HN Explorer

Tell HN: You can't add “no ads” in your Play Store app's title

361 points by TrianguloY ↗ HN
Due to the recent Play Store changes you can no longer "add text or images that indicate store performance or ranking, or suggest relations to existing Google Play programs in the app title" [1]. You can't, for example, add "#1", "best" or "free". However, you can't also add "no ads".

To be precise: appending "[small, no ads]", "[no ads]" or "[without ads]" to the play store app title causes a rejection. I didn't want to test more in fear of banning, and in the end removed it. I know you can see if an app contains ads in the app page, but not in the search results... or at least not yet, but I doubt Google will add that indication.

[1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...

164 comments

[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 220 ms ] thread
PennRobotics
Google's curation of the Play Store, while protecting their own economic interests, feels a bit like a dark pattern. The fact that adding " n" to most keywords prompts " no ads" in the suggestions shows how popular this is.

If I search for "tuner", I get two sponsored results first, then five ad-containing results with average 4.4 rating, then an ad-free app with 4.9 stars.

My preference would be searching by rating with a minimum number of installs. Even using the 4.5+ filter seems to be the quickest way to find completely ad-free apps. But, what really works best (but never quickest) for many apps is to find an APK somewhere else, like Github.

PrimeDirective
Sorry for the offtopic, but can you tell me the name of the ad-less tuner app? I've been searching for one, but the best I found was Fender's. Which is pretty ok, too.
tambre
I also ended up with Fender's, but it wasn't terribly responsive so eventually purchased a strobe tuner [0]. Has some disadvantages over something like a smartphone, but better for my simple usage.

[0]: https://www.thomann.de/intl/ee/peterson_stroboclip_hd.htm

PrimeDirective
I do have a Boss TU-2, but I'm sometimes in a situation where I'm too lazy to use a cable but have my phone handy (because I record ideas on my phone)
jerf
How can you have an electronic strobe tuner? I understand the mechanics of mechanical ones (they're really quite simple), but how can you have one with an LCD display? Is it merely a weird way of outputting the same electronic tuning you can get from any FFT-based tuning, and they're just riding the reputation of the mechanical devices?
quitethelogic
I use TE Tuner and like it. I don't use all the features, but the tuner and metronome are pretty great.
PennRobotics
Free Universal Tuner, by Dmitry Pogrebnyak.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ru.aterlux.gui...

I appreciate that you can choose the microphone source, change detection parameters, and easily select off-440 tunings. It's responsive and accurate enough for my playing.

The only issue I ever had was on the Fairphone 3. Starting a few months ago, if I had Google Assistant always listening, the tuner would stop working. I've since disabled Assistant and changed phones.

ink404
Would prefer max installs filter instead of min to filter out the bigger apps that have budgets for seo
NoGravitas
> But, what really works best (but never quickest) for many apps is to find an APK somewhere else, like Github.

My phone isn't totally de-Googled, but I always make a point of seeing if what I need can be found on F-Droid, and only searching the Play Store if nothing there will serve.

xd1936
It will definitely improve the readability of Play Store lists to have those titles removed.
onion2k
That would make sense if, say, any phrase in square brackets was the reason for the rejection. The fact it appears to be only "no ads" means that clearly isn't the reason.
mrweasel
The alternative is Amazon style titles which contains insane amount of details (because that is/was the only thing Amazon could search).

Ideally Google would allow the apps to be tagged as free, freemium, paid and app supported. I suspect part of Google reasoning is that doing so kill almost all the apps supported by ads.

