Related
If a website has an apk file for an app that normally costs money, do I still get charged if I download it from the web through Astro?
So, if I find Root Explorer ($3.87 in market) can I download the app from the web to my phone and not be charged?
SethAC said:
If a website has an apk file for an app that normally costs money, do I still get charged if I download it from the web through Astro?
So, if I find Root Explorer ($3.87 in market) can I download the app from the web to my phone and not be charged?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What would the point of piracy be if you still got charged? Yeah, you can do that, or you can just purchase the app for a mere $3. Show some support to the guy who created it. The more you pirate, the less people want to produce paid content, and all of us suffer for it.
Aside from being frowned upon, there are also other risks involved....
http://blog.mylookout.com/2010/12/geinimi_trojan/
deezy111 said:
Aside from being frowned upon, there are also other risks involved....
http://blog.mylookout.com/2010/12/geinimi_trojan/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The beautiful thing is that Geinimi only targets those that truly deserve to have their phone infected.
Seriously, if you're so cheap that you have to steal a $3 app, then you probably don't need to be shelling out the dough every month for a smartphone with data.
As already mentioned, pirating apps alienates devs and hurts the community as a whole. Additionally, the pirated apk can either be packaged with malware or request unnecessary permissions. And, of course, there is the fact that pirated apps aren't updatable- if an updated version is released that contains security enhancements or new features, the thief is stuck with the older version.
In summary... don't be a douche. Just pay the measly three bucks for the app if you want it, or use a free alternative from the market such as Astro or ES File Explorer.
najaboy said:
The beautiful thing is that Geinimi only targets those that truly deserve to have their phone infected.
Seriously, if you're so cheap that you have to steal a $3 app, then you probably don't need to be shelling out the dough every month for a smartphone with data.
As already mentioned, pirating apps alienates devs and hurts the community as a whole. Additionally, the pirated apk can either be packaged with malware or request unnecessary permissions. And, of course, there is the fact that pirated apps aren't updatable- if an updated version is released that contains security enhancements or new features, the thief is stuck with the older version.
In summary... don't be a douche. Just pay the measly three bucks for the app if you want it, or use a free alternative from the market such as Astro or ES File Explorer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
use the free versions if you have a problem paying a couple bucks for an app. Most of these guys do work for us on their own time with no monetary benefit. Support the guys that put out great products
najaboy said:
Seriously, if you're so cheap that you have to steal a $3 app, then you probably don't need to be shelling out the dough every month for a smartphone with data.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
End of story, and if you do pirate $3 apps, I hope you do get that virus. Then you can come back on here asking how to "pirate" a new phone...
I just wanted to know how that worked (whether or not it shows up in the market or if you can update it), like I want to know how a lot of things work, so you shouldn't assume automatically that I, myself, want to use the pirated apps.
Sent from my Incredible using XDA App
If you pirate it doesn't show up. Pirating isn't the worst thing ever but buying helps support the app and the community. Also a virus has popped up and others will follow suit so its becoming unsafe. If your gonna download online apps at least use an anti virus. I suggest look out. If you like apps please pay for them.
Sent from my Incredible using XDA App
It is completely understandable to want to try an app, especially with the 15 minute return window. If you decide the app is worth it, purchase it from the market.
this is stealing so i would not talk about this here
+99999999 on this. Also it's fine to tell people the risks of things no one told him how to do it only that's its probably a bad idea.
deezy111 said:
It is completely understandable to want to try an app, especially with the 15 minute return window. If you decide the app is worth it, purchase it from the market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my Incredible using XDA App
Suport the ones who support you. Put yourself in there shoes would you want someone to find a way to get your app for free if it is a paid app?
I dislike all forms of advertising, but this gives me more reason to do whatever I can to block them from my phone!
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/...t-up-your-phone-battery-just-sending-ads.html
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
I've been using adfree ever since I own an android phone.
I use Adaway. Works perfectly.
