3 ms·

Bundling third-party software with installers already happens and will continue to happen whether this company exists or not. If they can improve upon that exp

Bundling third-party software with installers already happens and will continue to happen whether this company exists or not. If they can improve upon that experience somehow: - Reviewing the software before allowing it to be bundled and weeding out the bad eggs. - Adding user reviews inline with the list of software to install. ...then there's a possibility that they can make this a pleasant, legitimate experience for people.

skymt 14y ago
The post we're discussing mentions payouts of $0.30 to $1.50 per install. Factor in InstallMonetizer's unspecified cut, and you're looking at some pretty significant rates. What sort of software do you think can afford to pay that much to get bundled? If it's a trial up-sell at typical shareware pricing, it would need on the order of 10% conversion just to break even. I can't imagine a sensible monetization path for the bundled software that doesn't involve intrusive advertising. Any ethical review process would eliminate every applicant.
- coderdude 14y ago
  I'm still not sold that this can't be a legitimate business that cares about not bundling crap. Maybe payouts could decrease in size to attract more reasonable software and to grow their offering. It could be used for product launches for good apps. The opportunity here just doesn't seem as narrow to me as it does to others.
jfb 14y ago
There's no money in being nice to your victims.
- coderdude 14y ago
  I think they can still make money without hurting anyone's experience. (Edited because I misinterpreted your comment the first time.)
  - jfb 14y ago
    Their users (scumware peddlers) aren't susceptible to market pressure from the poor bastards who end up with their vectored garbage ruining their computing experience. Where's the incentive to make less money, once it's nut-cutting time?
    - coderdude 14y ago
      Like I said, review the software and get rid of the bad eggs. Not all of it will be bad, I'm sure, since not all of it is bad now. The incentive to leave some of the money on the table (the money from the bad people) is in not tanking your brand just to scrape in a few extra dollars.
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        The problem is that the end user is not the customer here, so the perception of their brand in the users eyes is nowhere near as important as the ROI they can deliver for the bundleware vendors. Think of it like the IRS, they don't increase the tax take by being nice to people.
        coderdude 14y ago
        So who cares about their image then? The original software vendor, probably. If they bundle crap with your install then take it up with them. If enough people did then they would probably stop using this company. So it all comes back to them eventually. Even if it's not in a negative PR way.
        jiggy2011 14y ago
        That doesn't seem to have happened so far. It's difficult to find free Windows programs that don't come bundled with some crapware these days. As mentioned elsewhere a lot of these things are actually open source software products that have been rebundled, thus the reputation they are hurting is not their own. I expect it is partly also a result of Windows devs who start out trying to make money by selling a "pro" version of their software but then find that either enough people are happy with the free version and a good chunk of the remaining users just pirate the pro version anyway.
jiggy2011 14y ago
How do we know what a "bad egg" is? Just because some behaviour is acceptable to "InstallMonetizer" does not mean it will necessarily be acceptable to me. Besides if they are seeking to maximise revenues for investors there will always be that incentive to find ways to justify bundling more intrusive stuff.
- coderdude 14y ago
  Like most people they probably know what sucks to have sprung on them. If they don't want their brand to suck as well then they can strive to align with peoples' expectations of how such software should behave. You don't like popups? I'll bet they know that. I think the investors can see the value in not tarnishing the brand and so that might fuel their efforts to make sure none of their advertisers can be classified as malware/adware.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    Problem is that the end user is probably going to think "My computer is full of pop-ups wtf is going on?" not "oh, I have popups because I installed FreePornApp 2.0 which came with InstallMonitizer 3, I'll make sure not to get anything with that bundleware again".
    - coderdude 14y ago
      I've mentioned several times now that this company could review software that gets bundled. It's going full circle. Let's end this with: Who cares.
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        There is no business reason to align the review process with customer needs, only with ROI.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "You don't like popups? I'll bet they know that." Knowing is not caring.

skymt 14y ago

The post we're discussing mentions payouts of $0.30 to $1.50 per install. Factor in InstallMonetizer's unspecified cut, and you're looking at some pretty significant rates. What sort of software do you think can afford to pay that much to get bundled? If it's a trial up-sell at typical shareware pricing, it would need on the order of 10% conversion just to break even. I can't imagine a sensible monetization path for the bundled software that doesn't involve intrusive advertising. Any ethical review process would eliminate every applicant.

coderdude 14y ago
I'm still not sold that this can't be a legitimate business that cares about not bundling crap. Maybe payouts could decrease in size to attract more reasonable software and to grow their offering. It could be used for product launches for good apps. The opportunity here just doesn't seem as narrow to me as it does to others.

jfb 14y ago

There's no money in being nice to your victims.

coderdude 14y ago
I think they can still make money without hurting anyone's experience. (Edited because I misinterpreted your comment the first time.)
- jfb 14y ago
  Their users (scumware peddlers) aren't susceptible to market pressure from the poor bastards who end up with their vectored garbage ruining their computing experience. Where's the incentive to make less money, once it's nut-cutting time?
  - coderdude 14y ago
    Like I said, review the software and get rid of the bad eggs. Not all of it will be bad, I'm sure, since not all of it is bad now. The incentive to leave some of the money on the table (the money from the bad people) is in not tanking your brand just to scrape in a few extra dollars.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      The problem is that the end user is not the customer here, so the perception of their brand in the users eyes is nowhere near as important as the ROI they can deliver for the bundleware vendors. Think of it like the IRS, they don't increase the tax take by being nice to people.
      - coderdude 14y ago
        So who cares about their image then? The original software vendor, probably. If they bundle crap with your install then take it up with them. If enough people did then they would probably stop using this company. So it all comes back to them eventually. Even if it's not in a negative PR way.
        jiggy2011 14y ago
        That doesn't seem to have happened so far. It's difficult to find free Windows programs that don't come bundled with some crapware these days. As mentioned elsewhere a lot of these things are actually open source software products that have been rebundled, thus the reputation they are hurting is not their own. I expect it is partly also a result of Windows devs who start out trying to make money by selling a "pro" version of their software but then find that either enough people are happy with the free version and a good chunk of the remaining users just pirate the pro version anyway.

jiggy2011 14y ago

How do we know what a "bad egg" is? Just because some behaviour is acceptable to "InstallMonetizer" does not mean it will necessarily be acceptable to me. Besides if they are seeking to maximise revenues for investors there will always be that incentive to find ways to justify bundling more intrusive stuff.

coderdude 14y ago
Like most people they probably know what sucks to have sprung on them. If they don't want their brand to suck as well then they can strive to align with peoples' expectations of how such software should behave. You don't like popups? I'll bet they know that. I think the investors can see the value in not tarnishing the brand and so that might fuel their efforts to make sure none of their advertisers can be classified as malware/adware.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Problem is that the end user is probably going to think "My computer is full of pop-ups wtf is going on?" not "oh, I have popups because I installed FreePornApp 2.0 which came with InstallMonitizer 3, I'll make sure not to get anything with that bundleware again".
  - coderdude 14y ago
    I've mentioned several times now that this company could review software that gets bundled. It's going full circle. Let's end this with: Who cares.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      There is no business reason to align the review process with customer needs, only with ROI.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "You don't like popups? I'll bet they know that." Knowing is not caring.