Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam
JavaJones:
I just posted on G+ and FB about it now. Now contemplating adding it to my blog based on my post above...
Edit: I just emailed Scott Ard, their Downloads Editor in Chief, with the following:
As a long-time user of Downloads.com I read with dismay the news of your new policy of wrapping software downloads in a proprietary installer that contains questionable software solely intended for revenue generation for CNet. Subsequent claims that this is "for the good of the user" are transparent and frankly galling. There is only one reason to do this and it has nothing to do with user benefit. While I certainly recognize that CNet has to make money to survive and continue offering good services, I also know that Downloads.com has been around for many years and has survived this long without such drastic and questionably legal tactics. Surely there are better solutions.
Not only is it morally despicable to take liberties with other people's software, it seems highly dubious from a legal standpoint given the EULAs and redistribution agreements of a lot of software applications. I'm aware that many of the applications CNet hosts are not in fact uploaded or officially approved by authors. Many who did not upload their software were at least ok with having it hosted given it was a free service and there was no modification. With this new policy you are losing any good will you had and risking serious legal consequences too.
As an IT consultant I have frequently recommended Downloads.com to customers. I will no longer be doing so and will be spreading word of these reprehensible actions as far as I can. I urge you to reconsider your policy.
--- End quote ---
Annoying you have to be logged-in to email them, so if you don't already have a CNet account or aren't logged-in, be sure you take care of that *before* opening their nifty lightbox message window and writing out your 1500 character response. If not you will lose it when you try to login.
- Oshyan
Renegade:
To be honest, I don't know if they'd change. Dissent is likely to come from the long tail, and they simply don't care about it. The top few programs drive traffic and revenue, so...
Mouser, I hate to say it, but in some ways I think pulling your software from there is like pissing into the wind. Not that I disagree or anything with you. I just don't know what the practical effects will be, and I have a hard time seeing CNet budge on the issue, especially if it's profitable, which it probably is.
JavaJones:
Pulling his software does not have to negatively affect CNet at all for it to be worthwhile. Mouser is protecting *his* reputation and customer relationships by doing this.
- Oshyan
Renegade:
Pulling his software does not have to negatively affect CNet at all for it to be worthwhile. Mouser is protecting *his* reputation and customer relationships by doing this.
-JavaJones (August 24, 2011, 07:24 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's the thing -- I'm not sure it will. Are the people that download from CNet likely to notice? Would it adversely affect an author's reputation? Would it improve it? After all, having a CNet wrapper could be interpreted as a CNet endorsement and could elevate some authors' software in some user opinions. Dunno.
I know what I think, and I've read what others here think, but seriously -- we're not representative of the larger public. Most people here are way too technically savvy to be considered 'regular users'.
JavaJones:
Fair points Renegade, yet I know from talking to my friends - none of whom I would call "technically savvy" - that they too dislike toolbar installers and other "offers", for the most part. People have come to distrust this stuff to some degree. Of course they can sometimes be handled well, and maybe CNet's are, I haven't looked myself as I'm pretty much boycotting them at this point. The simple fact that they're doing this without author involvement or permission is enough to piss me off. But regardless techies aren't the only ones who notice or dislike this stuff.
The software is already hosted on CNet, that's endorsement enough. I don't think having the installer wrapped in CNet BS is going to help authors any further than that, and it's likely to hurt if it is clearly an attempt to get money from the user. People may not know the tech details behind it, but many can see that these "offers" are an attempt to earn money and won't like it. Now it's fine if an author chooses to do this themselves on their own software, that's one thing. But this is CNet doing it without their consult and that's just reprehensible. CNet is essentially establishing in the minds of software users, for freeware and commercial alike, that the authors of that software are trying to milk their users.
I suspect you *may* have a different perspective from some here due to your use and support of OpenCandy, which we've previously established is a bit controversial. ;)
P.S. I made a blog post about it: http://oshyan.blogspot.com/2011/08/cnet-screws-pooch-wraps-all-downloads.html
- Oshyan
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version