Author Topic: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam (Read 117816 times)

Renegade · « **Reply #75 on:** August 25, 2011, 09:39 AM »

I have to disagree with you there Renegade.

Not having a having a prominent link to the program homepage is unacceptable for a download site.
-mouser (August 25, 2011, 09:20 AM)

Seems like everybody is getting me wrong today...

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I just don't think that CNet will put links to developer sites there. They really have no incentive to do it, and every incentive to not link to developers. Acceptable or unacceptable isn't what I was talking about -- I merely wanted to point out that I don't think that it is likely that they WOULD do it. I wasn't trying to comment on whether they SHOULD do it.

It simply makes for a much better page to have links to the original source. So, yeah - I'm agreeing with you about the "should" part.

mouser · « **Reply #76 on:** August 25, 2011, 09:43 AM »

Acceptable or unacceptable isn't what I was talking about -- I merely wanted to point out that I don't think that it is likely that they WOULD do it. I wasn't trying to comment on whether they SHOULD do it. It simply makes for a much better page to have links to the original source. So, yeah - I'm agreeing with you about the "should" part.
-Renegade (August 25, 2011, 09:39 AM)

Ah ok I misunderstood you then -- my apologies.

I don't think these big sites have much incentive to listen when people like us complain, but I do see a possible long term solution, in the creation of an advocacy organization whose only purpose was to establish guidelines to benefit consumers, and which worked to get SEARCH ENGINES to penalize sites that don't score well on the recommendations.

The search engines are the key because they have an insane amount of power over ranking results and therefore an instantaneous dramatic effect on income for big sites. A search engine could destroy any company on the web in a matter of minutes, and even a tiny change in rankings is likely to result in a very painful loss of income for a company.

So I'm basically suggesting that the most efficient and likely-to-succeed strategy for handling things like this is to set up an organization that establishes fair guidelines and for software sites, and reports on good and bad sites with respect to these guidelines, and then try to get the search engine companies (google, etc.) to treat the adherence to such guidelines as a factor in search engine rankings.

This would also help solve the problem I always rant about, which is companies which build up a reputation and then once they have earned respect and high search engine placement, they start to go rogue and do bad things, and by then their web traffic momentum is enough to keep them from paying a price. Getting search engines to rapidly adjust rankings when a company starts behaving wrongly is the key to stopping these bad behaviors.

This is similar to the idea we discussed regarding anti-virus program awards.

Anyone at DC feel particularly motivated and qualified to start a new site to establish guidelines for such things and evaluate sites for good behavior? DC could provide the web space.

wraith808 · « **Reply #77 on:** August 25, 2011, 10:39 AM »

It appears OpenDNS is now classifying the site in the Adware category... (see attachment in previous post)
-y0himba (August 25, 2011, 07:40 AM)

LOL! On OT, your warning is a lot better than mine- I might steal it for humor's sake!

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #78 on:** August 25, 2011, 11:38 AM »

It appears OpenDNS is now classifying the site in the Adware category... (see attachment in previous post)
-y0himba (August 25, 2011, 07:40 AM)

LOL! On OT, your warning is a lot better than mine- I might steal it for humor's sake!
-wraith808 (August 25, 2011, 10:39 AM)

I got a kick out of that one myself...The picture totally nails it. Too Perfect!

40hz · « **Reply #79 on:** August 25, 2011, 11:48 AM »

Anyone at DC feel particularly motivated and qualified to start a new site to establish guidelines for such things and evaluate sites for good behavior?
-mouser (August 25, 2011, 09:43 AM)

That would make for an interesting discussion since so many of the stakeholders (i.e. developers) seem to have mixed and migrating opinions as to what is acceptable - and isn't. As do the end users, whose opinions frequently clash with those of the development community.

