Menu
Google, Android, ads, and a tech titan's revenge
Apple really doesn’t like Google. I mean really.
Why? Let’s start at the beginning: Way back when, Sun Microsystems created Java, a platform for developing applications that run on all types of hardware. In 2009, Oracle acquired Sun and Java; the acquisition is completed in 2010. Decades after its initial release, Java remains one of the world’s most popular application development environments.
Google acquired Android Inc. in 2005. The rumor at the time was that Google was developing an operating system for mobile phones. In 2008, the first phones based on Android were released; Android is based on the open-source Linux kernel, but with many changes and proprietary features.
Android uses some Java application programming interfaces, or APIs. Google claims its use of the Java APIs doesn’t violate Java copyrights, which are owned by Oracle. In Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (2014) 750 F.3d 1339, the court ruled that Google’s use of 37 Java APIs infringed on Oracle copyrights. (For details, see Software Intellectual Property Protections.)
Meanwhile, Apple and Microsoft both sue Android hardware makers for patent infringement. The most famous (or infamous) of these cases is Apple’s suit against Samsung. Google asserts that Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are abusing the patent process.
There’s little doubt about how Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs felt about the matter. Jobs is quoted by his biographer Walter Isaacson as stating the following back in January 2010:
“I’m going to destroy Android, because it is a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”
Fast-forward to 2015 and Apple’s release of iOS 9, which for the first time provides the hooks required for third parties to create ad-blocking apps for the iPhone. Note that Apple doesn’t block any ads itself, which could lead to publishers filing suit against the company, as venture capitalist Jason Calacanis explains in a long post on his blog; the article was last updated on September 25, 2015.
Apple sees ad blocking as a way to ‘destroy Android’ – and smack down Google
Google makes most if its billions on ads. Apple doesn’t care a whit about ads, except its own, as Calacanis points out. Apple cares about a great user experience, and removing ads from the iPhone makes for a much greater user experience.
Google exploits its “customers.” It sells to the highest bidder what it learns about us as it monitors our online activities – and I mean literally to the highest bidder. Much of the revenue Google generates is from ads people view by accident. Calacanis cites a 2013 study by UK-based Web consultancy Bunnyfoot that found 40 percent of people don’t realize that the Google Adwords listings they click are in fact paid-for advertisements.
Ads are merely a nuisance when they show up in a browser window on a desktop or laptop screen – even the ones that autoplay video and audio, and that block the page’s content. But on a phone or tablet, the ads render the content nearly inaccessible, according to Calacanis. Meanwhile, Google’s advertising practices have come under fire in Europe and the U.S., although a U.S. Federal Trade Commission investigation into the matter was killed under suspicious circumstances, according to Search Engine Land’s Greg Sterling in a March 26, 2015, article.
Google benefits when people click ads they don't realize are ads, and it sells profiles of its customers to advertisers and other third parties. Creepy any way you look at it. Calacanis claims this is why Larry Page decided to focus on the new Alphabet operation that is working on such projects as self-driving cars, life-extending technologies, and home automation. He's distancing himself from the company's more-seedy revenue-generating operations.
Is ad blocking immoral and unethical as publishers claim?
As Calacanis points out, when you buy a newspaper, magazine, or book, you can take it home and do as you wish with it, so long as you don’t make money by reselling the content – or otherwise infringe on the publishers’ and creators’ copyrights. That’s the fair-use doctrine in a nutshell.
What’s the difference when you download the same content to your computer or mobile device? If a technology exists that allows you to strip out the portion of the content that you don’t want, what law have you broken?
You’re likely violating the site’s terms of service, but the enforceability of these contracts is questionable. For one thing, nobody reads the terms, and the services know this. In fact, a study found that if you were to read the terms of service of every site you visit, it would take you up to 300 hours per year, which is the equivalent of almost 40 workdays, as TechDirt reported back in 2012. If everyone read every EULA they encountered, it would bring the U.S. economy to a standstill, according to the researchers.
The ad-based revenue model publishers generate their profit from is imperiled. First, advertisers have gone overboard; their ads are mucking up the user experience, and some of them are dangerous, as I wrote about back in June 2014. Second, as ad blockers become easier to use, more people will install and use them. Sooner or later, companies are going to have to come up with a new online revenue model, and there’s a prime candidate waiting in the wings: bitcoin.
In a September 27, 2015, article, the Guardian’s John Naughton writes that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin facilitate the micro-payments that a pay-as-you-go content model requires. For example, if you were to open 50 pages in the course of a workday and were charged a penny per page, you'd pay about $10 a month. For most of us, this is about 15 percent to 25 percent of what we currently pay for Internet access, and an even-smaller percentage of what we pay monthly to our cell service.
Now suppose you would rather view ads and share your personal information in exchange for accessing the services for free. What if you could negotiate with the services on the value of the personal information you provide to them? The more personal information you give up, the more service you receive in return. This sounds more like an offer, an acceptance, and bargained-for consideration -- like a regular contract.
Ad blocking as a way to make a statement
Who calls the shots on the Internet? Who decided that the Web would be driven by advertising? You could say that users decided, because they have clearly expressed a preference for free, ad-supported content over subscriptions. However, consumers are in the dark about what they're giving up in exchange for what they're getting. We only know half the deal -- the part we're getting -- so how do we know whether the deal is fair?
Blocking ads is a way for site visitors to let the site owners know we want an ad-free, tracking-free option, even if we have to pay a reasonable amount for it.
The only way to get big corporations to listen is to hit them in the pocketbook. And blocking ads is the best way to tell the services we use every day that we want some control over what we receive from them, and what they receive from us in return.
