Discussion on:

Android apps and advertising: A bit too cozy

New post

Did you know that? How do you feel about it?

They have been a vector before. Sure they will again so the less i can give them for permissions the better.

One thing that bothers me is verification. I have very little in the way of controlling the data they generate or way to even know what or when they gather.

indeed.

the Android API should neither allow nor require the ad have the same permissions as the app.

I'm just glad that I still have no use for such technology.

I view it as the forerunner of behavioral advertising. In a sense it is more, with the addition of geo-location.

"the Android API should neither allow nor require the ad have the same permissions"

I guess the thing not clear to the average user is that the ad and the app are one. Meaning as an Android developer if I choose to implement one of the ad-based revenue models to try and get reimbursed for an app that users are downloading but not buying, I literally download a JAR file that I must compile into my application. The JAR file comes with a document which states all the permissions I must add to my app to make it work. And if I don't add those permissions the advertisements won't play and I will continue not to get paid anything for my efforts.

I guess my point is just that it's really not so much a function of the API because when it's all said and done the developer has really created in effect a monolithic app that includes both the original functionality plus an app that plays ads and collects user metrics for the advertisers.

As a developer not only do I not like messing with the ad libraries but I must redesign my application screens to make room for the ads to play. I think the ads "crowd" my apps. And the companies that act as the middle man for the advertisements are generally slow to pay out so it takes a lot longer to get reimbursed and as mentioned in the article reimbursement is at a much lower rate than the 70% I get automatically when someone purchases one of my apps.

I like hearing readers say that buying the app is a reasonable suggestion. I think if more users felt that way there would be no need to worry about ads as another vector on Android. Apps for phones are priced at a very low-price point, often under $2. And usually it's possible just to have that purchase price added to the following month's phone bill so there is little to no hassle.

It's difficult for me to feel overly sympathetic for a user who continues to use a trial version of my software yet won't part with 99 cents or $1.99 or whatever I think is a reasonable amount for something I put my time and effort into creating and releasing. Sorry to get on my soap box. I just believe as many issues as exist with privacy that users don't have control over in the smart phone revolution this is one area where users can and should step up.

Hopefully well researched articles like this will help to raise awareness. Kudos to the author!

I agree with your comments. People expect a lot for free and I think that is much of the problem with smart phones. There has to be a way for people to support them selves so if no one is willing to fork over a little money to buy and app then what is the developer supposed to do? I personally usually try an app for free to get a feel for it, but then I normally will purchase it. I find it interesting that some apps do not have the option to purchase a copy. I am guessing that they either are popular enough that add revenue is worth more than the purchase price or the developer made it for them selves and decided to share.

Bill

For multiple reason I like downloading and testing apps before buying them. As an Android user I am in a unique position that I can not charge my apps to the monthly bill, it is a corporate phone and they do not allow that. Therefore I have to paypal or credit card to pay. It is worth it to limit the ads. I also do not think that the Android API should neither allow nor require the ad have the same permissions!

I do have a question about the apps library. Once I have downloaded the app to test, the ad librarys are there. How do I know that they are not still sending data after I upgrade to the paid apps. Just because the ads are not popping up does not necessarly the data not transmitted.

any app with the Internet permission could be transmitting data with or without ads or the associated ad libraries. Generally speaking though my experience has been that as long as you are purchasing legitimate apps from a legitimate market you will get what you pay for. Keep in mind too that if you uninstall the free version of the app and then install the paid one you get to review the permissions being asked for again. For instance most ad libraries require "coarse location" permission. But if the app is say a game once you purchase the paid version this permission should no longer be needed. The same is probably true of phone state. So while it's not a full-proof method comparing permissions before and after the purchase is at least one indicator that could be used if you suspect something is amiss.

Adrienne has been awarded a Facebook Fellowship for her ground-breaking work in computer security:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150410807003920

Richly deserved.

I had always assumed that the ad libraries, at least the ones that come with Android itself, would be firewalled off from the rest of the application and only get the information that they need to do their job. I never would have made the connection in a million years that since the library is running within the app, that Android would just let it have whatever access that the app had.

Sounds to me like a GREAT way to slip a virus into Android would be to start a bogus ad network, promising massive payouts, and putting the virus in the ad library. Or simply imitating the site for an existing ad system, try to leap frog it in search engine results, and use it to distribute the bogus ad library.

Once again, I am grateful that I am not an Android user.

J.Ja

I honestly didn't ever think about ad's and permissions. It makes sense that they have the same permissions since they are essentially the same application. I am not real comfortable with that, but at the same time I really am not a big fan of ad's in general. I usually prefer to either purchase an application or do without.

Bill

If you look at the WSJ article, Apple is also implicated and others may come. This particular investigation deals with Pandora. Is that on your phone?

Why are we worrying about company this and company that. The problem is with the developer community and what we have become. Hey, I can code this, what do you think this company or that company will pay me for it? Those app developers and designers are the ones with the problem as far as I'm concerned. You know exactly what the code does and don't do. You have the responsibility and duty to inform hey this app will track you or whatever and this how you disable it. After all you are the end user. Instead, I need to make a living whether I like it or not. Pass the buck. Why worry about someone spying if you???re not guilty. The very people creating the software think they are cool for being able to implement it unknowingly. Although I work in the industry, I still have the morale fortitude to say no. Everybody else in this industry needs to do the same. People want a lot of things and there are ways to give it to them without deception. I have noticed though, there is a lack of news that if or no one is running back to the stores demanding refunds or canceling their services because of. I do not own a smart phone, refuse to use one. Should it become a point of force, I was looking for a job when I found this one. Michael, thanks for trying.

Forum software, get real.

"Francis: As an Android developer, it never occurred to me, that users didn???t understand that the app???s permissions and the ad???s permissions (or rather the library that displays the ads) were shared."

He develops apps for Android and it never occurred to him? I wish I knew which apps he's developed. If I had any, they'd be gone.

I'm not a developer but never thought that the app and ad library has a different set of permissions. I always thought about it as one single app (as it is).