So exactly who could best be considered qualified to establish such guidelines? And more to the point: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Apparently the Romans had a bit of experience with this sort of thing.

vlastimil · « **Reply #80 on:** August 25, 2011, 02:07 PM »

Let's look at what is valuable on a software download site. In my opinion:
* categorization (good searching capabilities, related software)
* completeness (contains all software, inluding newest releases)
* unbiased, regularly updated reviews (by people, who really know what they are talking about)
* accessible web (good web design, not too many ads, links to useful resources)

All users and all honest developers want this. As developers, we may have different opinions about the quality of services the software directory must offer to add our software to it. I for example require higher quality when I am adding a freeware application to a directory than when I am adding a commercial one.

Currently, there are 3 types of directories:
1. link farms - all runs automatically, they add any software, sending award badges to everyone and hoping to get some backlinks
2. proprietary directories - owner checks the listed software titles, occasionally writes a review (usually of average quality) for free or for payment (sometimes outrageous payment as is the case with tucows)
3. crowd-sourced directories - owner delegates the review task to the willing crowd; review quality is not guaranteed; reviews do not get paid and their goal usually is to give some love to the software they like, not to write an unbiased review

In my opinion, all of the above types have serious drawbacks. #1 is useless and hopefully dying. #2 is hard to scale, reviewing software costs time and hence money. #3 has scaling problems as well - review quality gets down when the site grows - spam would be a big problem. And let's not forget, that there is still a single owner that can decide to flip the switch.

We need another, better type of software directory that will ensure balance of power. I do not know how to achive it, but here are some concepts:
* contributors (developers, reviewers) must remain in control of their contributions, they must be able to change, delete, deny access to their content
* contributors shall have reputation and fields of expertise
* reviews of low quality (outdated, biased, stating false information) shall be buried

As mad as it sounds, a serach engine + a social network could be the solution. How far is the time when everyone will be able to post a review on their blog and Google will know it is a review of software X? Google (and+) is scary in its effectiveness.

skwire · « **Reply #81 on:** August 25, 2011, 03:27 PM »

As mad as it sounds, a serach engine + a social network could be the solution.
-vlastimil (August 25, 2011, 02:07 PM)

Wakoopa is almost that.

Renegade · « **Reply #82 on:** August 25, 2011, 09:49 PM »

Check out JoS:

http://discuss.joelo....asp?biz.5.839442.24

A fair number of people are pulling their software from CNet.

I don't know if it will make a difference though, as it's only the top few hundred programs that drive things, and the rest is all just long tail. Being in the long tail is like screaming at the sky from the bottom of the ocean. Useless.

Jibz · « **Reply #83 on:** August 26, 2011, 02:19 AM »

Like I mentioned here, two things get me about this.

Firstly, as much as you may advocate their right to make money from the site, I know a lot of developers struggle to make a living without resorting to putting adware into their software. For them to go and add adware and take the money is a slap in the face.

And secondly, I feel this is a shift of advertisement from their website and onto executables running on my computer (perhaps even with admin privileges), which is not something I really like.

Anyone know if the downloader is localized or English only? If it submits any "non-personal information"?

Some good comments in that JoS thread btw.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #84 on:** August 26, 2011, 03:42 AM »

A fair number of people are pulling their software from CNet.I don't know if it will make a difference though, as it's only the top few hundred programs that drive things, and the rest is all just long tail. Being in the long tail is like screaming at the sky from the bottom of the ocean. Useless.

Why useless ? Developer is not getting donations from the small-traffic coming from that site. I even doubt that there is 1% of traffic coming from Cnet or any other downloader site. Most of the casual users with mindset 'use-n-throw' hardly care about developer sites or who is the developer behind software. CNet is not even posting developer information properly as it is leak to their traffic. So why exactly it is useless ? I don't think developers lost their right to take down software from such leechers, even though software is free or open source. As this man said once, small change always makes big difference if we start from our own home.

Seth Rosenblatt · « **Reply #85 on:** August 26, 2011, 02:33 PM »

Hey all,

I’m a writer at CNET and Download.com, and personally I’ve been getting a lot of feedback on the Download.com Installer, including but not limited to Mouser and I emailing directly. (We've spoken a few times over the years.) I had absolutely nothing to do with the development or approval of the installer, but I wanted to assure you that I’ve been forwarding on your complaints to the appropriate people.