SquareWheel
I'm actually glad to see editorializing disallowed in app titles. If everybody did it, the store would be a mess. I mean, it's already a mess, but even more so.
NoGravitas
"No ads" isn't editorializing, though. Unlike "best" or "#1", it's a statement of fact, and a fact that is probably useful to shoppers.
baseballdork
Could this be in response to apps indicating that they don't have ads even though they do?
petschge
In that case these apps should be banned, not the use of "no ads" in titles.
rscoots
That or the fact that google massively profits off the presence of ads in mobile apps.
londons_explore
Or apps which don't have ads when first installed, but ads later get added in an update. The user will likely never see the updated app name.
otterley
The presence or omission of a fact is often the result of a conscious editorial choice. It is frequently the intent, not the nature of the words themselves, that underscores the editorial nature of the statement.
Spivak
Buy Uncle Miller’s Corn Flakes — 100% arsenic free!
zepto
Avoid toxic chemicals - drink Coca Cola!
Spivak
Aspartame just hits different ya know?
otterley
Exactly. Another textbook example is the language describing meat as coming from pork with “no hormones added” even though it’s unlawful to add hormones to pork grown for human consumption. Sure, it’s a fact; but the choice to include it is made to provide a marketing boost over competing brands that might not have the language on the packaging.
duffyjp
Wow, that's incredibly dishonest to consumers! My turkey states "no hormones added," I assume that's also unlawful like pork?

It should be illegal to advertise you're not doing something that is illegal in the first place if the intent is to imply others are in fact doing it.

otterley
Correct, both pork and poultry.
Spivak
The ability to use your regulatory obligations in your marketing materials and spin them as a positive is the carrot for companies to enthusiastically comply.
avereveard
But the need does not exists in a void - the store does not allow to filter in searches apps with ads or microtransactions.
[dead] sneak
Yes, this is definitely the reason, and it's unrelated to the fact that the store is operated by an ad company.

Lie to yourself, but please don't lie to others.

TrueGeek
The problem (with both app stores) is there are really three types of apps: paid, free, requires subscription. Devs are having to use titles to make it clear which is which since the stores aren't letting them use categories. It's frustrating (for both user and developer) when a user downloads an app expecting it to be free only to find it won't work if you don't pay monthly.
SquareWheel
I agree. I'd also like to see information for things like one-time, subscription-based, or repeatable in-app purchases (eg. "gems").

Apple does a better job of displaying this information than Google. Sometimes I check what IAP are available on the iOS variant of an app I'm interested in, just to get a better idea.

coolgoose
I always wondered why all these stores are so fucking awful to filter. Is it calculated ?
fer
Yes. I often find Play "hides" deep in the results apps that I had previously bought, even typing their exact name, in hopes I choose another (always paid or with ads) above them.
webmaven
> Yes. I often find Play "hides" deep in the results apps that I had previously bought, even typing their exact name, in hopes I choose another (always paid or with ads) above them.

Previously installed apps and games used to be listed under the 'Library' portion of your user profile, now you can find them under 'Manage Apps and Device > Manage > Not Installed'.

Of those path segments, the first is a menu option, the second is a tab, and the third is a drop-down. It is almost as if Google doesn't want the user to find it, while making it technically available.

MerelyMortal
I imagine it would be easy to add a search filter for ads or no ads, but they don't.
ocdtrekkie
Both Google and Apple monetize app discovery by selling advertising spots and such, and both collect revenues from inside apps (be it the mandatory-through-them in-app purchasing systems or advertising). As they are monopolies on their respective platforms, they have no reason to improve your experience, and so they do not care if you find the best app.

They care that you find the app that generates them the most revenue, and that's exactly what they're going to do.

rightbyte
Ye probably they want to manipulate the "feed" like Facebook. Google Play have no way to filter on permissions, ads or price ... has to be on purposely, as it is so user hostile.
NineStarPoint
Along with what other people are saying, the app stores have little competition and already rake in massive quantities of money. They don't have much reason to improve anything.
CynicusRex
With “Aurora Store” you can filter out apps with ads, paid apps, or GSF dependent apps. Updating apps requires manually pressing “install”, but other than that it's pretty neat.
diogenesjunior
the problem i faced is that aurora store is disliked by google and my account was terminated. would recommend though.
anonymoushn
Your google account was terminated because you installed a different app store on your phone?
npteljes
Aurora offers to use some built-in account, which sometimes doesn't work, or to use your own. I guess OP used their own and got banned. Similar can happen to NewPipe etc users, Google doesn't like third party clients - allegedly.