The main purpose of ad-blocker is to remove ads from sight. That doesn't necessarily mean the blockers are actually doing anything other than stopping us from seeing the ads. I don't know. Perhaps they do stop processing from running in the background which consume power. Most of these apps such as adaway and adfree work by blocking requests based on names in the host file. It has never been explained or demonstrated to my satisfaction that this actually has any benefit beyond not seeing the ads.
As the guy above said, it just blocks the hosts. Therefore battery life will still be used up sending requests etc.
Why don't you just pay the developers like 70p for their apps if you're that bothered about ads? Jeez.
case0 said:
As the guy above said, it just blocks the hosts. Therefore battery life will still be used up sending requests etc.
Why don't you just pay the developers like 70p for their apps if you're that bothered about ads? Jeez.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're missing the point. If free apps with ads are negatively affecting our phone experience, extorting us to upgrade isn't the answer! Clearly, ads have no place on our devices. I'm totally happy if developers want to issue demo or limited versions of their app and a full version with more features.
Charging users to remove ads is a dirty way of doing business.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
EP2008 said:
I think you're missing the point. If free apps with ads are negatively affecting our phone experience, extorting us to upgrade isn't the answer! Clearly, ads have no place on our devices. I'm totally happy if developers want to issue demo or limited versions of their app and a full version with more features.
Charging users to remove ads is a dirty way of doing business.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? That's not extortion... I don't think you understand. Seriously, the dev has to make money. They offer you the option of having ads or paying to remove them. There's nothing to be complaining about. Complaining that app devs want to make money is the most ridiculous thing ever.
martonikaj said:
Really? That's not extortion... I don't think you understand. Seriously, the dev has to make money. They offer you the option of having ads or paying to remove them. There's nothing to be complaining about. Complaining that app devs want to make money is the most ridiculous thing ever.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You didn't read my post did you?
I offered an alternative to ads polluting a developers app - offer a demo or limited version of your app, and a paid version with all the features.
Ads in an app do more harm than good. Many negative app reviews I read involves apps that don't work because of ads blocking the UI or being too obtrusive. Those potential customers LEAVE and never come back.
I've spent over $300 in apps and never once have I purchased an app solely to get rid of ads.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Here is my solution....don't leave open apps with ads running in the foreground.
And as said before, ad blockers don't stop the requests, so they are not saving your battery.
adrynalyne said:
Here is my solution....don't leave open apps with ads running in the foreground.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe the study suggested that the ads in these apps were creating wakelocks when not in the foreground and using location services too frequently.
Really, they sound like a virus to me...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Not to mention the crashing and freezing from bad ads!
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA
EP2008 said:
You didn't read my post did you?
I offered an alternative to ads polluting a developers app - offer a demo or limited version of your app, and a paid version with all the features.
Ads in an app do more harm than good. Many negative app reviews I read involves apps that don't work because of ads blocking the UI or being too obtrusive. Those potential customers LEAVE and never come back.
I've spent over $300 in apps and never once have I purchased an app solely to get rid of ads.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What I'm saying is its not extortion for them to offer a free and paid version to remove ads. They can choose to monetize however they want to. If you don't want to use their apps then that's your choice. But they reserve the right to do whatever they want to monetize -- whether its through ads, trials, or in-game purchases, etc..
If they get enough feedback that ads in their apps don't work properly and its negatively effecting installs/purchases, then they will change it. But that's their choice.
The use of the word "extortion" is still wayyyy overboard.
martonikaj said:
What I'm saying is its not extortion for them to offer a free and paid version to remove ads. They can choose to monetize however they want to. If you don't want to use their apps then that's your choice. But they reserve the right to do whatever they want to monetize -- whether its through ads, trials, or in-game purchases, etc..
If they get enough feedback that ads in their apps don't work properly and its negatively effecting installs/purchases, then they will change it. But that's their choice.
