Chrome on Android Lets You Move Address Bar to Bottom
Google has announced a new update to Chrome on Android. Users can now move the address bar to the bottom of the screen. This change adds a new layer of customization and is aimed at improving user comfort during browsing.
The update was revealed on the official Google Blog. It explained that the feature is designed to give users more control over how they interact with the browser. Depending on the size of your hand or device, one position may be more convenient than the other.
To move the address bar: Long-press on the address bar and select 'Move address bar to bottom'
Or, go to Chrome Settings > Address Bar and choose the preferred position
This update is rolling out gradually. It will start appearing on devices today and will be available to all Android users in the coming weeks.
Google reported that the goal is to make browsing on Chrome more adaptable. While the option is simple, it supports a wider range of user preferences. The address bar can be moved back to the top at any time using the same steps.
Moreover, the ability to reposition the address bar is part of Google's ongoing efforts to enhance usability. It may especially benefit users of larger phones, where reaching the top of the screen can be less convenient.
The company has not linked this update to other changes but continues to focus on customization and accessibility. The address bar location can now be adjusted to match individual needs and browsing habits.
This feature is expected to become a standard part of Chrome for Android soon. Users can check their Chrome settings to see if the option is available on their device.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
4 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Nearly 90% of videogame developers use AI agents, Google study shows
A Google Cloud survey showed that 87% of videogame developers are using artificial intelligence agents to streamline and automate tasks, as the industry focuses on optimizing costs following a wave of record layoffs. Most of the respondents in the report, published on Monday, said AI was helping automate cumbersome and repetitive tasks, freeing developers to focus on more creative concerns. Gaming publishers have turned to AI to deal with the industry-wide challenge of ballooning development costs and elongated creation cycles stemming from high fan expectations and intense competition. The study, conducted by Google and The Harris Poll, surveyed 615 game developers in the U.S., South Korea, Norway, Finland, and Sweden in late June and early July. Around 44% of developers use agents to optimiae content and process information such as text, voice, code, audio and video rapidly, enabling them to exercise autonomy and make decisions, the study showed. But the use of AI in videogames is a highly contentious topic, with many within the industry concerned over potential job losses, intellectual property disputes and lower pay. Last year, Hollywood's videogame performers went on strike over AI and pay issues, while studios shut down and more than 10,000 people lost their jobs. The industry is expected to gain momentum this year and the next, with the launch of premium titles and new consoles seen to boost spending. According to the survey, 94% of developers expect AI to reduce overall development costs in the long term. That, even as roughly one in four developers find it challenging to precisely measure the return on investment of their AI implementations, while costs associated with integrating the technology are also high. Around 63% of those surveyed expressed concerns over data ownership as the legality around licensing and who exactly owns AI-generated content remains unclear.
Martechvibe
8 hours ago
- Martechvibe
Why Your tROAS Campaigns Fail: The Real Cost of Invalid Traffic
If you're running ecommerce campaigns, you're probably relying on tROAS to drive performance. It's a smart tool: set a return goal, and Google's algorithm does the rest. But there's a catch: invalid traffic (IVT) breaks the model. 'tROAS is only as smart as the data feeding it. If 20% of your clicks are fake, then it becomes challenging for your campaigns to hit your tROAS goals & you end up being unable to scale campaigns as efficiently,' said Bilal Niazi, Growth Marketing Manager, PureSquare. Invalid traffic is any non-genuine interaction with your ads: bots, click farms, competitor clicks. In 2025, the cost of digital advertising fraud is forecasted to reach $114 billion globally . And if you're not actively blocking invalid traffic, your tROAS campaigns are likely bleeding budget without delivering real customers. The Scale of the Problem The numbers paint a stark picture. According to recent industry data, invalid traffic accounts for roughly 22% of all digital ad spend, with some sectors seeing rates as high as 40%. For ecommerce retailers, this translates to millions in wasted budget annually. The sophistication of invalid traffic has evolved dramatically. Early bot detection focused on obvious patterns: repeated clicks from the same IP, traffic from known data centers, or sessions with impossible geographic sequences. Today's fraudulent traffic operates differently. Click farms employ real devices, rotate IP addresses, and train workers