It will be interesting to see what this will do to the push ad craze on Android (http://www.appbrain.com/stats/libraries/ad : the #2 and #3 ad networks in terms of apps are push ad networks. This is measured by total number of apps, these ads do much less well on installs as professional developers know better than to include this in their apps.)
The new terms only say that it's not allowed to imitate system notifications, but it also says that it must be clear to the user from which app an ad is originating. This is currently not the case with most push ads.
The title is misleading, Google changed Google Play content policy, not Android. There are other stores out there that do not need to follow this policy and yet can exist in Android.<p>EDIT: s/wrong/misleading
> It must be clear to the user which app each ad is associated with or implemented in.<p>I was infuriated to be presented with a popup ad offering me (gasp!) the chance to win a free iPad recently. This was using vanilla Opera so I was puzzled about the source. I found out that some apps will inject ads into your browser - I removed the two likely suspects. This has a "chilling effect" when I consider installing new apps since I'm weighing up its usefulness vs. the likelihood that a free app will take similar liberties.
That is quite a welcome move. The play store can be a legitimately scary place. I have a few apps on there and I get e-mails every few days from "advertisement networks" that all claim that they will increase my eCPM 5x to 10x, that they will be non intrusive to my users, that they have high profile partners and innovative revenue sharing schemes. They just need me to add this little library of code to my apps.<p>Now I always refuse these offers. It's too difficult to figure out who is legitimate and who is not. However, these offers are so frequent and sometimes they even look interesting and original such that I can imagine some developers would be willing to try them out.<p>Every time I buy an app on the play store I wonder: Has the developer succumbed to the temptation and let a shady piece of code with spyware or adware in their app?
<i>Ad Walls
Forcing the user to click on ads or submit personal information for advertising purposes in order to fully use an app provides a poor user experience and is prohibited. Users must be able to dismiss the ad without penalty.</i><p>Does that mean "offer wall" companies can't advertise on Android platform?
It will be interesting to see what this will do to the push ad craze on Android (<a href="http://www.appbrain.com/stats/libraries/ad" rel="nofollow">http://www.appbrain.com/stats/libraries/ad</a> : the #2 and #3 ad networks in terms of apps are push ad networks. This is measured by total number of apps, these ads do much less well on installs as professional developers know better than to include this in their apps.)
The new terms only say that it's not allowed to imitate system notifications, but it also says that it must be clear to the user from which app an ad is originating. This is currently not the case with most push ads.
Personally I'd like them to crack down on Apps that change the homepage of my browser to an affiliate search engine, or add home screen icons to affiliate search engines unrelated to the application itself.
So does this mean if a company/publisher is using a 3rd party developer and if there are ads that broke these new rules - who would take the hit/blame? Company/publisher or third party developer that represents the publisher in the marketplace?