this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
165 points (94.1% liked)

Android

30762 readers
237 users here now

DROID DOES

Welcome to the droidymcdroidface-iest, Lemmyest (Lemmiest), test, bestest, phoniest, pluckiest, snarkiest, and spiciest Android community on Lemmy (Do not respond)! Here you can participate in amazing discussions and events relating to all things Android.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules

1. All posts must be relevant to Android devices/operating system.

2. Posts cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

3. No spam, self promotion, or upvote farming. Sources engaging in these behavior will be added to the Blacklist.

4. Non-whitelisted bots will be banned.

5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.

6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.

7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.

8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.

Community Resources:

We are Android girls*,

In our Lemmy.world.

The back is plastic,

It's fantastic.

*Well, not just girls: people of all gender identities are welcomed here.

Our Partner Communities:

!android@lemmy.ml

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
MargotRobbie@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
L3s@lemmy.world
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
165
APKMirror now blocks visitors allegedly because of "adblock" (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by Armacadia@lemmy.world to c/android@lemmy.world
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

RIP the only reliable website for grabbing APKs. I don't even actually have an adblock on my side.

It's still somewhat usable after you dismiss that message but CSS screws up.

Any good alternatives? I know I can use Aurora Store to get older versions of apps, but then I'll have to find version codes for those somewhere. The advantage of APKMirror also was that it showed the minimum API required to run a specific version of an app (so I could find the last working version to install on Android 5 for example).

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eee@lemm.ee 58 points 2 years ago (1 children)

many sites have anti-adblock but most adblockers now have anti-anti-adblock in place.

[–] Kelo@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Let's hope they never implement a anti-anti-anti-adblock.

[–] MarsRT@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

just call it anti^3 adblock pleaseeeeeee it’s going to get ridiculous very fast

[–] xia@lemmy.sdf.org 48 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Such a sketchy domain name.

[–] Moltz@lemm.ee 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If there is a single APK site that can be trusted, it's APKM. Owned and operated by the dude that started Android Police. Owned and operated privately in the US, following all laws that entails.

APKM is nothing like the Russian and Chinese APK sites out there. It's ran by a legit dude that personally checks every hash of the APKs he lists. It literally exists to catalog and store APKs for posterity, a huge help to the community at large. Why it was created, why it sill exists. It's also why you won't find paid APKs on there, the entire operation is run well above board, because that's the kind of guy the owner is.

I highly doubt Artem is happy to have to block adblockers. This is simply the reality of trying to own and operate a legit site that relys on ad money. You can thank Google for the amount of ads necessary to keep the site going. You can also thank Google for the demise of privately owned sites as the ad money keeps getting lower. There's a reason he sold AP, and that's because private sites can't earn enough to keep going. Now a conglomerate owns it, and you see the clickbait results and what it actually takes to earn money with a tech site in 2023.

[–] Armacadia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I don't consider resorting to (any) ad trackers being an ethical way to earn revenue. First, because the site/app owner doesn't really have much control over the relevancy or legitimacy of ads shown to users (ad network admins may be doing their best, but scams will still make their way through - hey there, Unity Ads). Second, no, I'm not letting you to fingerprint me across basically all websites I visit to enhance ad relevance, since most of it ends up being like intrusive thoughts anyway, with no real use for me. In the end, it's just distracting, annoying garbage cluttering the view. I'm sorry I couldn't explain my position better.

The internet was better when the only kind of ads out there was contextual, for money or just by friendship. "Hey, so you're on my site reviewing various types of coffee? Check out my aunt's coffee shop in Prague, they're making excellent cappuccino! Click here to visit their site!"

Likewise, I would much rather prefer a service with limited functionality (e.g. ability to download only the latest version of an app in this case) in its free version to a service that throws a pile of shit at you, then asks if you want to clean yourself from it for a monthly (quarterly, yearly) fee.

[–] Moltz@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Sadly the rest of us have to live in reality. Have fun railing against one of the few sites left that makes an effort. Soon there won't be any and your fantasy world will magically come true. You've definitely thought this through. ;)

[–] Armacadia@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I do understand your point, however, the reality sucks and you're sounding like not trying to do anything about it is the only possibly right thing to do. I certainly don't feel like living in an infospace consisting of 90% of ads and possibly-maybe 10% of actually useful information

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

But isn't that the point? Support the few times someone runs ads decently?

