Samsung-approved ad blocker gets canned from the Google Play Store

Samsung-approved ad blocker gets canned from the Google Play Store
Last week, Samsung updated its Internet browser to support third-party ad-blocking plugins. Many Samsung loyalists hailed the introduction of a proper ad-blocking solution, especially given that those are hard to get on Android, but it turns out that Google doesn't approve of this solution.

Adblock Fast, a third-party ad blocker that works with the new Samsung Internet for Android browser, was recently canned by Google from the Play Store. In a few short days since Samsung's browser started supporting Adblock Fast, the app skyrocketed to the top of the Play Store charts, topping more than 50,000 downloads before being booted from Google's app store.

Rocketship Apps, the developers behind AdBlock Fast, say that they've received a rather abstract email from the Google Play Review Team, one that informed them that Adblock Fast was removed from the Play Store because it violates section 4.4 of the Developer Distribution Agreement. This section of the DDA specifically mentions that the Play Store will not accept apps that interfere with other services. Here's the text in full:

Interestingly, a similar plugin from Adblock Plus - which is also compatible with the Samsung Internet browser - is still available from the Play Store despite showcasing the same functionality and methods of delivery as the Adblock Fast plugin. Speaking with TNW, a dev from Rocketship Apps suggested that Google did not target the Adblock Plus plugin as the latter was not as popular among Play Store users and has yet to show up on Android marker's radar.  

At first, it may seem like Google is hunting down ad blockers, as these represent a threat to Google's main ad-delivery business. At a closer look, however, it looks like Google takes issue with the way that the goal is accomplished. In essence, chances are that the Android maker will not hunt down a browser that can natively block ads. We're keeping an eye on the matter and we'll get back to you as soon as more info surfaces.

source: The Next Web



1. shaineql

Posts: 522; Member since: Apr 28, 2014

They can just put it in Galaxy Store

2. Shocky unregistered

Yep, simple as that. That's the benefit of having your own app store.

21. zeeBomb

Posts: 2318; Member since: Aug 14, 2014

Screw that. Time to put it on a website or the amazon fireplace or something...tell me if anyone has found a download

22. engineer-1701d unregistered

i want samsungs browser to natively block all ads i hate with passion. screen loads and then it shifts down as you press for something else now you hit the ad.

23. AkoSiKuting

Posts: 88; Member since: Dec 09, 2015

it show the true color of google :)

31. Obie-Wan

Posts: 110; Member since: May 24, 2012

What do u expect ?, ads is one of their bussiness too.

3. vincelongman

Posts: 5677; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

So Google will allow browsers with built-in ad blocking But not these plug-in ad blockers? Pretty dumb IMO

6. Shocky unregistered

Use firefox, they already have a plugin store for android with an adblocker available.

17. xondk

Posts: 1904; Member since: Mar 25, 2014

I understand why they do this, their economy are based around ads, though personally I feel that if they made significantly hits on ad guidelines, e.g. disallow obnoxious ads, there would be far far far less people using ad-block.

4. rd_nest

Posts: 1656; Member since: Jun 06, 2010

We need a proper solution for this. Websites needs ads to sustain themselves. But ads in current form is too obstructive and painful for users. The whole Internet consurtium should come us with a better method to provide a method to show ads which doesn't force users to use adblockers. You can have ads splattered all across the web page, middle of articles etc., Some suggesations: 1. Show a spash screen for 3-5 seconds while laoding web page. 2. mark specific area on web page, no more than 10% of total area dedicated for ads. 3. No ads in middle of articles. 4. No pop-ups. I think we need a proper analysis of this situation. I want to support websites, but if I face such intrusive ads, I am not going to do it.

5. Shocky unregistered

If I get any intrusive popups, especially the kind that re-direct me to dodgy sites I block them, we need this option. Even on sites I don't block it's horrible reading a tiny article surrounded by random ads all over my screen.

8. Moose

Posts: 418; Member since: Jan 05, 2015

Good points, I agree, it isn't ads in themselves that we want to block, it is the fact that they are presented in such annoying, intrusive ways. Discreet ads within a webpage are not annoying. OK, maybe they are not as attention grabbing either but better than being blocked out altogether.

18. mrochester

Posts: 978; Member since: Aug 17, 2014

Would that make enough money for websites?