I have no news of changes being made to the installer as of yet, but I can assure you that the people in charge of it are listening to your complaints and are strongly considering options for improving the experience. I can’t say whether the installer will ever go away because CNET is seeing a much higher download completion rate than before it was in use. I have not been provided with numbers to back this up, yet. However, your feedback does appear to be reaching its target.

In the meantime, if you’re a developer and would like your software to be excluded from the installer, you can send a request for exclusion here: [email protected]. No requests have been denied so far, to the best of my knowledge.

If you’re a Download.com reader, logging into your CNET account (at the top right corner of the page) will give you a text link on the download page that allows you to directly download the program you want, bypassing the installer. The link appears just below the green Download.com icon, and reads, “Direct Download Link.”

You are all more than welcome to continue sending your complaints and concerns to me, and I can forward them on. I can be reached at [email protected]. You can also send them to [email protected].

p.s. Yes, I'm posting this on a couple of sites. This is not an official CNET response, but me personally taking matters into my own hands to let you know you're being heard. In other words: BE GENTLE!

mouser · « **Reply #86 on:** August 26, 2011, 03:01 PM »

Hi Seth,

First, thank you so much for posting, and for taking the time to talk with me/us about the issues.

You can tell that many of us are pretty upset over this issue.

I'm going to email the cnet-installer address and i will report how it goes trying to have the installer removed.

As I've expressed before, i think that 99.99% of this entire problem will be solved very easily if cnet simply makes it possible for authors to say they don't want their software wrapped with the cnet adware installer, without paying a fee.

CNet visitors may still rightfully be unhappy with getting this installer when they download certain software -- but that's a much more trivial issue that your visitors will have to make a decision about. But as long as authors can freely exclude their software from it, that would satisfy me.

[there is still the issue of cnet download.com not showing links to program web pages that i think should be addressed, but that's a separate issue]

KynloStephen66515 · « **Reply #87 on:** August 26, 2011, 05:04 PM »

Hey all,

I’m a writer at CNET and Download.com, and personally I’ve been getting a lot of feedback on the Download.com Installer, including but not limited to Mouser and I emailing directly. (We've spoken a few times over the years.) I had absolutely nothing to do with the development or approval of the installer, but I wanted to assure you that I’ve been forwarding on your complaints to the appropriate people.

I have no news of changes being made to the installer as of yet, but I can assure you that the people in charge of it are listening to your complaints and are strongly considering options for improving the experience. I can’t say whether the installer will ever go away because CNET is seeing a much higher download completion rate than before it was in use. I have not been provided with numbers to back this up, yet. However, your feedback does appear to be reaching its target.

In the meantime, if you’re a developer and would like your software to be excluded from the installer, you can send a request for exclusion here: [email protected]. No requests have been denied so far, to the best of my knowledge.

If you’re a Download.com reader, logging into your CNET account (at the top right corner of the page) will give you a text link on the download page that allows you to directly download the program you want, bypassing the installer. The link appears just below the green Download.com icon, and reads, “Direct Download Link.”

You are all more than welcome to continue sending your complaints and concerns to me, and I can forward them on. I can be reached at [email protected]. You can also send them to [email protected].

p.s. Yes, I'm posting this on a couple of sites. This is not an official CNET response, but me personally taking matters into my own hands to let you know you're being heard. In other words: BE GENTLE!
-m0rn1ng5t4r (August 26, 2011, 02:33 PM)

Firstly, Welcome to the site!

Secondly, its awesome that you have posted this information here for everybody to see. This will certainly help clear up any un-answered questions from the masses!

Great to see somebody from a large corporate run website taking matters personally!

40hz · « **Reply #88 on:** August 26, 2011, 06:32 PM »

This is not an official CNET response...

-m0rn1ng5t4r (August 26, 2011, 02:33 PM)

@Seth - Thanks for joining in the discussion. Always glad to get some perspective from a person who's on the 'inside' so to speak.