[–] T156@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Maybe it's a maladvertising popup?

[–] CatUser@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Which adblock are you using? I'm using uBlock on Firefox and it's working as always.

In case you're using any Chromium browser, I suggest you to change to Firefox, no because Firefox good Chromium bad, it's just because in my experience Firefox + uBlock (+ turn on all the annoyances filters) always work on any site perfectly.

[–] Armacadia@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The irony is, I don't have any. I suspect this is because I'm located in Russia where Google has disabled their ads by their own initiative (though, I'm not sure if APKMirror in particular is using AdSense or something different).

I've actually tried Firefox on Android a couple times and it always felt like a slow, clunky and inconsistent experience. It also had trouble rendering fonts on some of my past devices, not sure if that's been fixed, but I really don't mind Chrome for now.

I just really don't want to touch APKMirror anymore because in light of YouTube trying to push their own anti-adblock, this feels like a spit in the face.

[–] CatUser@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well, in that case you asked if there is any alternative and the only one I know is APKPure, and in any case, if you want me to download any specific apk just contact me by DM or here and I have no problem sending it to you, and you can use VirusTotal to verify that it is untouched.

[–] Armacadia@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

APKPure is no good btw. Most of the packages you get from there are in their own proprietary XAPK format, requiring you to install their extremely sketchy, filled with ads package installer to make any use of them, not to mention you probably can't guarantee the app itself is unaltered by that point. (yes, that is for stuff APKMirror often/always has in standard APK).

I guess I could still use APKMirror with a proper adblock if I really have to (I probably would pay for that damn subscription if a) it wasn't that expensive for something I use maybe once in two months and b) they didn't start forcing it LIKE THIS), but, you know, all this really makes for a feel of internet literally being a dying star.

[–] young_broccoli@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

AFAIK xapk is not proprietary to APKpure and its safe. Its just a way to ease the installation of packages that require additional data (OBB) not contained in the apk to run. If you installed the same app from APKMirror (as an plain apk) you would need to then hunt for the obb files and "install" them manually for it to run. Packages that dont require this additional data are distributed as plain apk's in APKpure, its only those that do that come in xapk format.

As for the sketchy installers, I've seen a couple of them and they suck, I agree. Fortunatelly I discovered the other day that an app called ZArchiver (a file browser developed mainly to manage compressed files) can install xapk's without problem, its a quite competent file browser and its free, without ads.

Now if you still dont trust them you can try with the sites listed in FMHY

Edit: Just remembered a site called apk.support They too use xapk but they also offer downloads as zip files containig both apk and data or the option to download them separately directly from google servers. I've used it a couple of times without issues.

[–] Armacadia@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Oh, pardon my ignorance! I've had no idea these are plain archives and ZArchiver could handle them - still, I don't get why APKPure would provide XAPKs for apps under 100 MB in size with no OBBs inside (example: Textra), other than to promote their installer.

edit: I guess this may be to distribute additional config APKs (language, architecture) in one file with the main app, so perhaps APKPure isn't that guilty here.

That FMHY link is also incredibly helpful, thank you!

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 2 years ago

that doesn't seem like it'd come from apkmirror, though.

apkmirror has nudged the user to whitelist when downloading for years and just delayed the download button by ten seconds.

the language is definitely not the same and i don't think they'd do it in an alert prompt

[–] throws_lemy@lemmy.nz 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Any good alternatives?

Mull browser with uBlock Origin

[–] Alivrah@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This is the way!

(Though I actually use Fennec because of the cute fox logo)

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

I had noscript and ubo running on Firefox Android like the others and was getting it. I was getting that popup too, but I enabled that weird number domain in my noscript and it works now.

[–] happyhippo@feddit.it 7 points 2 years ago

We need a clone for that site, maybe find a way to torrent all those apks. Right now that's a single point of failure, and it's not like they OWN that content, right?

[–] AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I don't see that popup with Firefox + uBlock Origin on Android 14 and I tried just now to download some APKs and it seems to work fine.

[–] BaroqueLobster@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago

Just tried this on Android Firefox with blocking via Pi-Hole and it's working fine for me.

[–] SameOldInternet@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Yep it's definitely a thing. For those saying you're not seeing it, that's because you're not blocking it. I use multiple layers of ad blocking but my unlock is set to block third party scripts and frames by default.

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2