The use of the word "extortion" is still wayyyy overboard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perhaps "extortion" is a bit extreme, but choose to call it what you like.
I hold the belief that's apps should be purchased because they are useful, not annoying. And I'm not afraid to support developers who don't annoy.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
EP2008 said:
Perhaps "extortion" is a bit extreme, but choose to call it what you like.
I hold the belief that's apps should be purchased because they are useful, not annoying. And I'm not afraid to support developers who don't annoy.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't really see your point. For you it's ok to release a limited demo with no ads. If you want full functionality, you pay for the full. However, it's bad form to release a FULL version of the same app that is ad-supported and asking to pay for an ad-free version is bad form.
So, a gimped version is better than a fully functional, ad-supported version? What's the difference between paying to get a full version and paying to remove the ads? If you are willing to pay, then you have already decided that the app is useful to you. If you aren't willing to pay for an ad-free version, then maybe the app isn't what you're looking for. Just because the dev decided to release a free ad-supported version, it doesn't entitle you to a free ad-free version.
j.go said:
What's the difference between paying to get a full version and paying to remove the ads?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't feel as if I'm rewarding the developer when I'm paying to get rid of ads. I want to pay them for the great work they put out.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
EP2008 said:
I don't feel as if I'm rewarding the developer when I'm paying to get rid of ads. I want to pay them for the great work they put out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Either way you're paying for an app you want to use... Its rewarding them by paying them.
If it wasn't a great app you wouldn't be paying them, regardless of what their scheme was for payment.
EP2008 said:
I don't feel as if I'm rewarding the developer when I'm paying to get rid of ads. I want to pay them for the great work they put out.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes you are. The developer is taking a risk by releasing the full version free. A lot of people can look past the ads and go on using the free version since it does exactly what the paid version does (but with ads). Besides removing the ads, there is no compelling reason to buy the ad-free version. More so with some developers who put the ads in unobtrusive places like the preferences menu, so that unless you plan on changing some settings, you wouldn't even notice it had ads.
Buying the ad-free version IS rewarding the developer(s).
j.go said:
I don't really see your point. For you it's ok to release a limited demo with no ads. If you want full functionality, you pay for the full. However, it's bad form to release a FULL version of the same app that is ad-supported and asking to pay for an ad-free version is bad form.
So, a gimped version is better than a fully functional, ad-supported version? What's the difference between paying to get a full version and paying to remove the ads? If you are willing to pay, then you have already decided that the app is useful to you. If you aren't willing to pay for an ad-free version, then maybe the app isn't what you're looking for. Just because the dev decided to release a free ad-supported version, it doesn't entitle you to a free ad-free version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The apps being ads supported ain't the problem. The fact these ads are poorly integrated into the apps is the problem! So much so that the ads use more battery than the apps do. By all means integrate ads into apps, but do it properly. I think that is all that is being said here!
Sent from my AOKP Galaxy Nexus using XDA
Slightly off topic but definitely related, I read an article today that referenced a study that showed that some of the ads that developers have been using in their free apps have security vulnerabilities. I need to find the article though otherwise I'm just talking out of my ass.
edit: found it! http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/jiang/pubs/WISEC12_ADRISK.pdf
STANNY08 said:
The apps being ads supported ain't the problem. The fact these ads are poorly integrated into the apps is the problem! So much so that the ads use more battery than the apps do. By all means integrate ads into apps, but do it properly. I think that is all that is being said here!
