In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nospam@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
else about what is "expensive". Instead you want to talk about piholes.

Elijah
------
obviously has a different idea of "burden" from nospam

In article <eli$2105301815@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
<*@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.

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.

In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nospam@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.

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.

> 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.

> 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

Here you go again. I'm not claiming alternative apps will always be
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

orthogonal to my request that you back up your claim of apps without
alternatives.

Elijah
------
was careful not to include ad-free version from same author in the claim

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.

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.

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
replying...

>
> 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.
>

In article <s9dllh$699$1@gioia.aioe.org>, paul <nospam@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.

In article <eli$2106011543@qaz.wtf>, Eli the Bearded
<*@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
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.

In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nospam@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
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.

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.

> 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.

Elijah
------
the FLIR app was supported by the cost of the hardware

On 5/26/2021 7:27 AM, Theo wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@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.

In article <eli$2106041514@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.

> (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.)

i have a flir camera which only works with an app from the camera
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.

now you do.

> > 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.

not always, such as the example *you* gave.

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.

that depends on the app. they are two unrelated things.

In article <s9ilpv$8tt$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@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 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.

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.

On 5/26/2021 7:27 AM, Theo wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@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
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!

In article <s9lar9$g1u$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@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,
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.

In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nospam@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
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.

I gave an example of an app with no alternatives, but not an example of
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.

I seriously suspect the only cases where there are apps with ads and
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.

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.

Elijah
------
completely free apps have little /financial/ incentive to very good

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.

In article <s9m1dq$mbk$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@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,
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%.

with <eli$2106071616@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nospam@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.

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

nospam wrote on 08.06.2021 01:28
>> 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
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.

sms wrote on 07.06.2021 16:35
> 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.,
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

sms wrote on 07.06.2021 23:00
> 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?*

On 6/8/2021 12:26 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
> with <eli$2106071616@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nospam@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
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.

In article <s9nuqe$c6q$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@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
bluetooth le, which is much more reliable, easier for the user to use
and also for the developer to write apps. btdt.

sms wrote on 08.06.2021 16:28
> 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
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.

with <s9nuqe$c6q$1@dont-email.me> sms wrote:
> On 6/8/2021 12:26 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
>> with <eli$2106071616@qaz.wtf> Eli the Bearded wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Eli the Bearded > <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

*SKIP*

Are you GPT[1] by any chance?

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT_(language_model)>

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom