Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam

<< < (19/36) > >>

Stoic Joker:
Amen to that!  :)

Renegade:
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)
--- End quote ---

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. :P (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. :P )

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

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

+1.  8)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page