Sent from my AOKP Galaxy Nexus using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My post has nothing to do with the issue of poorly implemented advertising in apps. It was about him complaining about full version ad-supported apps asking you to pay for an ad-free version. Which is, in my opinion, no different from a lite/demo app asking you to buy the full version to use all the features.
http://wmpoweruser.com/chevronwp7-shuts-down-handsets-to-be-re-locked-in-120-days/
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1598050
What the hell man, this is just crazy what is Microsoft thinking? This will only drive more people away from the platform and will keep phone sales at the rate they are now or lower. Who in the world wants to pay $99 a year just to be able to customize a phone? I personally do currently pay the $99 but will stop soon this is just a death sentence for Windows phone, really someone over at MS gets fired over this.
do you realize that most people would not care about these stuff, and we only nerds that like to hack our phones will matter. Maybe microsoft has something better in store? possibly in apollo we will get sideloading capabilities and other power user functions.
lovenokia said:
do you realize that most people would not care about these stuff, and we only nerds that like to hack our phones will matter. Maybe microsoft has something better in store? possibly in apollo we will get sideloading capabilities and other power user functions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I sure hope you are right my friend. Maybe Apollo won't have all this Apple style locked down crap.
what it means, in practice?
In practice, what this means for me?
I've a Samsung WP unlocked by Chevron. So, I've installed Nokia Drive, Nokia Maps... this means that after the 120 days, theses apps won't work in my phone?
So basically MS and the Chevron team just ripped off everyone that went and bought a token? I thought the token was forever, was there ever any metntion that it would expire in the future? if not this sounds like a scam, well for those who paid. I see a law suit.
sinister1 said:
What the hell man, this is just crazy what is Microsoft thinking? This will only drive more people away from the platform and will keep phone sales at the rate they are now or lower. Who in the world wants to pay $99 a year just to be able to customize a phone? I personally do currently pay the $99 but will stop soon this is just a death sentence for Windows phone, really someone over at MS gets fired over this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
seen the latest articles about lumia sales lately? I'll assume not since you insisted on posting this.
Side loaded apps
Like most people, I just want to know if apps already side loaded will continue to work after the tokens are revoked? If they do work, it may be possible to keep it unlocked through a Registry Editor, Root Tools etc.
sinister1 said:
So basically MS and the Chevron team just ripped off everyone that went and bought a token? I thought the token was forever, was there ever any metntion that it would expire in the future? if not this sounds like a scam, well for those who paid. I see a law suit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see any law suits as Microsoft as offered to refund $99 and swap Chevron unlock for App Hub Developer unlock.
However, interesting thing would be how many $9 unlocks are from non-supported countries!?
Surely out of 10,000 there are at least 100 people who paid $9 and don't have access to App Hub - those can go for a law suit unless Microsoft is going to make up for it in any other fashion in a separate announcement.
sinister1 said:
So basically MS and the Chevron team just ripped off everyone that went and bought a token? I thought the token was forever, was there ever any metntion that it would expire in the future? if not this sounds like a scam, well for those who paid. I see a law suit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I'm pissed that I was only renting the unlocker....this was definitely a hose job....these dudes are re-locking already paid for phones.
Side-loaded apps will probably cease to work, just as they do if you were to relock your device now.
quicoli said:
In practice, what this means for me?
I've a Samsung WP unlocked by Chevron. So, I've installed Nokia Drive, Nokia Maps... this means that after the 120 days, theses apps won't work in my phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, probably lol.
Pathetic.
MSFT is giving away free APP HUB accounts for these users. Is no one else reading it?
Sent from my TITAN X310e using Board Express
....the app hub is yearly, so we got a year long account for $9...what was I complaining about
/sarcasm.
quicoli said:
In practice, what this means for me?
I've a Samsung WP unlocked by Chevron. So, I've installed Nokia Drive, Nokia Maps... this means that after the 120 days, theses apps won't work in my phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're one of the people who make me disgusted at this community. Nokia apps (and other OEM apps) are device specific. You need to buy those devices to get those apps, as those apps on other devices is called stealing. Yet, this entire community insists they are entitled to things they have never paid for... Most of you don't want these accounts to "develop" or contribute, you want these accounts to sideload apps you have no way of paying for/getting.
