Adware is not freeware, right?

[tranglos]

Adware is not freeware, right? Never has been, has it? In the beginning, adware makers did try hard to make it a norm to brand their merchandise as free, but they were kicked out and laughed out of court, so to speak (the court of public opinion in this case). Since then, adware is adware, free is free, and we've been living happily ever after.

So why is is suddenly acceptable to call Android adware "free"? 99% of "free" apps on Android Market are adware, though you wouldn't know it from the market descriptions, screenshots or any blogs that recommend the software. Even Wikipedia apps show ads, though I doubt any of the proceeds go to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Seems we may have won a battle but are losing the war. I hate my smartphone today.

[mahesh2k]

"Fradware".

Before someone takes credit for this new word, let me own it legally. 

[mouser]

I'm afraid it's even worse than you are describing

I don't have a problem with adware advertised as adware.

But it's not just that ad-supported software is becoming the accepted synonym with "free", it's that we are moving to a time where the entire software ecosystem, which used to have different domains like adware, freeware, opensource, shareware, commercial software, is all being compressed and nudged down into a single monolithic model where software and websites can't survive unless they are "free", but all make their money through ads or some other indirect convoluted mechanism.

We may look back with fond memories on the days when we could simply buy and own the things we want.

[tranglos]

I'm afraid it's even worse than you are describing

Yeah, except I refuse to use it. (One exception: Evernote, but that's only because it autosyncs with my phone, I'm not using it nearly enough to justify a paid account, and there are no ad-free alternatives that I know of with a PC desktop app..)

We may look back with fond memories on the days when we could simply buy and own the things we want.

I'm not seeing much of a downslide on the Windows side, thankfully, and I dread you could prove me wrong. But whenever a new platform is introduced, it comes with a fully-developed marketing mechanism. I was amazed that so may people would pay for junk like ringtones and wallpapers (or OMG, "robot gear" in Portal 2!), but it's their money.

What's sad/strange to me is that there is next to no backlash today. Even inexperienced Windows users know to avoid spyware and adware, and indeed they're mostly a thing of the past - but all the smartphone platforms are a new breeding ground for the worst rubbish, and we eat it all up. Tech gurus and other brilliant people have been explaining at least since mid-nineties that the net is not "like" television, but in the end people seem to accept the TV delivery model, with subscriptions, advertizing and all.

Yesterday I saw ads overlaid on a YouTube video for the first time. It was a user-made game walkthrough (that's how I check if I want to buy a game), and it shows semi-transparent ads in the lower third of the picture. In Chrome. I wonder if this is what the new Flash update was for.

[tranglos]

Oh, look what just came up in Google Reader :-)

3 Easy Solutions to Remove Unwanted Android Ads

(not tested)

[40hz]

We may look back with fond memories on the days when we could simply buy and own the things we want.

That's one of the reasons why the D.I.Y. movement has been gaining so much momentum in recent years.

[attach]

[Stoic Joker]

Granted only nominally related, but...

One of the things that I noticed (with great dismay) about the new TV is it works quite well with the new program listings system that the provider just rolled out. It now has a built-in messaging system...Which means they can now spam my TV with yet more Ads, that I now have to constantly keep deleting to prevent it from jumping to the "You~Have~a~Message" menu every time I try to do anything.


WTF is next? ...Popup cheeseburger ads in (dead tree) library books??

[daddydave]

So why is is suddenly acceptable to call Android adware "free"? 99% of "free" apps on Android Market are adware, though you wouldn't know it from the market descriptions, screenshots or any blogs that recommend the software. Even Wikipedia apps show ads, though I doubt any of the proceeds go to the Wikimedia Foundation.

By any chance, do these Android apps have paid versions without ads? I started seeing those on my iPod Touch after Apple rolled out in-app purchases. In-app purchases were intended to allow app vendors to use a subscription model of payment, but developers latched onto it to fill a gap in "try it before you buy it" software on the iOS platform, thus a crude approximation of shareware was born. (That's my interpretation, anyway.) Problem is, when you download one of these, you think it is freeware and then are disappointed later when you find out it is only a demo. And often the free versions have ads, to finally get to the point.

[app103]

Adware is not freeware. Someone is paying for it, just like someone is paying for shareware...it's just not the end user that is doing the paying.

If you are ok with someone else paying for your software and having to see the credit they get for doing so (that's all an ad is) then there is nothing wrong with it, as long as the developer is up front about it so that you can make an informed decision. If you are going to be the product, with your info sold to someone else, you should know about that in advance, as well.

[tranglos]

By any chance, do these Android apps have paid versions without ads?

Many do, though my rant today was prompted by one that does not. I do use a handful of free "limited functionality" versions, and have bought a few apps too. Most of all I just want to be told that an app I'm about to download is ad-supported. At the moment, when it comes to Android almost any app described as "free" is in fact adware.

Besides the ethical considerations, one big problem with ads on a phone is the same people had when adware first appeared on PCs: metered internet connections. Plus, ads hey take up a much larger area of the screen, relatively, then they did on a PC.