to behave like genuine shoppers, making detection far more complex. How tROAS Works, and Where It Breaks Google's tROAS strategy automatically adjusts bids to hit your revenue targets. It prioritises keywords and placements based on expected conversion value, learning from historical performance data to predict which clicks are most likely to generate sales. The algorithm analyses thousands of signals: user device, location, time of day, search history, and browsing behaviour. It then adjusts bids in real-time, sometimes multiple times per auction, to maximise the likelihood of hitting your target return on ad spend. But this sophisticated system has a critical vulnerability: it assumes all clicks represent genuine user intent. If the underlying click data is inflated by fake traffic, the algorithm gets it wrong. It shifts spend to the wrong users, drops good-performing keywords, and chases phantom conversions. The result: wasted CPCs, distorted data, and no return. The problem compounds over time. As tROAS algorithms receive more fraudulent signals, they begin to identify invalid traffic sources as high-performing placements. This creates a feedback loop where campaigns increasingly target fake users, driving up costs while driving down genuine reach. The Economics of Fake Traffic Understanding why invalid traffic exists helps explain its persistence. Click fraud operates as a profitable business model across several fronts. Competitor sabotage represents one revenue stream. Businesses deploy bots to click on rivals' ads, depleting their daily budgets and forcing them out of auctions. This tactic is particularly common in competitive industries like insurance, legal services, and high-ticket ecommerce categories. Click farms offer another model. These operations, often based in regions with low labour costs, employ workers to manually click on ads from real devices. Rates can be as low as $0.01 per click, making it profitable even when only a fraction of traffic converts. Affiliate fraud presents a third avenue. Fraudulent affiliates use bots to generate fake clicks and conversions, claiming commission on traffic they never actually delivered. This is especially problematic for retailers using affiliate networks to expand reach. Fake Clicks, Real Impact Click-through rate and cost-per-click are foundational metrics in ad optimisation. But bots and click farms mimic real users with increasing sophistication. They click, scroll, sometimes even stay on the page for realistic durations, yet never convert. Modern fraudulent traffic employs advanced techniques to avoid detection. Bots can simulate mouse movements, adjust scroll speeds to mimic human reading patterns, and even trigger JavaScript events that suggest genuine engagement. Some sophisticated operations use machine learning to analyse successful user sessions and replicate those behaviours. Most standard fraud detection tools miss this evolved approach. Platform-level filters catch obvious bot traffic but struggle with human-operated click farms or sophisticated bot networks that rotate IP addresses and vary their behaviour patterns . So, what looks like high engagement in your campaign dashboards is actually draining your budget. Your team makes optimisation decisions based on corrupted data, continuously refining campaigns toward traffic that will never purchase. This creates a dangerous cycle where marketing teams chase metrics that don't correlate with revenue. The impact extends beyond immediate budget waste. When campaign data includes significant invalid traffic, it becomes impossible to accurately measure true customer acquisition costs, lifetime value, or return on ad spend. Strategic decisions about budget allocation, market expansion, and product promotion become based on fundamentally flawed data. What to Watch For Detecting invalid traffic requires monitoring specific behavioural patterns that indicate non-human activity. Some of the red flags you need to track in real-time include: Conversion rate anomalies : Sudden spikes in clicks with no corresponding lift in conversions often signal bot activity. Pay particular attention to campaigns that show engagement increases without revenue improvements. Geographic inconsistencies : Traffic from regions you don't target, or unusual concentration from specific geographic areas, especially those known for click farms. Session behaviour patterns : Repeated clicks from the same IP address within short timeframes, classic click farm behaviour that's easy to spot with proper monitoring. Engagement depth mismatches : High click volumes with abnormally low time on site, high bounce rates, or sessions that end before page loads complete. Device and browser fingerprinting : Multiple clicks from identical device configurations, browser versions, and screen resolutions can indicate automated traffic. Timing patterns : Clicks that occur in unnaturally regular intervals or outside typical human behaviour patterns, such as consistent activity at 3 AM in your target market. And these patterns are happening every day in retail campaigns. The challenge lies in distinguishing between genuinely poor campaign performance and invalid traffic corruption. A campaign targeting the wrong audience might legitimately show high clicks with low