Debate of ad blockers has again to the present since last week’s with Google’s decision to remove all of his tent Google Play, for violating the guidelines for use of the distribution agreement established mobile applications for Android developers.
You can hear all kinds of varied opinions about defending a position and another. And it’s true, users are entitled to choose to view or not advertising, totally agree, and more if this is intrusive, but if a developer chooses to offer a free app without any cost to the user, in exchange for being monetized through advertising, also has the right, and should be able to also decide not to offer the app for users who are not willing to admit that advertising directly because it does not deserve to enjoy it, nor free, nor in any way.
Mobile applications, like anything else you do, has some development and maintenance costs, and unless it is a small application made to learn and test, or hobby, involving an expenditure in resources with the developer or the company that develops the game or application, because that work is their business and way of life, whether in business strategy offers a free mode application, to be profited through advertising only, we should be aware of this as a user to download it.
Just as advertising systems should avoid allowing annoying and intrusive advertising and advertisers and agencies should avoid creating it, because this bad publicity is the motive and the reason I have this type of ad blockers, who were born to avoid publicity in instead of selling, to tell new and thrilling, what you do is that attacks and annoys the potential customer. Although over time were derived to be able to block almost all forms of advertising, something happens on the other side of the line, not being understandable to be somewhat abusive.
If I were Google, instead of disabling applications “Google Play” sharply and increase his unpopularity, following the controversial removal of Google Reader, taking drastic action and difficult to understand for many users because it puts revenue above the interests of the users. Would see those users who do not consider only their own selfish interests and they settle these blockers blocking all advertising, intrusive and non-intrusive without caring that publishers or developers no longer receive any income for their work, identifying the cell have installed and allowing developers, if you want, disable access to your apps financed by advertising when these users will use them, explicitly telling them that the reason is that no advertising can not work because they threaten their existence. Thus, perhaps begin to get some awareness of their reality and avoid acting like Google has.
The same would be extended to web pages, blogs, developers whose only advertising revenue model, or other models even if they have the publication is part of their livelihood. So in addition to not accepting encourage invasive advertising on their sites and apps, would not surprise me that someone of the same, from: bloggers, developers and media publishers, developed blockers of ad blockers, so that if a page is displayed in the browser of a user who has installed the add-on and does not allow advertising, the site owner or the advertising platform that can detect and prevent block will display your page for that user. And, in the digital game, so you do like them you can do to you.