[TaoPhoenix]

(Mirroring Mouser's Post)

I'm afraid it's even worse than you are describing.  

It's not just that ad supported software is becoming the accepted synonym with "free", now we have Cloud-As-A-Licensed-Service (With Ads!!) becoming the accepted synonym for "software". Now if you don't authorize every byte you download or you are a day late on your payment you lose your license.

(See Microsoft's experimentation with "remote kills" on your Windows 8 Metro Apps.)

[Renegade]

Adware is not freeware. Someone is paying for it, just like someone is paying for shareware...it's just not the end user that is doing the paying.

If you are ok with someone else paying for your software and having to see the credit they get for doing so (that's all an ad is) then there is nothing wrong with it, as long as the developer is up front about it so that you can make an informed decision. If you are going to be the product, with your info sold to someone else, you should know about that in advance, as well.

app! That's what I've been trying to say for a long time!

Let people know. Be honest. Don't hide things.

I just hate the old world connotations where the douches that used to serve ads never told anyone. That's then. This is now. I think we need to re-evaluate things.

[mouser]

Adware is not freeware. Someone is paying for it, just like someone is paying for shareware...it's just not the end user that is doing the paying.

I think the important concept that we are only beginning to come to terms with is that there are significant implications when "someone else pays" for your software.

Remember the illustration that zaine posted:


From my standpoint, the problem with ad-supported software model is not that users see ads, it's that software is no longer designed to please users -- it's designed to deliver ads.  And there is a difference.  We had a similar debate regarding printers and ink cartridges.  I just think the more convoluted the chain of processes that are involved in making money, the more f*cked up it is for our mental health.

[cyberdiva]

I just had an experience that I think is somewhat relevant to this discussion.  On another forum, I posted a message about a podcast that I had found useful.  I provided a link to the podcast; I didn't make the word "podcast" a live link but instead wrote out the URL and made it a live link.  Later, someone quoted my message and thanked me.  I noticed that in his quoting, the word "podcast" was a link, not to the podcast but to itunes.apple.com.  Then I saw that in my original message "podcast" was also a link.  I was perplexed, and I sent a message to the forum explaining that I had not made that link.  Sure enough, my message explaining this contained even more links to itunes.apple.com.  I put my cursor over one of the links, and it said "Link added by VigLink."  Apparently VigLink is a company that places these links in people's messages whether or not they want them.  The top hit to VigLink in Google said "Your links can be doing more. Unlock the power of your site's links and earn extra money from your site automatically, transparently and honestly."  Transparently?  Honestly???   I wrote to one of the forum's moderators, but I doubt that it's the forum that is making $$, and I also doubt that they'll be willing to move to a different host.

Is this adding of links to stuff that people write without their permission widespread?  I confess that I had never encountered it before, and I strongly object to it.  

[vlastimil]

I have seen these automatically added links on many web sites, it has been here for years. But it is nice to see that people are noticing it.

The forum owner is most likely getting cut of the profit from VigLink or another link-broker company. If it is some kind of free forum (running on a sub-domain), the moderator is most likely not the owner though.

BTW are you sure you did not give your permission when agreeing to the forum TOS?

The "free" word is so empty these days. I never use it on my web. Despite that, I got an funny email from an angry user few days ago, because I did not warn him that some of my software was not free. 

[mouser]

I just want to re-express my sentiments.  Although I have never produced any, I have nothing against adware as one option for software developers/users, and I don't think there is any harm in such software, in and of itself.  My objection is the gradual slide I see into a world where it is the *only* viable model for independent developers.

[40hz]

BTW are you sure you did not give your permission when agreeing to the forum TOS?

Very good point. But the TOS is often little more than 'words written on the sand' as far as that goes.

Virtually every forum or website includes a clause which says the TOS are "subject to change without notice." And it doesn't matter if you decide you no longer want to participate and decide to leave. Because you soon discover such TOS changes were also applied retroactively to anything that's already been submitted.

So it doesn't much matter what you think you've agreed to. It's whatever the site host has decided in the last ten minutes that's the rule of the land.

When the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link (WELL) started up one of the first (and in many respects, the finest) discussion forums, the rule was; "You own your own words."

Those were simpler times. And the WELL truly was unique.  

Today, post something and it's automatically and irrevocably the property of the hosting site. Unless the host gets sued for something you said. Then they quickly become 'your words' once again. There's usually something (indemnification clause) in the TOS about how you automatically agreed they can do that too. And furthermore, it also says you've agreed to defend the host site, at you own expense, if it ever happens!

How things changed since the lawyers appeared, huh?

[cyberdiva]

I have seen these automatically added links on many web sites, it has been here for years. But it is nice to see that people are noticing it.

I've certainly seen links on, say, periodicals' sites to words in an article, and occasionally I wondered why certain links were there and whether the author put those there or whether they were generated by the periodical. I confess it never occurred to me that it might be some company that had nothing to do with the periodical except a financial arrangement.  But I don't think I've ever before seen links added to an individual's post.  Certainly I've never had that experience before with anything I've posted on any forum.  It feels invasive and slimy.

