7 ms·

> and that it's our own fault Whose fault exactly is it? Has anybody in HN worked with a company which does this crapware bundling, let alone creating? Or doe

by zxcdw 12y ago

> and that it's our own fault Whose fault exactly is it? Has anybody in HN worked with a company which does this crapware bundling, let alone creating? Or does anybody know anyone who's "in the business"? Because I, quite honestly, can't understand how or why people would be doing this. Is it really that "Well, I know this shit is going to infect thousands of machines with software which nobody would like to have, but hey, it gives me my salary, fuck yeah!"? It's just sad that there are people scamming others like this, and people who jump into it because hey, paycheck!

guycook 12y ago
Pretty much, yes - if there's a buck to be made and the law isn't being broken (in a way that will be meaningfully prosecuted), someone will do it. To answer your first question, someone from HN should surely about this given: http://www.istartedsomething.com/20130115/y-combinator-is-funding-the-future-of-spam-in-windows-drive-by-crapware-installers/ http://www.istartedsomething.com/20130115/y-combinator-is-fu... Extensive commentary at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059806
- makomk 12y ago
  Yeah, pg even defended a YC-backed company that had built a business model around exactly this kind of bundling, saying that it wasn't a big deal because their installers always asked for permission before installing the bundled crap. (Which they did in exactly the same way as these download.com installers - by making the prompts look like EULA acceptance screens.)
- username223 12y ago
  pg "investigated" that crapware company a couple of years ago [1], but they still apparently exist, and continue to collect MAC addresses. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5062133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5062133
  - unreal37 12y ago
    What was the result of that investigation? Can't find any info in the original thread.
    - username223 12y ago
      I don't know, but I'm guessing that the comment solved the PR problem, so there was no need to do any investigation, or to act on the results of one. EDIT: pg's response was basically "suck it": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711
glesica 12y ago
> Has anybody in HN worked with a company which does this crapware bundling, let alone creating? If anyone here has worked for Adobe (Flash included crapware for a long time), Oracle (Java updates used to or still do include crapware), Google (browser toolbar was crapware), or Apple (Quicktime for Windows attempted to install iTunes and Safari), then yes.
- muhfuhkuh 12y ago
  Ooh, that's right. Stupid Ask toolbar in the Java updates.
- username223 12y ago
  Every sane piece of Mac software: download a big disk image (dmg), mount it, copy the application folder to /Applications. To uninstall, drag it to the trash. Adobe software: download a tiny disk image, launch the hideous Adobe installer program, give it root, have it download and install God-knows-what to God-knows-where. To uninstall, open a terminal and go medieval on everything with a name containing "Adobe", "Macromedia", "Flash", etc. Adobe creates the most user-hostile software that is not pure malware.
  - dec0dedab0de 12y ago
    Adobe creates the most user-hostile software that is not pure malware. I have always had a problem with adobe, and I used to say it was because 'they specialize in non-standards', but I think you have a much better point. It just feels like you're getting screwed every time you see that A.
    - username223 12y ago
      > 'they specialize in non-standards' I think you have the nub of it here. I first learned to loathe Adobe almost 20 years ago, with Acrobat for X11. Every other X11 program would spawn a new process and a new window when you typed "program ... &" in your xterm, but "acroread ... &" would talk to the One True Acroread Ur-process instead. This, of course, caused all sorts of unpleasant and non-standard behavior when opening and closing PDF files. Not to mention that the interface was a bloated nightmare compared to xdvi and ghostview. Then they bought Macromedia and Flash, with its ability to create non-standard horrors on the web. It was like watching the formation of a black hole of abusive software, and I still wait for AOL and RealPlayer to be sucked in by Adobe's evil gravitational pull.
danielweber 12y ago
> Whose fault exactly is it? People who think that software should be free, as in beer. Developers have to be paid. When people paid for software with dollars, this exchange was much more straightforward. But now people think that software should be free as in beer, which means it comes with ad software or "sponsored software" that in turns sells ads, or spies on everything you do, or something to pay the bills.
- totony 12y ago
  I don't think your argument is valid. If you market your software as free, then it should be. You can't just fill the computer of the person with trash without asking just because "but I have to be paid!!!!". Now, some of these softwares did ask for permissions, I am just responding to your comment. If it's going to spy on you, it should tell you right up, not in small prints in the EULA. Also, the assumption that developpers have to be paid is wrong, some people might do it for charity or for other non-profit reasons.
- vegedor 12y ago
  Paying for software virtually limits the supply, which is detrimental to many efforts. Software is not a consumable like beer, therefore the comparison doesn't work. Granted, development is not a one-time investment with virtually unlimited pay-out, either, if maintenance is involved, and has a half-time decay due to progress in technology - but precisely because of that, people would rather not pay than make a risky investment. Ultimately, it's hard to put a price tag on it, therefore we are better of getting people jump the band-wagon instead of declining the benefits of the technology that in case of doubt would seem overpriced. And then there are the idealistic developers who don't need to get paid for that specific piece, because they did it out of need, not greed. The potential for abuse on that side is also apparent, that limits the free market. So, two adjoint markets exist with some customer-transfer: One for power-users that can estimate the value of the tool and are willing to pay and another for freeloaders. Freeloaders benefit from a quick decline of value in the upper market, while the upper market benefits from a growing, free market that is basically advertising if not educating for the upper market. Only nothing is ever really free, freebies come with a small or hidden price attached. I should go read the bazaar and the cathedral http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/
Someone 12y ago
Our fault, collectively, just as it is our fault that the environment is being destroyed, or that third world clothing manufacturers pay peanuts to their employees. If 'we' wanted to, we would at least work on getting rid of this kind of behaviour. In an alternative world, the equivalent of GreenPeace would parade the C|NET offices, newspapers would write angry editorials about them, harmed users would write them millions of complaint letters, and class action lawsuits would be filed. Problem is that 'normal' users have been slowly subdued into "it's my fault" mode.
- Retra 12y ago
  Nobody has time for all that. Humans just don't have the attention bandwidth to solve problems like this. Not in conjunction with everything else going on in the world.

