Avast Installs Chrome

[Renegade]

I just set up a new VM, installed Avast, and it installed Chrome, but never prompted me anywhere about it. It just installed it without asking. Now, I was going to install Chrome anyways, but... (From the download at CNET.)

[Ath]

That's a practice I've seen before, both from Avast and other software[s/z]

[Renegade]

I can't say I remember the last time I saw anything like it happen to me. I try not to install any software if possible, and am pretty careful about the software I do install. I almost thought it was a thing of the past now. Guess I was wrong.

[40hz]

It's been awhile since that practice was starting to become popular with certain software publishers. But from what I've read in several places, it seems to be on the rise again. And IIRC, it was always Chrome that got installed - which make me wonder what incentives Google is offering to software authors that this is now happening.

One move I've seen that's particularly annoying is to furnish only one installer for both the paid and unpaid versions of a product. The unpaid version is (supposedly) why the crapware gets installed along with it. But the problem is that if you did pay for the product you have to install it first in upaid/demo mode - and only then can you activate it with your registration key. So either way the junk comes along for the ride.

Cute huh?

[Renegade]

But from what I've read in several places, it seems to be on the rise again. And IIRC, it was always Chrome that got installed - which make me wonder what incentives Google is offering to software authors that this is now happening.

Quite.

Guess it's not evil to slip your software onto someone's computer without letting them know about it. Nope. No evil here. These are not the evils you're looking for. Move along...

At least with Open Candy it's right out in the open and obvious and you can opt out or opt in if you like.

[40hz]

At least with Open Candy it's right out in the open and obvious and you can opt out or opt in if you like.

Provided the developer plays by the rules. OC has taken steps to try and ensure that. Not everybody else has.

In the end, however, the responsibility must always rest with the developer. The piggy-back crowd still needs to have somebody bundle them in.

[f0dder]

which make me wonder what incentives Google is offering to software authors that this is now happening.

It makes me wonder whether Google tolerates this behavior - that'd be piss-poor of them, and be a pretty damn clear violation of "do no evil".

[Dormouse]

I tried downloading something from CNET recently, and found that it wanted to use a CNET installer and was going to install other stuff. I left it and found the software available on Softpedia with no extra stuff. I can't remember what the program was, but I've avoided CNET since.

Google do seem to be offering incentives to developers for recommending Chrome or getting it installed - but then they have been large funders of FF and Opera as well as developing Chrome themselves. I think that is at least as much about opposing MS & IE, as it is about being the preferred Search Engine.

[wraith808]

which make me wonder what incentives Google is offering to software authors that this is now happening.

It makes me wonder whether Google tolerates this behavior - that'd be piss-poor of them, and be a pretty damn clear violation of "do no evil".

That bird has flown the coop.  The horns are out, and the cackling has begun.

[40hz]

I tried downloading something from CNET recently, and found that it wanted to use a CNET installer and was going to install other stuff. I left it and found the software available on Softpedia with no extra stuff. I can't remember what the program was, but I've avoided CNET since.

That was definitely a jive move on CNET's part. But  they got so much backlash on it that they now furnish a very discreet link on most software titles that will let you go directly to the developer's webpage. If you open the full specs link from the product's main page you'll find it. Unfortunately more than a few devs are now either hosting their downloads on CNET's servers - or have cut a deal with them. So now, even if you go to some dev's homepage, their download link will still direct you back to CNET for the actual download.

[attachthumb=#]

In the case of a product like Piriform's CCleaner, the link goes directly to Prirform homepage. And the download can be done directly from Piri. But other products like Virtual DJ, just send you back to CNET.

I have a firm rule that if a product is only available using the CNET loader, I'll pass. There's enough good stuff out there that we shouldn't have to put up with that.

[Renegade]

Last I checked, the CNET installers were just stubs for a web installer. The download I had was 90 MB or something like that, so I figured it was clean.

Then, during the install, it appeared to be a normal installer, with nothing in it, so I didn't suspect anything (I always look for opt outs). Then... Chrome launches...

It seems they've changed things from simple web stubs to full installers.

-- FWIW - I didn't install AVG because the download was too small, and I figured it was a web installer to install more crap.  

[Dormouse]

I tried downloading something from CNET recently, and found that it wanted to use a CNET installer and was going to install other stuff. I left it and found the software available on Softpedia with no extra stuff. I can't remember what the program was, but I've avoided CNET since.

