Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

CNET Download Installer Changes

(1/5) > >>

Renegade:
Looks like CNET is in the final stages of working out the kinks:

Email from CNET to DevelopersA note from Sean
________________________________________
Download.com Developer Community,

My last communication to you was shortly after we launched the Download.com Installer in late summer. At that time I asked for patience as we began work to deliver a mutually beneficial model to market.

We are on the verge of fulfilling our vision of coming to market with an installer model that delivers files faster and more efficiently to users, while enabling developers to a) opt-in to the Installer, b) influence the offers tied to their files, c) gain reporting insight into the download funnel, and d) share in the revenue generated by the installer. However, due to some press that surfaced yesterday and the potential for subsequent misinformation, I am reaching out now to address that press and to provide a progress report on the upcoming launch:

First, on the press that surfaced yesterday: a developer expressed anger and frustration about our current model and how his file was being bundled. This was a mistake on our part and we apologize to the developer and user communities for the unrest it caused. As a rule, we do not bundle open source software and in addition to taking this developers file out of the installer flow, we have gone in and re-checked all open source files in our catalog. We take feedback from our developer & user communities very seriously and take pains to both act on it and respond in a timely manner.

With that, I want to share progress made thus far: This week we will launch the alpha phase of our new installer. This alpha phase is intended to test the tech and do QA, and will roll through the next few weeks to ensure that our installer is bug free. Between this week and the end of January we will be completing the necessary engineering and administrative work to roll out our beta, which will include a small group of developers who've agreed to participate in the beta launch. Our goal is to exit beta by end of February and have the necessary systems in place to enable opt-in, influence over advertising offers (for those offers that impact your product), download funnel reporting and revenue share back to you, the developers. In the weeks/months following the full release, we will continue to iterate on the model, adding more features to the Installer and bringing greater efficiency to our own download funnel (read: increased install conversion).

The initial feedback from developers on our new model has been very positive and we are excited to bring this to the broader community as soon as possible. More communication will follow as we move into Q1, and until then, thank you for continuing to work with Download.com.

Sincerely,

-- Sean

Sean Murphy
Vice President & General Manager



I'm posting the entire email there because it's only sent to the developer community.

Anyways, looks like they're shifting into the right direction.

People screamed. They listened. Too bad government didn't work that way. :P

40hz:
Sounds good except for the "generally" qualification as applied to open software. CNet shouldn't be bundling GPL open software at all since it violates the spirit and intent of the GPL - even if it may not 'technically' (debatable btw) violate the letter of the license.

For everything else, it should be the developer's exclusive call - and now it does look like CNet is finally starting to get it.

40hz remains hopeful this will eventually resolve itself to be a win-win for all parties involved.  :Thmbsup:

mouser:
That does indeed sound like they are going in the right direction.. "a)developer opt-in, and d)developer revenue sharing".. just the things we were saying they would need to do to make this acceptable.

Looks like we have yet another confirmation on the importance of taking a stand and protesting vigorously when some company does wrong and tries to get away with bad behavior -- bad press is a strong motivator.

IainB:
Forgive me if I slip into communications analysis mode for a brief moment.

It might sound like they are going in the right direction, but the email seems to ooze corporate doublespeak/BS - which, when you think about it, is probably only natural, considering that they have to try and make a profit.

For example:
Spoiler
* "...a mutually beneficial model to market." - BS. the only beneficiary they would have in mind would probably be CNET.
* "fulfilling our vision of coming to market with an installer model that..." - BS/buzzword. "Having a vision" excuses any behaviour. Hitler had a "vision" for the Aryan race. This was probably a hallucination of overflowing coffers.
* "I am reaching out now to address that press..." - major BS/buzzword.
* "This was a mistake on our part and we apologize..." - BS. "Oops. You caught us at it..."
* "We take feedback from our developer & user communities very seriously" - BS. Yeah, right. So that is why they have been persisting with this approach for so long.
* "I want to share progress made thus far:" - major BS/buzzword. "Look, what we have really been doing is making progress - and progress sounds good, right?"
* "...we are excited to bring this to the broader community as soon as possible" - major BS. "Excited" my #ss.
* "...thank you for continuing to work with Download.com." - BS. Arrogantly and immaturely flipping the bird in the closing sentence. "But hey, we're going to do this whether you like it or not, buddy, so suck on that."

Whoever wrote this rubbish had probably only gone through Marketing Communications 101 at most, by the looks of things. By the same token, they probably hadn't done Damage Control 301.

If this is the case, then the incredibly annoying behaviour of CNET over the past few months looks like it could well have been a deliberate and cynical test marketing exercise to see just exactly how far they could push things past the limits before the developers and users got really pissed off. The fact that this email was apparently to developers shows that they appreciate only too well their (CNET's) dependence on developers in the supply chain. Without the developers' co-operation, CNET would probably be dead in the water.
The objective of the test marketing? Always clearly in sight - max profits. Nothing else matters when you are financially on the ropes and being threatened with redundancy if you don't change things.

The thing about test marketing is that it is a tried-and-tested approach to test a new product/service out on a small, isolated control group and iron out the wrinkles first, before you expose the whole market to your new product/service. This is very difficult to do for a web-based service delivery system, where the reality is that you have to create the test market by a limited invite to people to try something out. Google appreciate this and get it exactly right. They gather a "by invitation only" test group and say "This is a Beta product and may be for quite a long time, so please help us to make it better and get it right before we launch it." After the limited test, they then open up the service to the whole market, but still launch it as a Beta service. For example, look how many years Gmail was in ß.

The CNET approach would seem to have been almost the exact opposite of that. This was a dumb thing to do, and for that and their arrogance they would be deserving of our scorn - and the consequences. This is probably just another corporate gaff like the Paypal/Regretsy fiasco, which has now blown up in PayPal's face as "NOWAYPAL" and with a potential consequence being the significant erosion of their market niche position. This sort of thing is sometimes referred to as "shooting oneself in the foot".

mahesh2k:
Revenue sharing, so they're going with opencandy model ?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page