You can report these bad ads by clicking the small X in the corner. Please do that if you ever see any of those, and they'll be replaced by other kinds of ads (and hopefully over time they'll get enough reports to be removed.)
Google and Paint.NET need to stop misleading users (2013)
31–40 of 109 posts
Re: Google and Paint.NET need to stop misleading users (2013)
#32My question is why is it so easy to have advertisements that directly link to downloadable software? If I'm clicking on an advertisement I want to know more about a product, not be forced to run a binary of which I have no certainty of it's true purpose. Or am I thinking wrong? If you disallow download based advertising including linking to pages that only offer you a download, this could be a little more useful agai…
Clicking the advertisement does what you want. It doesn't download anything (at least the one I clicked on), it takes you a site with more information where you can download the advertised thing.
Re: Google and Paint.NET need to stop misleading users (2013)
#33And as unpopular as the idea is with geeks, I think this illustrates the need for a "walled gardened" for the majority of users where each app is sandboxxed. Something like this couldn't happen on iOS, ChromeOS or Windows 10s.
Most non developers would be served perfectly fine with a locked down OS.
Re: Google and Paint.NET need to stop misleading users (2013)
#34People must remember that Google is first and foremost an advertising company. 90% of its revenue comes directly from advertising. Anyone who thinks they will prioritize anything over ad revenue is either very naive or very stupid.
Google's CEO declared it's "AI first" and they developed TensorFlow. If they wanted to, they could have easily prevented those ads from entering their network.
Re: Google and Paint.NET need to stop misleading users (2013)
#35I find that article hilarious with this context: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/googl...
Yet, nothing of that sort has happened. Screenshot taken 2 minutes ago: http://i.imgur.com/FOcB46m.png
And yet, yesterday, people were downvoting me because of my skepticism regarding the latest "we're going to keep Android installations updated -- no, really!" initiative.
Technically, this latest initiative actually makes sense.
But, manufacturers still want to sell new devices, and carriers want to move them, with mark-up. And there's no dis-incentive to this "abandon and re-sell" incentive.
And mostly, Google doesn't stick with things, any more.
Color me skeptical. Time to go and "Download" me a new phone...
----
P.S. I don't begrudge the Paint.NET developers recompense for their work. Although, as I recall, it originally came out of the University of Washington, presumably with some funding behind it (many years ago, and perhaps no more).
I've used it, upon occasion, and it's a very good substitute for everyday "photo-shopping", as it were.
But the ads, as described/demonstrated, sure seem to be at odds with the old "do no evil" or whatever it was. Loading grandma up ('Download! HERE!') with 5 "toolbars" and nag-ware? Bad Google.
Re: Google and Paint.NET need to stop misleading users (2013)
#36And as unpopular as the idea is with geeks, I think this illustrates the need for a "walled gardened" for the majority of users where each app is sandboxxed. Something like this couldn't happen on iOS, ChromeOS or Windows 10s. Most non developers would be served perfectly fine with a locked down OS.
So you want to limit creativity and empower big companies even more by pushing forward walled gardens, because there are too many ads on the download page of one paint app out of a myriad?
It's like adding regexp to have one more problem.
Re: Google and Paint.NET need to stop misleading users (2013)
#37Sounds like a personal problem to me... This is a little shady, but all the units are clearly labeled as ads. I have a hard time getting as worked up over this as the author does. Paint.NET is a free product, what do you expect?
You could've at least visited the website. They are NOT clearly labeled as ads.
Re: Google and Paint.NET need to stop misleading users (2013)
#38https://ninite.com/ Accept no substitutes when installing on Windows.
thanks.
Re: Google and Paint.NET need to stop misleading users (2013)
#39And as unpopular as the idea is with geeks, I think this illustrates the need for a "walled gardened" for the majority of users where each app is sandboxxed. Something like this couldn't happen on iOS, ChromeOS or Windows 10s. Most non developers would be served perfectly fine with a locked down OS.
So you want to limit creativity and empower big companies even more by pushing forward walled gardens, because there are too many ads on the download page of one paint app out of a myriad? It's like adding regexp to have one more problem.
How does it "empower" big companies? With app stores, distribution is easier and people are more likely to download an app knowing that it won't install malware, they have fine grained control over what the app can do (at least on iOS) and they can pay just buy putting their thumb on the fingerprint sensor.
Compare that to distributing apps on the internet where you have to trust each software provider with your credit card credentials and even if you do trust the vendor, there is a certain amount of friction just entering your payment information all over the internet.
I much prefer handling all of my subscriptions through iTunes even for services that use other places like Hulu, Netflix, and PluralSight.
Did you ever try to distribute a mobile J2ME app on mobile before the Apple and Google app stores? I know indie PC developers love Steam.
I'm very hestitant to download random software on Windows because of crapware/malware. I'll download iOS apps with abandon from the shadiest developers because I know they can't really do that much harm.
Re: Google and Paint.NET need to stop misleading users (2013)
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if they ran an A/B test on customer spending depending on the time it takes from "uploading" an ad to the network and the ad showing positive metrics. My guess is the result of such a finding would impact the duration and thoroughness of the review process. And my guess is youtubers make up such a small slice of revenue that the threat of lawsuits outweighs the convenience of the customer.
I highly doubt it has to do with the time it takes to have someone review the submission. Google does not like hiring people to do things it thinks algorithms can do adequately, because people cost a lot more than servers.
What is amazing is that this is the easiest type of content check to automate.