20. Augustine

Posts: 1043; Member since: Sep 28, 2013

I do not care. The Internet has made the dissemination of information dirt cheap. Whatever a website shows, is found in umpteen of other websites. Phonearena is an example of a site that merely disseminates information from other sources, much like dozens of other similar websites, creating little to no new information on its own. Yet, Phonearena is unbearable to browse without an ad blocker. Since this website creates barely new information, what could so many ads fund? Certainly nothing worthy of my eyeballs.

27. mrochester

Posts: 978; Member since: Aug 17, 2014

There has to be a sustainable way to operate sites on the Internet. When suggesting how advertising and the way it's displayed should operate, you need to bare in mind that people operating sites need to be able to make enough money for it to be sustainable, or make a living. Alternatively, people need to be prepared to operate websites as side hobbies with income from work elsewhere. Certainly, there's no need for multiple sites to rebroadcast the same news over and over. We only need the news once.

19. Augustine

Posts: 1043; Member since: Sep 28, 2013

No, just no splash screens!

7. MrElectrifyer

Posts: 3960; Member since: Oct 21, 2014

Hahaha, wonder if the policy will soon change to disallow apps like AdBlock Browser, which I frequently use to visit iPhonearena...regardless what they do, the beauty of Android is third-party app stores prevent dictatorship from ever ruling the user's experience. Screw that sh*t, my device is my device.

9. bucky

Posts: 3778; Member since: Sep 30, 2009

Tough position here. Samsung is kinda biting the hand that feeds them.

10. Shocky unregistered

What? I think you're a little confused, who is feeding who exactly? Samsung the largest Phone seller in the world which generates profits for Google through ads, information gathered from users and use of the Play Store, or Google. Personally I don't think Google will do anything more than block the apps on the Play Store. However, if they do persist with this Sasmung will drop Android and Google will regret it. Samsung does not need Android.

11. Commentator

Posts: 3722; Member since: Aug 16, 2011

So millions of people around the world would just switch to Tizen at the drop of a hat, no questions asked? That's some brand loyalty right there.

12. Shocky unregistered

Of course they would, the majority of users don't give a crap about Android, many don't even know what it is or who makes it. Samsung would take a hit from enthusiasts like us who may stick with Android but it would only be temporary, so long as they push developers to support them.

14. Shocky unregistered

BTW, I'd prefer they went with Windows Windows could use the developer support which would follow them. :D Tizen would work okay, they could make it look like Android pretty much, many users probably wouldn't even notice the change.

24. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

That's just stupid. No one even cares what OS their phone is running. In fact I could grab over 1M people on each platform and ask them the name of the OS on their phone and they wont even know. That is fact. As long as they have access to apps/games/media/internet and the phone works the same, they wouldnt know any difference. if you think otherwise, than you as clueless as a doorknob

13. JMartin22

Posts: 2369; Member since: Apr 30, 2013

If Samsung can give users quintessential things like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and ubiquitous time killing mobile gaming apps like Candy Crush Saga, Angry Birds and so on; then the majority of users wouldn't care of it was Tizen or Android.

15. Shocky unregistered

Yep, with the massive number of phones Samsung sell the developers will support them.

16. catze86

Posts: 731; Member since: Dec 07, 2015

Google aproove ads about a woman who want to suck my c**k 1 mile away from my home than any useful apps.


Posts: 334; Member since: Mar 24, 2015

The worst is the pop ups that say a virus is detected on your phone and vibrates your device.

26. JunitoNH

Posts: 1946; Member since: Feb 15, 2012

People forget Goolge is a search and Ads giant, is how they make their money; is like asking doctors not to dispense anymore Rx, no surprise there.

28. darealist

Posts: 107; Member since: Feb 25, 2015

Dis is why I want a Surface Phone with a fully fledged ad blocker. Smart phones are merely web surfers foremost anyways.

30. Zylam

Posts: 1813; Member since: Oct 20, 2010

Apple allows blockers, Google showing its true colours, they reworte the way Android handles it's network protocols in Android 4.4 just so adblock wouldn't be able to work the way it did without root, and now blocking plug-ins on the largest Android Oem doesn't surprise me one bit. Google, Ms, Apple, Samsung, Amazon, none of these companies are better then one another. They either just as great or equally worse, yet the fanboi wars continue each day.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.