Hacker news discussion of the NewPipe account ban incident: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21247759

gibspaulding
If I remember correctly, Aurora recommends signing into the app with a burner Google account in case of issues like this. I think Google's problem is not so much installing a different app store, but signing into your Google account from it.
NoGravitas
I'm pretty sure you can use aurora store without connecting it to your Google account, though you can only install gratis apps this way.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
0xbadcafebee
Mobile platforms are the 21st century nanny state. You can only do what we allow you to do, because it's for your own good.
peterkelly
Good. Phrases like that are just spammy and annoying and don't belong in app titles.
tehnicaorg
Like the terms "fast" and "secure" in "Google Chrome - Download the Fast, Secure Browser from Google".
stuaxo
I really want a way to search for ad-free apps. I don't bother very much with the Android store because of this. If I want my 4 year old to use my phone I don't want her clicking some ad and leaving the app by accident.

As a result, I only have apps by the BBC and a couple of others.

PennRobotics
I don't know about 4, but for toddlers, use Screen Pinning if you're going to let your child touch any Android device.
ArchD
Users are interested in apps that have no ads. Whether or not an app has ads is not part of the standard app info fields, so while publishers could lie in the title, where else can the users find out whether there are ads and why couldn't Google instead just ban apps that lie about having no ads instead of outright banning "no ads" in the title?

I think Google makes no money from free ad-less apps, so it is plausible that allowing free ad-less apps to promote themselves as "no ads" (over apps with ads or paid apps) is not directly financially beneficial to Google and is perhaps even harmful. You can see the disincentives at work here.

amalcon
So, let's be clear here. The problem is not that they've prohibited people from putting this information in the app title. The problem comes if they've done so without introducing another way for the user to express their preference for ad-free apps. E.g. it should even work better if, hypothetically, the search function prioritized ad-free apps anyway when the user puts "no ads" in the search box.

I can't tell if this is the case right now because, well, the store is still full of apps with "no ads" in the title. Those are still coming up first.

elzbardico
Well, we can expect the heat death of the universe before google does something that helps promoting apps that have no ads.
londons_explore
Most of their own apps have no ads...

And google doesn't require a share of revenue for mobile ads either.

Some users clearly prefer apps without ads, and will have a better user experience without ads. Google makes lots of product design decisions to attempt to improve user experience (even if they fail often).

Therefore there isn't a clear incentive to prevent the user finding an app without ads.

jerf
If a Google app has no ads, it is because the information they are gathering feeds into the other ad algorithms enough to make it worthwhile. They are in an unusual position of being able to do that because of their size. (Not unique, but unusual.)
lostmsu
What apps are you referring to? Gmail and GMaps, the only ones I use regularly, do have ads.
cmeacham98
The gmail app has ads? Where?

The only "ads" I see in gmail is the metric tonne of spam I receive every day, and I can't really blame Google for that.

carstenhag
Sure, has been like that for a very long time: Gmail sorts your emails into "General, Social Networks, Ads and Notifications". Only on the ads inbox, Google shows you ads.
Marsymars
To note, that's an optional thing. I've never seen ads in gmail, as I've never enabled that feature.
edent
Good?

What's the alternative? Have a crappy, paid-for, add filled, bloated app promote itself as "Cauliflower Cooker Lite - the #1 free cauliflower app. 100% ad-free".

Metadata like file size, whether there are in-app ads or purchases, etc, should be part of the store's listing - not the title.

npteljes
The alternative I'd like is making common user expectations into formalized properties of the software, making them visible and searchable. Like how it lists "Offers in-app purchases" currently, it could also list "Ad-free", "Free", etc.
chalst
F-Droid does this already with its listing of 'anti-features' for each app.
medstrom
Yes, what I've sometimes done is search F-Droid first, then find that same app on the iOS app store.
npteljes
Yes, and I love it! I'm using LineageOS for the third year now.
hdjjhhvvhga
> should be part of the store's listing - not the title.

How long has Google store been operating (under various names)? Over a decade I think. Do they know people would love to choose between apps with and without ads? Of course. Why they decided not to implement it in the listing? Because they live from ads. There is exactly zero chance they will do it as you propose.

Kylekramer
They've shown whether an app has ads for over five years: https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/04/28/the-play-store-star...
addingnumbers
They won't have my appreciation or respect until they let me permanently filter out paid or adware apps and keep them filtered out until I choose to see them again.

It would be so easy to implement, it seems scornful not to. When I want a needle, they hand me a haystack and say "we etched 'this is a needle' into the needles for you so you'll know when you find one. Good luck."

I admit I haven't used android for three or four years so maybe they have this capability now, would love to be corrected if so.

dotancohen 

  > I admit I haven't used android for three or four years so maybe they have this capability now, would love to be corrected if so.
Nothing has changed.
j1elo
> Metadata like file size, whether there are in-app ads or purchases, etc, should be part of the store's listing - not the title.

Well yeah, the theory is easy. I'd say "Yes" to what you say, IFF the metadata is usable as a search filter. Otherwise, it's of no use, thus not a better solution in practice.

whimsicalism
> Metadata like file size, whether there are in-app ads or purchases, etc, should be part of the store's listing - not the title.

???? Did I miss the part where Google announced they were adding searchable metadata at the same time they eliminated adding this info to the title?

If not, seems like a clearly anti-consumer move.

jimmaswell
Listings show whether they have ads, in-app purchases etc. on a separate screen
megatoaster
Searching 'no ads' seemingly won't query that tag, seemingly.
drusepth
Seems pretty trivial to eventually add, compared to trying to enforce correctness on results from user-provided tags in titles.

I'm a little surprised you can't search for "no ads" apps outside of e.g. Pass listings, but I'm really glad they're not defaulting to just a title text search and cluttered listings of Farming Simulator [NO ADS] [NO IAPS] [NO REFERRALS] [NO TIMEWAITS] [NO DLC].

throwaway2048
its trivial to add, yet hasn't been added in almost 15 years, it is very much a title text search and nothing about this move indicates otherwise.

there is no economic interest from google to make ad free apps actually findable, and no chance somebody making a better play store is going to usurp their position.

handrous
Even Apple doesn't have a "show only actually-free" toggle on their store for free apps with no IAP and no ads. Which sucks.
tyingq
It's not searchable for a reason. Ad free apps don't generate revenue for Google. So devs added it to the title. Google is now closing that loophole.
drusepth
Given that they already highlight ad-free apps, prominently display ad-or-no-ad statuses at the top of every app detail page, curate specifically-ad-free lists of recommended apps, and use "ad-free" verbiage as a selling point to promote individual apps (as well as lists of recommended apps), I don't think it's fair to just jump to assuming Google's purposefully against making it easier to find ad-free apps.

I'm not even sure I'm convinced that ad-free apps don't generate revenue for Google, even ignoring the ad-free apps that DO generate revenue for Google through IAPs and other non-ad means.

tyingq
They don't highlight ad-free apps. They put a "contains ads" note on the others. You mention IAP, which is also a tag you can't search for. I remain skeptical that a company specializing in search won't let you search on that data, 13 years after launch, for any reason other than money.
drusepth
You can't search/filter for anything other than type-of-app/game. In fact, they added the tags for ads/IAPs and hoicked them to the top of the page, rather than sticking them with the rest of the app metadata below the fold. I'd be more willing to think a lack of ad-status filters was nefarious if it was suspiciously missing from a list of other searchable filters.