by zxcdw 12y ago

guycook 12y ago

Pretty much, yes - if there's a buck to be made and the law isn't being broken (in a way that will be meaningfully prosecuted), someone will do it. To answer your first question, someone from HN should surely about this given: http://www.istartedsomething.com/20130115/y-combinator-is-funding-the-future-of-spam-in-windows-drive-by-crapware-installers/ http://www.istartedsomething.com/20130115/y-combinator-is-fu... Extensive commentary at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059806

makomk 12y ago
Yeah, pg even defended a YC-backed company that had built a business model around exactly this kind of bundling, saying that it wasn't a big deal because their installers always asked for permission before installing the bundled crap. (Which they did in exactly the same way as these download.com installers - by making the prompts look like EULA acceptance screens.)
username223 12y ago
pg "investigated" that crapware company a couple of years ago [1], but they still apparently exist, and continue to collect MAC addresses. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5062133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5062133
- unreal37 12y ago
  What was the result of that investigation? Can't find any info in the original thread.
  - username223 12y ago
    I don't know, but I'm guessing that the comment solved the PR problem, so there was no need to do any investigation, or to act on the results of one. EDIT: pg's response was basically "suck it": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711

glesica 12y ago

> Has anybody in HN worked with a company which does this crapware bundling, let alone creating? If anyone here has worked for Adobe (Flash included crapware for a long time), Oracle (Java updates used to or still do include crapware), Google (browser toolbar was crapware), or Apple (Quicktime for Windows attempted to install iTunes and Safari), then yes.

muhfuhkuh 12y ago
Ooh, that's right. Stupid Ask toolbar in the Java updates.
username223 12y ago
Every sane piece of Mac software: download a big disk image (dmg), mount it, copy the application folder to /Applications. To uninstall, drag it to the trash. Adobe software: download a tiny disk image, launch the hideous Adobe installer program, give it root, have it download and install God-knows-what to God-knows-where. To uninstall, open a terminal and go medieval on everything with a name containing "Adobe", "Macromedia", "Flash", etc. Adobe creates the most user-hostile software that is not pure malware.
- dec0dedab0de 12y ago
  Adobe creates the most user-hostile software that is not pure malware. I have always had a problem with adobe, and I used to say it was because 'they specialize in non-standards', but I think you have a much better point. It just feels like you're getting screwed every time you see that A.
  - username223 12y ago
    > 'they specialize in non-standards' I think you have the nub of it here. I first learned to loathe Adobe almost 20 years ago, with Acrobat for X11. Every other X11 program would spawn a new process and a new window when you typed "program ... &" in your xterm, but "acroread ... &" would talk to the One True Acroread Ur-process instead. This, of course, caused all sorts of unpleasant and non-standard behavior when opening and closing PDF files. Not to mention that the interface was a bloated nightmare compared to xdvi and ghostview. Then they bought Macromedia and Flash, with its ability to create non-standard horrors on the web. It was like watching the formation of a black hole of abusive software, and I still wait for AOL and RealPlayer to be sucked in by Adobe's evil gravitational pull.

danielweber 12y ago

> Whose fault exactly is it? People who think that software should be free, as in beer. Developers have to be paid. When people paid for software with dollars, this exchange was much more straightforward. But now people think that software should be free as in beer, which means it comes with ad software or "sponsored software" that in turns sells ads, or spies on everything you do, or something to pay the bills.

totony 12y ago
I don't think your argument is valid. If you market your software as free, then it should be. You can't just fill the computer of the person with trash without asking just because "but I have to be paid!!!!". Now, some of these softwares did ask for permissions, I am just responding to your comment. If it's going to spy on you, it should tell you right up, not in small prints in the EULA. Also, the assumption that developpers have to be paid is wrong, some people might do it for charity or for other non-profit reasons.
vegedor 12y ago
Paying for software virtually limits the supply, which is detrimental to many efforts. Software is not a consumable like beer, therefore the comparison doesn't work. Granted, development is not a one-time investment with virtually unlimited pay-out, either, if maintenance is involved, and has a half-time decay due to progress in technology - but precisely because of that, people would rather not pay than make a risky investment. Ultimately, it's hard to put a price tag on it, therefore we are better of getting people jump the band-wagon instead of declining the benefits of the technology that in case of doubt would seem overpriced. And then there are the idealistic developers who don't need to get paid for that specific piece, because they did it out of need, not greed. The potential for abuse on that side is also apparent, that limits the free market. So, two adjoint markets exist with some customer-transfer: One for power-users that can estimate the value of the tool and are willing to pay and another for freeloaders. Freeloaders benefit from a quick decline of value in the upper market, while the upper market benefits from a growing, free market that is basically advertising if not educating for the upper market. Only nothing is ever really free, freebies come with a small or hidden price attached. I should go read the bazaar and the cathedral http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

Someone 12y ago

Our fault, collectively, just as it is our fault that the environment is being destroyed, or that third world clothing manufacturers pay peanuts to their employees. If 'we' wanted to, we would at least work on getting rid of this kind of behaviour. In an alternative world, the equivalent of GreenPeace would parade the C|NET offices, newspapers would write angry editorials about them, harmed users would write them millions of complaint letters, and class action lawsuits would be filed. Problem is that 'normal' users have been slowly subdued into "it's my fault" mode.

Retra 12y ago
Nobody has time for all that. Humans just don't have the attention bandwidth to solve problems like this. Not in conjunction with everything else going on in the world.