The forum owner is most likely getting cut of the profit from VigLink or another link-broker company. If it is some kind of free forum (running on a sub-domain), the moderator is most likely not the owner though.

I think it's a free forum running on a sub-domain, and I doubt that anyone connected to the specific forum is getting a penny from these slimeballs.  [Did I mention that I was not happy with them?    ]

BTW are you sure you did not give your permission when agreeing to the forum TOS?

Well, one can almost never be sure about such things.  I joined that forum almost seven years ago and have participated moderately often.  Yesterday was the first time I encountered this practice. 

[Fred Nerd]

While we're on things that annoy us:

Firstly, 15- 20 years ago a phone with a battery that only lasted a day (just, with light use) and then needs 3 hours to charge would have been laughed at. But I paid good money for my Google Nexus.

Not to mention that Gingerbread already had too few settings (what to display, where to display it, in short: everything that Win95 allowed me to set on a 64Mhz processor and 64MB ram) but now I got the update for Ice Cream Sandwich and its a lot smoother looking, BUT:
Less customiseable (I can't find the 'turn off all animations' [and certainly no check boxes for each one like all geeks want), colour scheme looks pretty, but not good in bad light/dust/quick glances  or anything that tradesmen want and no 'Right click, properties, set colour scheme'

Everything you do nowadays seems to be going the Apple way "Tell us what you want and we'll get it for you" And I'm not happy with always getting something that is almost, but not quite nothing like tea (Douglas Adams, not sure if I got it right)

Now I love being able to do stuff while I'm away from my laptop/desktop but stop limiting it to a useless level. Someone emailed me a .doc file the other day but somehow removed the .doc from the name. I knew it was either .doc or .pdf and in a minute had it working on my laptop, but the Nexus refused to download it since it didn't recognise it.

I think the basic problem is that now the money is in selling to the masses and so everyone treats users as total idiots since most of them are.

Please, someone, make me a dos/console phone. Long battey life even if it weighs half a kilo, no touchscreen that doesn't work with wet hands, or gets dirty if you are called while working on something greasy, small screen for controlling it, just enough to type on the physical keyboard. And with USB support. Can add a screen on then for graphics, and a stylus for sketching.
Has to support AHK or similar and be able to run a compiler to work on project on the move.

Fred.

Oh, and Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory is nothing like a reak geek.

[J-Mac]

I just want to re-express my sentiments.  Although I have never produced any, I have nothing against adware as one option for software developers/users, and I don't think there is any harm in such software, in and of itself.  My objection is the gradual slide I see into a world where it is the *only* viable model for independent developers.

I have no problem with adware included with free software or any free service, as long as it is made clear and not slipped in  in a sneaky way. Perfectly legitimate imo.

However I hate when adware suddenly appears in a product For which I have paid. It's possible that the developer is trying to keep costs down; I'd rather pay more, though, than tolerate the inclusion of adware.

Thanks,

Jim

[wraith808]

Oh, and Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory is nothing like a reak geek.

Geeks come in all flavors and sizes.  And I have a friend that's almost exactly like Sheldon, that identifies himself as a geek.

[J-Mac]

Oh, and Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory is nothing like a reak geek.

Geeks come in all flavors and sizes.  And I have a friend that's almost exactly like Sheldon, that identifies himself as a geek.

Fred might be referring to an older, earlier meaning of the word "geek", which is a circus or carnival performer - usually one who performed odd feats with his (or her!) body: fire-eater, wild man, piercing himself with large needles, etc. Basically someone biiled as a human freak.

True Fred? Or did you just mean a super-intelligent computer geek?

Thanks!

Jim

[Fred Nerd]

I meant the geek who was a geek because thats how they actually are, not the geek who just wants to appear that way to people around them.
People who actually spend time DOING things like programming, and not just talking about it.

People say Sheldon reminds them of me, it just annoys me. He spends too much time socialising ineptly. While I am perfectly capable but just have other things that amuse me more than other people.

[wraith808]

I meant the geek who was a geek because thats how they actually are, not the geek who just wants to appear that way to people around them.
People who actually spend time DOING things like programming, and not just talking about it.

People say Sheldon reminds them of me, it just annoys me. He spends too much time socialising ineptly. While I am perfectly capable but just have other things that amuse me more than other people.

But Sheldon *does* do things.  This is a sit-com, so they show his home life more than his lab life, right?  He even brings his work home with him...

[Eóin]

The meanings of geek and nerd differ from place to place. In Ireland geek is a serious insult as it describes an individual with zero social skills. Being a nerd mostly describes someone as having non-mainstream interests. If you seek for society at large to accept you then it's a bad thing, if not, well, meh.

As for adware, if you pay then I'm opposed to it, if you didn't pay then stop complaining, even if you were not warned beforehand. People don't complain when they drive down the road and see a billboard, or if they go to a website and it has ads, so stop holding developers to some separate standard.