The fact that they don't have any support for filtering just says to me that they don't really care about app discovery outside of what they build suggested lists for, which seems orthogonal here since some of the suggested lists they curate are literally titled "Ad-free games" (plus "Offline games", "Premium games", "No-interruption games", etc which are also all largely filled with no-ad games, with a few exceptions).

Maybe they're omitting entire features / filter systems just so they don't have to add the sub-ability to just see which apps don't have ads, but I doubt it. As other comments have stated, a lot of people just don't want Amazon-like product titles crammed with keywords on keywords, especially when they're not even checked for correctness. I'm one of those people.

I'd say this probably boils down to a differing fundamental assumption we have: your comment seems to imply you might think big companies are inherently out to maximize profits through manipulating people, even if that means intentionally making a product worse for customers. If that's the case, there's really no point in debating here since that's a completely different conversation and I doubt either of us have the necessary internal evidence needed to convince the other of the real intentions behind withholding this specific feature.

MereInterest
User time is valuable, and must be respected. Data being present somewhere, in some form, doesn't mean that it is in a form that can be reasonably used. If I want to find an application without ads, requiring me to open every search result and manually check whether there are ads is very anti-consumer.

My opinion here would be different if an alternative search interface existed. However, the Google Play Store's API is focused on developers and doesn't allow for making searches. In addition, the Terms of Service forbid redistribution of content, so a third-party API that scrapes the results would be forbidden. By removing alternatives, Google has taken responsibility for a good user interface (and blame for a bad user interface) onto themselves.

mthoms
Would building a Play Store search index that contains metadata and snippets (just like Google itself) be considered "redistributing" that content?

Hasn't Google itself argued that such activities are explicitly not redistribution?

tomc1985
App titles not being filled with a bunch of promo crap sounds pretty pro-consumer to me

"It is what it says on the tin"

whimsicalism
Unless the tin says anything about whether or not it includes ads.
tomc1985
Referring more to the title field merely being a title, and not some banner to fill with attention-grabbing crap
downWidOutaFite
It's Google's fault that the title is the only field that is searchable. They're never going to add a searchable "ads" field.
kroltan
Yes, because "Verby Noun" game titles and "<Word>-ly" app titles are incredibly informative at first glance.
skratlo
Absolutely NOT! It's waaay better to have huge multinational corporation dictate what's right and what's wrong and what's good and what's bad! And they do it for you my friend! For FREE!
krolden
Well its their platform
carlhjerpe
It doesn't work like that when you're one of two players in the segment, that's what antitrust is about. "It's their platform" would work well if there were any significant alternatives, which there aren't.
drusepth
There are many popular app stores on Android and you're free to use any of them (or none of them, if you just download apps directly from websites) without rooting your phone, jailbreaking, etc.

A recent list of someone's favorites: https://42matters.com/blog/?p=the-best-of-2020-a-list-of-app...

AnthonyMouse
Apple and Google together have 95% market share.

From the perspective of an Android user, a lot of the alternatives are interesting. Especially F-Droid.

From the perspective of the app developer, it doesn't work. You use Apple and Google or you lose 95% of the market.

And the same constraint keeps it that way. You lose most of the Android market if you're not in Google Play, so nearly everything that isn't explicitly banned can be found in Google Play, so most users have no occasion to install any other app store and the friction to developers using another one to the exclusion of Google Play remains high.

entropicdrifter
I'd agree completely if you were talking about Apple and the App Store here, but this is Android. You can install alternative app stores on it without rooting it or any sort of advanced user skills. F-Droid is pretty great IMO.
tut-urut-utut
> What's the alternative? Have a crappy, paid-for, add filled, bloated app promote itself as "Cauliflower Cooker Lite - the #1 free cauliflower app. 100% ad-free".

That's what we have on Amazon now. Looks like every single product contain all the metadata in product title. SEO spam from top to the bottom of the search results page.

I hate it, but given how crappy filtering on both Amazon and Play store is, I still prefer to see more information about a product in the search result list than less, even if that means bloated titles.