FiyaFleye said:
You're one of the people who make me disgusted at this community. Nokia apps (and other OEM apps) are device specific. You need to buy those devices to get those apps, as those apps on other devices is called stealing. Yet, this entire community insists they are entitled to things they have never paid for... Most of you don't want these accounts to "develop" or contribute, you want these accounts to sideload apps you have no way of paying for/getting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point! Thanks!! Hence $9 for whatever time it was unlocked for + a year of sideloading stuff (not developing anything) - more than enough!
I don't mind the side loading. I mind the people coming in here to ***** about not having any way to load stolen software into their phone... Its just pathetic. I would understand if you're developing your ass off, but you're stealing... C'mon...
Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
i did the chevron unlock than used the interlop unlock will i be affected ?
FiyaFleye said:
You're one of the people who make me disgusted at this community. Nokia apps (and other OEM apps) are device specific. You need to buy those devices to get those apps, as those apps on other devices is called stealing. Yet, this entire community insists they are entitled to things they have never paid for... Most of you don't want these accounts to "develop" or contribute, you want these accounts to sideload apps you have no way of paying for/getting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I could be wrong, but didn't Nokia release these apps in the earlier versions for other non-Nokia devices? Of course (now) Nokia is claiming that their updated apps will be only for Nokia devices. Not condoning piracy here, but I don't see a problem with side loading device specific apps on other Windows Phones. These apps are free to the the users anyway right? -Well most of them... As we all know, each manufacturer has its own collection of apps for their devices. -And we can all agree there are apps that are better than others in each manufacturer app store. If the apps are free, I find it a little ridiculous to say that Windows Phone users would have to go and buy a certain WP just to be able to use a device for a specific free app on their phone. -Now if each manufacturer released their apps to EVERY WP device with the apps being free for that specific device and had a paid version for non-specific devices, my argument would be irrelevant here. -But we know this is not the case.
Anyway, yes I do agree somewhat that some users want their phones dev unlocked just to sideload apps that they themselves didn't develop or buy, but I have to say that I believe some/most members here on XDA contribute to some form or fashion to the development/modding/hacking phone world. I myself became a Windows Mobile/Phone developer because I was amazed at what I could do with my phone when I first started getting into flashing roms for Windows Mobile. I kept on coming back to this forum to see what I could do next with my phone. I finally realized that I couldn't wait for the next thing to come out for my phone, so I started learning the development side of the phone. As the years kept rolling on, I became very familiar with the development process and even made quite a bit of money on my apps. -So the point is, calling people out on wanting the dev unlocks just to sideload restricted apps on their phones is sort of unfair. You and I do not know the motives of the other users on this forum.
It looks like google have removed adblock plus adaway and such from the market, so backup your APK's if you want to carry on using those apps.
We could always ditch google play...
Can't post links, but anyone who wants site or direct download links, please PM me.
It's understandable that they are doing this. After all they give out Android and the sources for FREE. Everyone knows Google earns most if its revenue from adds and it isn't unreasonable to ask users for support in the form of accepting adds in free apps.
If you want to get rid of adds just show some support to devs and get payed versions of apps you use. If you want to support warez even by pm's you can do that elsewhere.
akselic said:
It's understandable that they are doing this. After all they give out Android and the sources for FREE. Everyone knows Google earns most if its revenue from adds and it isn't unreasonable to ask users for support in the form of accepting adds in free apps.
If you want to get rid of adds just show some support to devs and get payed versions of apps you use. If you want to support warez even by pm's you can do that elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are you talking about?! :laugh: What warez?!
Those are free apps, just being kicked out from google play, doesn't make them wares.
If you bother, you could find them yourself, just use google.
BTW, I am unable to donate to devs cause of my country's policies, no matter how willing I am. So, use your brain a little before making offensive comments.
Plus the likes of adaway stops ads on websites as well which is very useful.
Sent from my HTC ONE X
Drefsab said:
It looks like google have removed adblock plus adaway and such from the market, so backup your APK's if you want to carry on using those apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The answer is at https://f-droid.org/
Incidentally they so seem to have pulled all 3rd party store apps.