conversions, while bot traffic creates similar symptoms. Advanced monitoring requires analysing these signals in combination rather than isolation. A single red flag might indicate optimisation opportunities; multiple concurrent signals suggest fraudulent activity. How to Stop It The key to stopping IVT is catching it before it drains your budget, not after. That means analysing traffic at the session level, in real-time, and flagging anything that shows signs of automation, manipulation, or non-human intent. This includes behaviours like: IP spoofing or unusual geolocation patterns Aborted sessions or excessive ad clicks from a single user Clicks with no downstream engagement, scrolls, events, or conversions While most advertisers rely on standard platform filters, these often miss more sophisticated fake traffic. Advanced fraud detection systems now analyse dozens of behavioural signals simultaneously – mouse movements, scroll patterns, session duration, and click sequences – to identify non-human activity that basic filters miss. 'The challenge isn't just blocking obvious bots anymore. Modern invalid traffic mimics human behaviour so well that you need to look at micro-patterns – how users interact with pages, not just where they click,' said Fahad Aldraiaan, Ecommerce Manager, Nabataty. Effective fraud prevention requires a multi-layered approach. Real-time analysis can block obvious bot traffic before it impacts campaigns, while post-click analysis identifies more sophisticated fraud patterns. The goal is creating a comprehensive shield that adapts to evolving fraud techniques. Machine learning plays an increasingly important role in this process. By analysing millions of legitimate user sessions, algorithms can identify subtle deviations that indicate fraudulent activity. These systems continuously learn and adapt, staying ahead of fraud techniques that manual monitoring might miss. Stop Optimising for Bots If you're trusting automated bidding strategies to drive growth, you need clean traffic data. Otherwise, you're optimising your ad campaigns based on fraudulent signals that will never generate real business value. When platforms receive invalid engagement signals, their algorithms learn to target more of the same fake traffic. it's actively teaching your campaigns to find the wrong audience. Clean traffic data is essential for any automated bidding strategy. When algorithms optimise based on genuine user behaviour, they can identify and target real prospects more effectively, leading to better acquisition costs and stronger returns. ALSO READ: The Hidden Costs of Paid Media Automation: Are Marketers Losing Control? CEO and Co-founder at Tapper View More
Khaleej Times
12 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Google agrees $36 million fine for anti-competitive deals with Australia telcos
Google agreed on Monday (August 18) to pay a A$55 million ($35.8 million) fine in Australia after the consumer watchdog found it had hurt competition by paying the country's two largest telcos to pre-install its search application on Android phones, excluding rival search engines. The fine extends a bumpy period for the Alphabet-owned GOOGL.O internet giant in Australia, where last week a court mostly ruled against it in a lawsuit brought by Fortnite maker Epic Games accusing Google and Apple AAPL.O of preventing rival application stores in their operating systems. Google's YouTube was also last month added to an Australian ban on social media platforms admitting users aged under 16, reversing an earlier decision to exempt the video-sharing site. On anti-competitive tie-ups with Australian telcos, the country's consumer watchdog on Monday said Google struck deals with Telstra and Optus, under which the tech giant shared with them advertising revenue generated from Google Search on Android devices between late 2019 and early 2021. Google admitted the arrangement had a substantial impact on competition from rival search engines, and has stopped signing similar deals while also agreeing to the fine, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) added. "Today's outcome ... created the potential for millions of Australians to have greater search choice in the future, and for competing search providers to gain meaningful exposure to Australian consumers," ACCC Chair Gina-Cass Gottlieb said. Google and the ACCC have jointly submitted to the Federal Court that Google should pay the A$55 million fine. The court must still decide if the penalty is appropriate, the ACCC said, but the cooperation between the regulator and Google has helped avoid lengthy litigation. A Google spokesperson said the company was pleased to resolve the ACCC's concerns which involved "provisions that haven't been in our commercial agreements for some time". "We are committed to providing Android device makers more flexibility to pre-load browsers and search apps, while preserving the offerings and features that help them innovate, compete with Apple, and keep costs low," the spokesperson added. Google owns Android. A Telstra spokesperson referred Reuters to an earlier statement saying it and Optus, owned by Singapore Telecommunications had fully cooperated with the ACCC and promised not to sign agreements with Google to pre-install its search product since 2024.