Why? Let’s start at the beginning: Way back when, Sun Microsystems created Java, a platform for developing applications that run on all types of hardware. In 2009, Oracle acquired Sun and Java; the acquisition is completed in 2010. Decades after its initial release, Java remains one of the world’s most popular application development environments.
Google acquired Android Inc. in 2005. The rumor at the time was that Google was developing an operating system for mobile phones. In 2008, the first phones based on Android were released; Android is based on the open-source Linux kernel, but with many changes and proprietary features.
Android uses some Java application programming interfaces, or APIs. Google claims its use of the Java APIs doesn’t violate Java copyrights, which are owned by Oracle. In Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (2014) 750 F.3d 1339, the court ruled that Google’s use of 37 Java APIs infringed on Oracle copyrights. (For details, see Software Intellectual Property Protections.)
Meanwhile, Apple and Microsoft both sue Android hardware makers for patent infringement. The most famous (or infamous) of these cases is Apple’s suit against Samsung. Google asserts that Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are abusing the patent process.
There’s little doubt about how Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs felt about the matter. Jobs is quoted by his biographer Walter Isaacson as stating the following back in January 2010:
“I’m going to destroy Android, because it is a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”
Fast-forward to 2015 and Apple’s release of iOS 9, which for the first time provides the hooks required for third parties to create ad-blocking apps for the iPhone. Note that Apple doesn’t block any ads itself, which could lead to publishers filing suit against the company, as venture capitalist Jason Calacanis explains in a long post on his blog; the article was last updated on September 25, 2015.
Apple sees ad blocking as a way to ‘destroy Android’ – and smack down Google
Google makes most if its billions on ads. Apple doesn’t care a whit about ads, except its own, as Calacanis points out. Apple cares about a great user experience, and removing ads from the iPhone makes for a much greater user experience.
Google exploits its “customers.” It sells to the highest bidder what it learns about us as it monitors our online activities – and I mean literally to the highest bidder. Much of the revenue Google generates is from ads people view by accident. Calacanis cites a 2013 study by UK-based Web consultancy Bunnyfoot that found 40 percent of people don’t realize that the Google Adwords listings they click are in fact paid-for advertisements.
Ads are merely a nuisance when they show up in a browser window on a desktop or laptop screen – even the ones that autoplay video and audio, and that block the page’s content. But on a phone or tablet, the ads render the content nearly inaccessible, according to Calacanis. Meanwhile, Google’s advertising practices have come under fire in Europe and the U.S., although a U.S. Federal Trade Commission investigation into the matter was killed under suspicious circumstances, according to Search Engine Land’s Greg Sterling in a March 26, 2015, article.
Google benefits when people click ads they don't realize are ads, and it sells profiles of its customers to advertisers and other third parties. Creepy any way you look at it. Calacanis claims this is why Larry Page decided to focus on the new Alphabet operation that is working on such projects as self-driving cars, life-extending technologies, and home automation. He's distancing himself from the company's more-seedy revenue-generating operations.
Is ad blocking immoral and unethical as publishers claim?
As Calacanis points out, when you buy a newspaper, magazine, or book, you can take it home and do as you wish with it, so long as you don’t make money by reselling the content – or otherwise infringe on the publishers’ and creators’ copyrights. That’s the fair-use doctrine in a nutshell.
What’s the difference when you download the same content to your computer or mobile device? If a technology exists that allows you to strip out the portion of the content that you don’t want, what law have you broken?
You’re likely violating the site’s terms of service, but the enforceability of these contracts is questionable. For one thing, nobody reads the terms, and the services know this. In fact, a study found that if you were to read the terms of service of every site you visit, it would take you up to 300 hours per year, which is the equivalent of almost 40 workdays, as TechDirt reported back in 2012. If everyone read every EULA they encountered, it would bring the U.S. economy to a standstill, according to the researchers.
The ad-based revenue model publishers generate their profit from is imperiled. First, advertisers have gone overboard; their ads are mucking up the user experience, and some of them are dangerous, as I wrote about back in June 2014. Second, as ad blockers become easier to use, more people will install and use them. Sooner or later, companies are going to have to come up with a new online revenue model, and there’s a prime candidate waiting in the wings: bitcoin.
In a September 27, 2015, article, the Guardian’s John Naughton writes that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin facilitate the micro-payments that a pay-as-you-go content model requires. For example, if you were to open 50 pages in the course of a workday and were charged a penny per page, you'd pay about $10 a month. For most of us, this is about 15 percent to 25 percent of what we currently pay for Internet access, and an even-smaller percentage of what we pay monthly to our cell service.
Now suppose you would rather view ads and share your personal information in exchange for accessing the services for free. What if you could negotiate with the services on the value of the personal information you provide to them? The more personal information you give up, the more service you receive in return. This sounds more like an offer, an acceptance, and bargained-for consideration -- like a regular contract.
Ad blocking as a way to make a statement
Who calls the shots on the Internet? Who decided that the Web would be driven by advertising? You could say that users decided, because they have clearly expressed a preference for free, ad-supported content over subscriptions. However, consumers are in the dark about what they're giving up in exchange for what they're getting. We only know half the deal -- the part we're getting -- so how do we know whether the deal is fair?
Blocking ads is a way for site visitors to let the site owners know we want an ad-free, tracking-free option, even if we have to pay a reasonable amount for it.
The only way to get big corporations to listen is to hit them in the pocketbook. And blocking ads is the best way to tell the services we use every day that we want some control over what we receive from them, and what they receive from us in return.