I see no ethical issues with installing an ad blocking app. On my PCs I have gone even further and installed Ghostery which blocks all sort of tracking activities.
We do need to be aware that adware helps devs provide stuff for free, and the good ones give you the option of paying a little to remove the ads.
do you work for Google or something?
since when is blocking ads considered warez?
Is dvr warez for you too? I don't watch ads on TV either.
I have adblock on my pc, oh my what a hacker I am...
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Another alternative to the ad blocker apps is to change your hosts file in the system/etc folder..
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
http://db.tt/WI1GQXwJ APK for adaway incase you aren't able to get it.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
akselic said:
It's understandable that they are doing this. After all they give out Android and the sources for FREE. Everyone knows Google earns most if its revenue from adds and it isn't unreasonable to ask users for support in the form of accepting adds in free apps.
If you want to get rid of adds just show some support to devs and get payed versions of apps you use. If you want to support warez even by pm's you can do that elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, you have a point.
People work hard, and then they give their work for free, so they give ads, for revenue, and then you find loopholes in that too?
This is just my opinion, don't mean to start an argument.
Sent from my One X running Slim Bean.
theDroidfanatic said:
Actually, you have a point.
People work hard, and then they give their work for free, so they give ads, for revenue, and then you find loopholes in that too?
This is just my opinion, don't mean to start an argument.
Sent from my One X running Slim Bean.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
playstation network is free, but I paid for the console, if ps3 made adds all over the screen so you couldn't play or view it, I'm sure that they would lose customers. Google makes enough money from sales of their phones, which have the latest android first, and make alot of money with other things that they produce. There is no need for them to mess up an app that a dev put out there for free bc of greed. just sayin
toolhas4degrees said:
playstation network is free, but I paid for the console, if ps3 made adds all over the screen so you couldn't play or view it, I'm sure that they would lose customers. Google makes enough money from sales of their phones, which have the latest android first, and make alot of money with other things that they produce. There is no need for them to mess up an app that a dev put out there for free bc of greed. just sayin
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but this isn't Google we're talking about, it is the Devs.
The Devs add the ads to their apps, for their income, not Google's
Sent from my One X running Slim Bean.
theDroidfanatic said:
Yes, but this isn't Google we're talking about, it is the Devs.
The Devs add the ads to their apps, for their income, not Google's
Sent from my One X running Slim Bean.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and if a dev needs income they should make it a paid app / adds are the devils work
toolhas4degrees said:
and if a dev needs income they should make it a paid app / adds are the devils work
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, you don't get it do you?
They want to give people, who can't buy apps, access to them.
Anyways, this is their wish, and if you block ads, that is wrong, don't want ads? Don't use their apps, simple as that.
Sent from my One X running Slim Bean.
let's not pretend here this is a thing about legality or not.
it's in my right to block ads if I want to.
it's also a developer's choice to make his app free and ad supported. By blocking ads I'm not doing anything illegal.
Google removing ad blockers is simply a move to increase profit. it's a choice they are entitled to as a business but not something I have to tolerate as an end user, and i don't.
my point is, if you want to make your app ad supported you are just gonna have to accept the fact that some users just don't like ads.
this does limit profits for the developer's I guess but as an end user I'm not doing anything wrong.
I like to support developers, when it's due. Watching ads, wasting bandwidth and battery is not one of the acceptable means though .
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
drivenby said:
let's not pretend here this is a thing about legality or not.
it's in my right to block ads if I want to.
it's also a developer's choice to make his app free and ad supported. By blocking ads I'm not doing anything illegal.
Google removing ad blockers is simply a move to increase profit. it's a choice they are entitled to as a business but not something I have to tolerate as an end user, and i don't.
my point is, if you want to make your app ad supported you are just gonna have to accept the fact that some users just don't like ads.
this does limit profits for the developer's I guess but as an end user I'm not doing anything wrong.