Just out of curiosity, is there an official CNET response? Or is the prolonged silence as much of an "official response" as we can expect to get?

I would like to point out that perhaps the reason they're seeing a much higher completion rate than before is because not enough people are aware of the change that's taken place. And also that the "wrapper" has effectively hijacked much of the direct download traffic that could not previously be monitored.

I do find it interesting that developers still need to opt out of having a revenue generating installer placed around their application when they didn't request their software be carried by CNET to begin with. I'm not quite sure what could have ever made anybody at CNET think doing something like that could ever be completely legal - or even moderately ethical.

Now if CNET had first contacted the developers; announced a change to the rules; and then required them to either opt in - or be automatically dropped from download.com - that would have been one thing. (The right thing in fact.) But I suspect that doing so would have drawn far more attention to what was about to take place than some parties at CNET wanted, hence this unannounced (and frankly sneaky) change.

Just my tuppence.

This is wrong on so many levels.

mouser · « **Reply #89 on:** August 26, 2011, 06:42 PM »

The best solution would be developer opt-in, with revenue sharing for those that opt-in, and a clear link to program homepage.

But as far as I'm concerned the only real bottom line thing that absolutely *must* be remedied as soon as possible is providing a cost-free way for developers to opt out of this installer wrapper. Until that happens I think all of us are going to keep screaming bloody murder.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #90 on:** August 26, 2011, 06:51 PM »

Amen to that!

Renegade · « **Reply #91 on:** August 26, 2011, 07:01 PM »

The best solution would be developer opt-in, with revenue sharing for those that opt-in, and a clear link to program homepage.

But as far as I'm concerned the only real bottom line thing that absolutely *must* be remedied as soon as possible is providing a cost-free way for developers to opt out of this installer wrapper. Until that happens I think all of us are going to keep screaming bloody murder.
-mouser (August 26, 2011, 06:42 PM)

I went back and had a bit of a closer look at it. It's not actually a wrapper. It's a download manager that will download the program in the background and then let you install the program.

So, I think my previous comment about CNet violating EULAs and whatnot was out of line, i.e. wrong. They're not doing that.

Basically, they're injecting an intermediary step there, i.e. the download manager.

While we may not like it, I don't think that they're doing anything as bad as I thought before.

Now, the download manager DOES use graphics from (I presume) PAD files or whatever you've uploaded. But they are there for download sites to use to promote your software... However, this seems like a bit of a stretch as it brands the CNet download manager with your logo/image/icon, which seems to imply some sort of endorsement. Still, this hasn't been done before, so is this analogous to the Stephen What'sHisName that used to hijack PAD files all the time? Dunno.

Anyways, just trying to clear up what IS going on vs. what ISN'T going on. We seem to have the wrong impression there. Seems like CNet corporate communications are about as good as Microsoft's.

(I think they would have been better off to give people a clear heads up on this before running off and doing it.)

(BTW - Please don't take anything that I said there for what it isn't. I've simply tried to look at what is and isn't happening. I'm not trying to comment with an opinion on it, well... beyond the corporate communications thing.

)

@Seth - Good to see someone from CNet chime in!

JavaJones · « **Reply #92 on:** August 26, 2011, 07:11 PM »

Thanks for the post Seth. I hope we see an official response on this soon. I share other people's thoughts on the matter, but would like to particularly stress that this could be a great *opportunity* for CNet to not only increase revenue, but also increase positive developer relations, by creating a program that offers this (and more) as a *service* and shares revenue with software authors. CNet has a terrific platform already largely in place that can give them a jump over competitors already working on the same sort of thing. See my blog post for further thoughts.

Renegade: *Thanks* for looking deeper into it! I appreciate the clarification and don't want to be spreading misinformation. I agree that what you describe is not as bad as initially thought. Still not good and needs to be a free opt-out for developers at the very least, if not opt-in (ideally), but at least it's not as potentially illegal.

- Oshyan

mouser · « **Reply #93 on:** August 26, 2011, 07:12 PM »

Renegade, your technical description of what's happening is accurate -- but i think you're talking about a distinction without a difference. It might protect them in a court of law but it has no relevance in terms of evilness to the user and author.

