Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Complaint: Freemake

<< < (3/4) > >>

y0himba:
I haven't seen that however, the bot thing.  I am more concerned that they are allowed to promote this as FREE, yet they are attempting to get money with an attempt to use my system to generate income for themselves.

Adware is defined as:

Adware, or advertising-supported software, is any software package which automatically plays, displays, or downloads advertisements to a computer. These advertisements can be in the form of a pop-up.[1] They may also be in the user interface of the software or on a screen presented to the user during the installation process. The object of the Adware is to generate revenue for its author. Adware, by itself, is harmless; however, some adware may come with integrated spyware such as keyloggers and other privacy-invasive software.[2][3][4]-wikipedia
--- End quote ---

As it is defined above, "..or on a screen presented to the user during the installation process" and "..the object of adware is to generate revenue for it's author".  This does both.  Adverts to install Startnow and Dealply are given during the install process, and the object of the advert to install this crapware is to generate revenue.

If this were free, they would not even request that I install adware.  I also think that they rely on the Novice for some accidental income, so to speak.

It is the classic bait and switch.  They offer it for a while, talk it up like it is the best software ever and try to make folks think there is no replacement, then drop the adware in there for some quick revenue.

They are displaying a pattern of underhanded dealings, combining the hidden service, the fact that they are on the FFmpeg hall of shame with the adware, not  company I would like to do business with or a software i would recommend.
-y0himba (November 19, 2011, 12:53 PM)
--- End quote ---

mouser:
Just as a side note, although i can see the logic of calling it adware, i really think that showing some banner ads during installation (but not installing anything that shows ads or leaving anything installed on the user's pc), is just about the least harmful, most benign, most harmless thing a piece of software could do.  Frankly i'd be very happy to see all authors doing this if it raised them some money -- and i'd much rather they do this than do any bundling, etc.

jgpaiva:
I'm sure there was some discussion here on DC about something very related to this (I think it was Renegade that posted it). I'd like to crosslink to the other thread but I can't find it now.

y0himba:
I would not be opposed to viewing static adverts with a link to the product during an install, or even an uninstall process.  However attempting to or even asking me to install software I know to be tracking and crapware is unacceptable. I like the Open Candy model, do not download the software until you accept.  On offer, one advert, and then just say no or accept.  Once the user accepts, the software is then downloaded.

The way Freemake has it set up is already downloaded and selected, ready to deliver it's crapware payload, hoping the user will hit next.  Most folks now do just that, not paying attention.

I think we, as users, should take a stand, and not accept this way of doing business.  If it is advertised as free, it should be free, no strings attached.  Especially if the program is built using Open Source, Free, Or GNU software.  If the program is advertising/adware supported, it needs to be made abundantly clear, and a new category should be created so that truly free and great software can be differentiated from it.

Josh:
Again, since malware has been running rampant for many years now, at what point do we require the end user to take some responsibility to watch the things they put on their computer? I would hope that educational programs exist to let users know to not click blind links, accepts attachments from strangers, or blindly click next through an installer.

As it is, this software is being given FOR FREE. How many users, like any other freeware, do you think actually contribute to the author? Many use free tools without any thought of compensating the author, and then whine when the author does something like this or makes the software payware, at which point they move on to another free product. At that point, the cycle goes round and round while the original product is bad mouthed for "selling out". Yet, what percentage of the user base actually supported the product with even a $1 donation?

If you being required to PAY ATTENTION, *GASP* what a concept *GASP*, during a one time installation is all that is required, how can this be considered bad? At what point is the author going outside his rights to ask for some form of compensation or support from the user community so he can receive some sort of compensation for his work?

This all ties into what I call the "entitled generation". Free software is nice but as soon as the develop shows any intent of trying to earn money, people whine and rage over it. I see nothing wrong with what Freemake is doing. The user IS RESPONSIBLE for what goes on their machine. They should be required to PAY ATTENTION and not just blindly click. I would rather see users take a stand against computer non-education and show users to pay attention and accept responsibility.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page