I like to support developers, when it's due. Watching ads, wasting bandwidth and battery is not one of the acceptable means though .
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is not true.
You want to support developers? You clearly aren't if you do this, also, they give you the app for FREE, and give ads. Don't like the ads? Either: 1) But the Full version 2) Don't use the app
And I really don't get one thing nowadays, there is something known as ethics? General morals? Right and wrong?
It may not be illegal to block ads, but you're stopping the developers' incomes, those developers who give you their work for free, in exchange for tiny ads. And then you block those ads, that is wrong, my friend.
And waste bandwidth? You can't be serious How much bandwidth can a repetitive ad take? Less than half an MB a day? I'm sure that effects no one, especially if we are able to purchase a One X, and a computer.
Bottom line, Devs do hard work, and its wrong, if not illegal, to block ads.
Take this, for example. In many US states, a bit of Marijuana is legal, right?
But, If your hypothetical son, above the age of 18, smoked Marijuana, would you like it? No. Its not illegal, but its wrong, no? I know smoking pot is nothing near blocking ads, but its just to prove, that if something isn't illegal, it can still be wrong, which, I believe, blocking ads is.
And why do I support this? Because I'm a developer too, if not an app developer, a ROM developer. And its frikkin hard work. Working for hours, sitting on your butt with a laptop on your legs, continuously debugging, trying different things, making it perfect, then releasing it, and If people block ads? For me, it would be like if everyone used my ROM, but no one thanked me, or complimented it.
So, just saying, its wrong
Sent from my One X running Slim Bean.
@theDroidfanatic
Sooo... I can't pay apps from my country... And I don't want ads on my phone... What should I do, any idea?
there is nothing morally wrong about blocking ads tdf
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
donmarkoni said:
@theDroidfanatic
Sooo... I can't pay apps from my country... And I don't want ads on my phone... What should I do, any idea?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Easiest way is to use google to search for ad blockers. That's all...
donmarkoni said:
@theDroidfanatic
Sooo... I can't pay apps from my country... And I don't want ads on my phone... What should I do, any idea?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Live with the ads
We can't always get what we want, and you can use the Amazon AppStore, it's easy to make a US account there, many tutorials on Google, I buy must of my apps from there
drivenby said:
there is nothing morally wrong about blocking ads tdf
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to me, there is, cuz it's their income you're blocking, but everyone's entitled to his own opinion
Sent from my One X running Slim Bean.
So we are in 2014 in case alot of you haven't noticed. I just read a report how banking apps on Android are more vulnerable that Apple's (watch-out it's gonna be Apple's new selling point), but for obvious reasons I could understand why (say FREEDOM!). Anyways...should everyone now be required to be running an antivirus in our Android devices, just like is a MUST to be running one on our Windows platform? Is it still early to worry about that? Has anyone gotten spyware, trojans, worms, or any malware in that matter in their phones so far? What your opinion fellas?
if you only install from playstore and from trusted parties, then no need; however, if you run bootleg apks and stuff from torrents, i would get one. Antiviruses eats battery and really have no purpose for android, if you are a safe installer. Just hit the thanks button
Luthien1 said:
if you only install from playstore and from trusted parties, then no need; however, if you run bootleg apks and stuff from torrents, i would get one. Antiviruses eats battery and really have no purpose for android, if you are a safe installer. Just hit the thanks button
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I second this answer. Of course I also download apks from the internet, but only from a developer that has it posted here on xda. If you are aware if what you are installing, then you should be OK.
Sent from the phablet of the year!
Typically your biggest threats are from nefarious publishers who have earned trust on the play store, and an antivirus is going to do little to protect you.
And that is exactly how I feel. Just like on Windows, you have to practice common sense (sorry, there is not an app for that unfortunally), if it looks suspicious and/or if not from a known source then don't open it or install it. Also, unless is inconvenient to you, keep your data/wifi off until you need it...you will also get better battery life as a added bonus.
Sent from my Blutiful Note3