yanw

The author took some liberties with his conclusions which explains some of the comments below.

Here is a more informed post: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/03/13/breaking-google-has-...

First: Adblock for Android was purged from the Play store. Adblock for Chrome is still available.

As to why it was removed, it is said that it is in violation of section 4.4 of the Play Store Developer Distribution Agreement:

4.4 Prohibited Actions. You agree that you will not engage in any activity with the Market, including the development or distribution of Products, that interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party including, but not limited to, Android users, Google or any mobile network operator. You may not use customer information obtained from the Market to sell or distribute Products outside of the Market.

How so?

By rootless-ly changing proxy using an exploit that was patched in 4.2.2: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=40506

Also the way Adblock in implemented on mobile does introduce security risks: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/02/13/google-has-effective...

Adblock for Chrome is still in the Webstore.

I'm fed up with this blog, they somehow manage to hijack every news item even though their posts read like something a drunk child wrote.

Source: former PM speculating on Quora: https://www.quora.com/Google-Reader-Shut-Down-March-2013/Why...

What you're suggesting is probably phase 2.

http://marketingland.com/why-im-glad-google-play-gives-devel...

http://marketingland.com/google-play-gives-email-addresses-p...

It's ridicules how some outlets just run with this sort of crap without question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft-battl...

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-03/did-mark-pen...

And are we to conclude that Microsoft doesn't provide spam/scam protection as we are led to believe that they don't scan email contents?! when they use terminology that suggests human intervention they lose all credibility.

It’s also pathetic how increasingly they mention Google in their PR/marketing campaigns, it’s as if they believe it’s the only way for them to remain relevant.

If I were Google I would include a clause demanding positive coverage - seeing as they are paying for the damn news.

Now they come up with a "personal data" tax scheme targeted at Google: is it just the case that people who really hate Google were voted into power?

Here Google is just a website on the internet, granted it's a significant website but so is Facebook, and you don't have to go through Google to reach Facebook. My point is that Facebook is a large entity that exists alongside Google, and so does Twitter and many others so it's not a one vendor market.

There is also the small matter of Google being free, and the lack of any meaningful lock-ins (this being the web and all) and the matter of Facebook being the leading social network, and other such subtleties that make these cases very dissimilar.

There is also the discussion of whether or not the DOJ was wise in pursuing that case which they subsequently lost, seeing as last I checked IE still ships with Windows.

Google wanting iOS users to be able to sign in — if not be downright encouraged to sign in — to their Google account, that’s easy to understand. That’s how Google makes money, by selling ads that target us based on the information they collect as we use their services.

You agree to send anonymous data to Google for the location targeting and improved accuracy bit, you sign-in to sync bookmarks and search history. Also one wouldn't have needed to sign into every Google app separately if iOS allowed Google the same OS-wide account integration that Facebook and Twitter have.

And in fact it’s not a moral issue at all but a legal one. And if the conduct is legal then it’s not Google’s problem, is it?! the focus on Google in some of this tax talk is indicative of some sort of a PR offensive against them by governments and other bodies who aren't fond of Google and are using this as a wedge issue against the company.

Everyone does it and it’s been done for a while, governments allow much of it to encourage corporations to hire and invest within the local economies and now they pretend to be surprised and appalled by it. This just reeks of hypocrisy.

I'll chalk this one down to the startup nature of this community, seeing as some are probably involved with competing products or are developing some, but the matter of fact is that this announcement is perfectly reasonable: “vanilla” gmail accounts are free, Apps accounts are not.

Those who already have free Apps will keep them at the same price, there doesn't seem to be any swindling involved, and look! phone support, imagine that.