On the other hand, if both Amazon and Play store had usable filtering, all these bloated names would not be needed.

rpdillon
What information folks are allowed to supply is distinct from ensuring its accuracy, I think. Misleading app names are a problem regardless, but given that many apps have ads and charge for the ad-free experience, it seems odd the developer isn't allowed to highlight that in the title.

But Google can do as they wish: another reason alternative app stores have an important role to play.

discreditable
Google themselves have mildly loaded app titles too.

Google Chrome: Fast & Secure

Google Go: A lighter, faster way to search

Gboard - the Google Keyboard

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
Kiro
I fully support this. I truly despise the SEO spam on Google Play. The title should be the name of the app and nothing else.
kache_
Good thing there are alternative app stores, and that you can straight up download and install an APK.

I never go on the play store, and no one should.

duxup
It would be nice if there were better filtering options when searching the stores.

Open source would be nice, but some validation would be nice and not sure that is easy.

camelcasing
ah so that's why my app got denied an update
photochemsyn
I'm pretty sure the reason I got the infamous 'shadow ban' on Youtube for my Google account (i.e. I can see my comments but nobody else can, and my upvotes/downvotes behave similarly) was that I made a lot of snarky comments about how many ads different kinds of content had per minute of viewing time. I'd also note in the comments when Youtube gave the 'log in to see this age-sensitive content' warning (which didn't show up when logged in).

They don't want anyone questioning their ad revenue model I guess, nor their algorithmic ranking system...

joshstrange
A bit of a tangent but I wish more than anything that App Store/Play Store allowed for more advanced search. Some of what I want I know will never come but I'd love to be able to filter out any games that have any type of coin/gem/currency for sale through IAP. Normally I have to rely on reddit posts or random blogs that I find with search terms like "$gameType game with no P2P/P2W" or "$gameType game with no IAP" but even that's not perfect. I'm perfectly fine paying for a game and I'm fine with the game having IAP for extra things like "No Ads", level packs, or similar but I despise games that have any sort of P2P/P2W, they always optimize for the wrong thing (making money > fun/interesting/etc).
perlpimp
I wonder if no-аds would work. see I used Cyrillic a here.
marcodiego
I use e.os from the e.foundation. Good if you can live google-free. My app store I use is f-droid. It has instructions for reproducible builds of apps and, for each app, it clearly indicates its license and if it has anti-features.
jimktrains2
I wish so much I could simply pay for ad-free versions of software, and I don't mean in-app purchases to unlock features, which I wish people didn't do and instead had a paid version in the store.

I use f-droid as much as possible, but there are a few things not available there.

mynameisash
I am an Android user fed up with Google, but I've never really focused on alternatives to stock Android. I briefly investigated Cyanogenmod and its successor, LineageOS, but never to the point of installing it. I do use the Gmail app on my phone, but it's not a requirement for me. Beyond that, I don't really have strong ties to the Google Suite of apps. I do have a few apps I've purchased and use frequently, but most are freeware.

All that said, for those of you who have de-Googled your phone, how much friction was there? Is there a leader of the pack for alternate app stores (if necessary), and/or do you load APKs directly?

pomian
have been running de googled for more than last 6 years. during original setup of phone there is a lot of opportunity to shut down Google. how ever, can proceed and succeed most of the way with the right tools, and patience. vigilance in disable options is important. some times you can disable all actions after install - for example location, etc. F-droid is your primary source for apks. they have everything you need, with very good filters and warnings about privacy and other options of their apps. If you need some apk available on that is on Google only, then there are a few other sites, that package them and seem to work quite well. They look sketchy, they promote other apps, but I haven't had any issues using them in over 5 years. just click carefully. for example apkpure. You can get things like Signal, mapy. cz, Wyze and so on, better yet, sometimes older versions. In a few apps, while running, you have to ignore the message that you need Google for this app to work. I haven't had one that actually needed it. even Google photos. (assuming you don't want it linked to Google cloud.)