm-verity, they can make the ads part and parcel with the stuff you want, so you end up with a Take It Or Leave It scenario. In other words, you block the ads, you block the content as well, leaving you empty. Leaving It basically means abandoning Android. Thing is, Apple and Microsoft, basically, the rest of the market for anyone who cares, do the same thing except maybe in other ways. If all roads lead to Tartarus and you can't go back the way you came, what do you do?

  15. Ken Hagan Gold badge

    Not the most urgent job

    Er, Samsung, any chance of pouring some of those development resources into shipping *updates* for the phones that you've already sold? If not, then frankly it isn't going to matter whether you and Google come to any agreement over ads -- the phones will end up rooted and displaying whatever their new owners want.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not the most urgent job

      Shipping an updated browser app is not shipping updates in your definition? Wut?

      1. MrDamage Silver badge

        Re: Not the most urgent job

        He's referring to the OS, not just the apps that run on it.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Not the most urgent job

          And even that's starting to get dicey. More and more root detectors are popping up, starting a sort of retaliation: Go Stock or Go Home being the battle cry.

  16. getHandle

    To be honest...

    I'd rather watch ads than use Samsung software!

    1. Chika
      Mushroom

      Re: To be honest...

      I'd rather do neither, partly because I find that ads are becoming more intrusive, partly because every bit of Samsung software or hardware I've owned has had problems at some point.

      But then a lot of the problem has to do with who has control of your device. Is it you? Is it the manufacturer? Is it the company that supplies the software? It's the same as the question about who controls a PC once the operating system is installed and the EULA is "agreed". Whether it's Apple or Android, the right to use it seems to be creeping away from the user - jailbreaking an iOS device or rooting an Android device is becoming increasingly arcane and the licensing companies frown on the practice even more now than before.

      So when I found, back in the days when I bought my first ICS device, that you could only install ad blockers if you rooted the thing first then went to a third party market to grab what you needed, do you think that was by accident that it was made that way?

      Corporates are greedy by design. Deal with it.

  17. goldcd

    I have no issue with "ads"

    I've clicked on many adverts that've been creepily targeted towards stuff I might like.

    I like free content, I like buying stuff, adverts are fine.

    What I f'in hate are adverts I have no interest in completely screwing up my consumption of content.

    So, I welcome with open arms the feature of most ad-blockers to "allow unobtrusive ads", and check that damn box on my PC.

    Google rose supreme amongst search engines by pandering to my needs.

    When I use my phone to browse without a blocker, it's an f'in disaster in comparison.

    I get the feeling that Google isn't quite sure what to do on mobile.

    They *could* implement objectionable-advert rules on mobile Android, but then the industry would rise up and accuse google of blocking anything that wasn't their advert, and they'd get raked over the coals.

    Best solution for google and myself, is just for advert types to be classified.

    1) No Pop-ups.

    2) No adverts that auto-play video, that's not in response to wanting to watch a video.

    3) No video adverts that can't be simply skipped after maybe 10 seconds.

    4) No advert that mentions "secret" or "don't want you to know"

    Basically, I think google's adverts they've had for the last decade or so are fine, and why we don't loathe google.

    Make those rules a formal standard.

    Allow anything that breaks that standard "shootable on sight" by all.

  18. gchaze
    Linux

    What ads?

    I started installing a custom host file on my computers long before there was a google chrome or firefox to add an extension too. Does anyone remember the flash car adds in the late 90's? VROOM, speeding across your screen. Talk about aggravating.

    I use chrome for private usage and firefox for work. I like the way chrome syncs my different browsers and I don't care what google knows about me, I NEVER see any adds. I don't sync firefox so I don't have any issues with logging into and configuring the hundreds of network devices I work on yearly. I like the features of both browsers about equally and have adblock extensions installed on both. If google does away with adblock, I'll start syncing firefox and use google for work. So far, I haven't seen many ads on the configuration pages I frequent. I'd hate to lose all the google services but there are alternatives.

    One of the main reasons I root every phone I use is to install adaway, a host file modifying app, btw.

    I wonder how much expensive bandwidth I've saved over the years using the host file method.

    On the other side of the coin, I certainly don't see any problem whatsoever with content providers refusing to serve me pages because I'm running an adblocker. I just find other sites serving similar content or do without. The couple of times I've disabled adblock, I've regretted it.

    I cringe every time I browse on an unrooted android phone or tablet. I really didn't know the unfiltered internet looked like that. :-)

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Industry examples

    What is being discussed here is web advertising.

    Remember how apps used to cost between 99p and 9.99 ... but suddenly they all went free, because not enough people were paying?

    The ad supported model switched to was much more careful about retaining customers, so for example play a game, first time you die and re-spawn you watch a ad video in payment, next time you die you buy yourself back to life with in game gold or in-app purchased gold. This approach is working when publishers are careful to get the balance right.

    Mobile web ads still open pop-ups, which on a mobile browser is really annoying, especially if the pop-up redirects to some app on the play store.

    I don't root my phone for my own reasons, and i don't think i should need to, in order to have control of the network details the way i do on a laptop.... eg. set fixed DNS for all connections (open DNS) and allow user access to a hosts file of some kind (perhaps a non root hosts file, so it could be separated from the core system stuff google doesn't want you to mess with).

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Industry examples

      "I don't root my phone for my own reasons, and i don't think i should need to, in order to have control of the network details the way i do on a laptop.... eg. set fixed DNS for all connections (open DNS) and allow user access to a hosts file of some kind (perhaps a non root hosts file, so it could be separated from the core system stuff google doesn't want you to mess with)."

      And you know why that won't happen? Two things. First, malware can mess with a user-mode hosts file and redirect you to more malware, particularly privilege escalation that'll let them pwn the phone. Second, and more importantly, this'll let you block Google. Thus why all this dm-verity stuff that's becoming enforced with Marshmallow. It's not Google's way or the highway, and if you take the highway, you're completely on your own.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Excellent, I can watch porn on my phone without interruption.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like