That was definitely a jive move on CNET's part. But  they got so much backlash on it that they now furnish a very discreet link on most software titles that will let you go directly to the developer's webpage. If you open the full specs link from the product's main page you'll find it. Unfortunately more than a few devs are now either hosting their downloads on CNET's servers - or have cut a deal with them. So now, even if you go to some dev's homepage, their download link will still direct you back to CNET for the actual download.

I have a firm rule that if a product is only available using the CNET loader, I'll pass. There's enough good stuff out there that we shouldn't have to put up with that.

I hadn't been aware of that move by CNET. I remember that the developer's site did take me back to CNET, so then looked around and found it clean on Softpedia. I think I must be operating the same rule as you. 

[40hz]

@Dormouse - Yup. I'll go to Softpedia, Filehippo, or even MajorGeeks - or just about anywhere else before I'll even think about looking at CNET. Which is a shame. It used to be such a good website.

Checkout FreewareBB (if you haven't already) when you get a chance. Some very interesting and useful things to look at. They list many excellent titles which don't seem to ever get listed elsewhere.

[tomos]

The cnet installer was discussed here
http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=27720.0


In the past few months I've had quite a few unexpected 'offers' to install chrome (with other installs) - some were pre-selected but at least they were with an opt-out. I've read that Flash installed it silently in some situations recently (http://forums.adobe.com/message/4692105)
What else was there lately - oh yeah, 'mega' from kim.com telling people they 'needed' to use chrome cause their curent browser not good enough.

[Carol Haynes]

Just downloaded Avast Free. It does install Google Chrome and Google Toolbar for IE but it is a very clear option if you use custom install.

I suspect the problems described above are from CNET's policy of using their own installer wrapper with built in crapware, not Avast.

Personally I refuse to download anything from CNET these days as their files are always stuffed with unwanted "surprises".

[wraith808]

It does install Google Chrome and Google Toolbar for IE but it is a very clear option if you use custom install.

So if you don't use a custom install, there's no option not to install it?  That's still not kosher, IMO.

[mwb1100]

So if you don't use a custom install, there's no option not to install it?  That's still not kosher, IMO.

That kind of thing seems to be becoming more common in installers today (not specifically for Chrome, but installing 'companion software').  However, I agree that it's not kosher. A software installer should install the software I'm installing, not other crap that really has nothing to do with the software I'm installing.

But to help avoid this kind of thing, I always choose a custom install even if I have no real intention of customizing the installation. Every now and again, it catches something like this.

[Carol Haynes]

I agree but if you don't use custom install on every install you deserve what you get these days - especially when you are using free software.

[wraith808]

I agree but if you don't use custom install on every install you deserve what you get these days - especially when you are using free software.

I'd not say that.  That's accepting that this is good practice.  They need to be called on it.  Especially with people out there who don't know this.  How many computers have you had to service because joe normal used a regular install?  If we excuse it, then that number will go up, and I wouldn't say that it is deserved, IMO.

[tomos]

How many computers have you had to service because joe normal used a regular install?

maybe that's why she's not complaining -she get's paid for it- not like the rest of us

[wraith808]

^ 

[Carol Haynes]

True - I am not complaining but I do tell all my clients never install anything without going trhough custom or advanced options and reading what they are installing. I have cleaned up computers that have had literally half a screen of toolbars in Internet Explorer and the owner has no idea how any of them got there.

Having said that I think that anything that installs any extras or changes settings such as home pages and search engines by default are despicable. Unfortunately it seems the norm these days, even from companies like Microsoft who try at every opportunity to install Bing crap everywhere and change home pages to MSN - even through windows update!!!

[Tinman57]

I just set up a new VM, installed Avast, and it installed Chrome, but never prompted me anywhere about it. It just installed it without asking. Now, I was going to install Chrome anyways, but... (From the download at CNET.)

  It's because you downloaded from CNET.  They have a nasty habit of adding crapware and other software for a profit.  Download Avast from the Avast website and stay clear of CNET.

[Renegade]

  It's because you downloaded from CNET.  They have a nasty habit of adding crapware and other software for a profit.  Download Avast from the Avast website and stay clear of CNET.

Thing is, Avast directs you to CNET to download...

I haven't had that issue in the past, and I look for secondary downloads at CNET (checking the text to see if it does have anything bundled). Guess they're changing again.

[Carol Haynes]

Direct download:

http://files.avast.com/iavs5x/avast_free_antivirus_setup.exe

If the link doesn't work just go to www.avast.com, click Support and then look at the Downloads section (bottom left).