The point is not whether they are technically modifying your installer or simply running a small stub program to make it appear as if they have done so.

The net effect is that for many/most users, they click download and think they are downloading and running the program installer, and instead then go through the installation procedure which introduces cnet download.com adware.

And the worst part is that the users will assume that this adware is something that the authors have chosen to include as part of the program installer.

And even though I don't make any, I'm not one of those people that views adware as an inherently horrible thing. The problem is that it has to be up to the author to decide if they want to do this.

A site should not be able to trick naive users into thinking they are downloading and running a program installer written by and vouched for by the developer, which actually is adware/spyware that a 3rd party is serving up.

Note also how this perverts the whole incentive system for a site like CNet in evil ways -- their goal is no longer to help you find information about the program you might be interested in -- their goal is to keep you away from the real program website where you might god forbid be able to download a clean version of the installer.

A key evilness here is that many/most users will likely assume that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE INSTALLER that they should even bother to look for. This is critically important -- most users may have not the slightest idea that there is somewhere else a CLEAN installer provided by the author. This is something completely new in the world of legitimate freeware/shareware, where a link to download a program has always been to the original unmodified files. The only sites that have ever tried to make people think they were downloading one program while serving up modified or re-packaged versions are malware sites.

40hz · « **Reply #94 on:** August 26, 2011, 07:18 PM »

i think you're talking about a distinction without a difference.
-mouser (August 26, 2011, 07:12 PM)

+1.

JavaJones · « **Reply #95 on:** August 26, 2011, 07:26 PM »

Good comments mouser, very good.

- Oshyan

mouser · « **Reply #96 on:** August 26, 2011, 07:31 PM »

Just a quick update --
I emailed the address that Seth suggested earlier today ([email protected]) and asked nicely if they would remove the installer wrapper from my programs,

and just got an email reply saying the installer has been removed from my applications.

And it seems to be true.

So credit where credit is due, bravo to Seth and Cnet for being responsive about this

(and credit to everyone here and elsewhere on the web who has been running around screaming about this -- these things get fixed only when people make a ruckus).

Anyway, color me very pleasantly surprised.

Now let's just hope that they they put a process in place to let authors set this option from their cnet upload.com account and clearly explain the procedure for removing your applications from the installer wrapper, and contact authors to let them know about this.

Seth Rosenblatt · « **Reply #97 on:** August 26, 2011, 08:09 PM »

I have no idea if an official response is coming, unfortunately. I suggest continuing to exert polite pressure via the cnet-installer e-mail address.

40hz · « **Reply #98 on:** August 26, 2011, 08:31 PM »

@Seth - I can't help but ask, what is CNET's position about one of their employees speaking to the general public about a controversial issue surrounding the company.

Most corporations have fairly strict rules about employees not doing that sort of thing.

db90h · « **Reply #99 on:** August 26, 2011, 11:25 PM »

@Seth - I can't help but ask, what is CNET's position about one of their employees speaking to the general public about a controversial issue surrounding the company.

Most corporations have fairly strict rules about employees not doing that sort of thing.

-40hz (August 26, 2011, 08:31 PM)

They should give him a promotion

. One of the more disturbing things was the apathy that CNET demonstrated throughout all this. As if they are above caring what anyone thinks about them, even their visitors and vendors. He is the ONLY ONE who has demonstrated any care for their image.

Thanks to his advice, I requested they unbundle my software. This SAME DAY they responded and did so. I had feared they would simply de-list my software, despite me paying ($9/mo) for my listing, but they did not. They unbundled all editions of it, and were polite.

It is funny, now that I read this thread, I used mouser's almost exact words, giving them 'credit where credit is due' for at least allowing us to opt-out.

It is my belief that many of the CNET employees feel as strongly as we do about this change. It was apparently the upper corporate management that made this decision, and it is their minds that must be changed. Of course, to change their minds requires making a fiscal argument that it costs them more money to keep this policy than it does to change it.