6 ms·

Agreed, a lot of the reasons that non technical users dislike Windows seem to be the result of these. It really takes control out of the users hands. We can se

by jiggy2011 14y ago

Agreed, a lot of the reasons that non technical users dislike Windows seem to be the result of these. It really takes control out of the users hands. We can see the origins of this becoming a problem on Ubuntu with Canonical adding stuff like the Amazon search and seemingly having no issue with bundleware as a means of monetisation. On the other hand I'm surprised this isn't more of an issue on the Mac, since Mac (especially older versions) will allow installation of software from random sources which could include bundleware. Is there something about OS X that makes bundleware more difficult to develop or is it just easier to monetise an OS X app without bundleware?

Someone 14y ago
IMO, some of it is due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory. One developer starts with an advert, somebody else has two, a third developer gets paid to sneak in some toolbar, the first notices "hey, I can make money that way, too", and the ball gets rolling. Now, the question is why this has not happened for Mac Software, at least not on that scale. Gruber (2004) claims it is due to zero tolerance (http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/broken_windows http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/broken_windows). I think that is partly true, and it sort-of started with the original PC. Installing a DOS program such as Lotus123 was a nightmare, where people had to answer such question as "number of lines on a page" and "how does your printer do bold" to configure a printer. Installing hardware, similarly, was a nightmare (what IRQ should we use? Do you have extended or expanded memory? etc).
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Interesting analogy, it's certainly true that there is some sense of "community" for both Linux and Mac users in that people will generally choose these platforms because they have certain beliefs about how things should work and won't tolerate things that fall outside of this. Windows on the other hand has no community and is kind of an multi-cultural wasteland where everything goes thus will tolerate more BS. Not sure I agree with Gruber's conclusion though, if Mac had a large uptake in market share then that community would become diluted. As it stands the random Grandma that uses a Mac without understanding computers gets a sort of herd immunity because there is a larger percentage of more nerdy and vocal users who won't tolerate BS. If grandmas become the overwhelming majority of Mac users they lose some of that because the crapware vendors know that grandma is very unlikely to read the blogposts condemning their software.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    It's low market penetration which explains the difference between OSX and Linux on the one hand and Windows on the other. The iOS and Android app stores are full of crapware. Yes, that crapware does not have all the features of it's counterpart in the Windows ecosystem. Yet, much of it provides little value or functionality and even functional applications collect vast amounts of data not necessary for that functionality.
Adirael 14y ago
A lot of OS X apps are installed by dragging the app to /Applications, no installer involved, it may be one of the reasons.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Not familiar with the OSX installation procedure, but I assume that dragging the app into the folder runs some installer script? Are there perhaps restrictions on what can be done via these scripts that would require 2 distinct actions to install say a browser toolbar and application?
  - czr80 14y ago
    No, it's just copying the bundle.
  - ewolf 14y ago
    Nope, no installer script. If a program needs installer script (to install drivers etc.), you get a package installer (like on Windows), however, they are rather rare and I've never seen any crapware in those so far.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jvzr 14y ago
    Dragging an app into /Applications does just that: it copies a directory (hidden with an .app extension) that contains resources and executable. No script. Some apps however come with an installer, but that's for apps that do more (e.g. need to install drivers, etc.). However, it's Apple's own installer which I think is provided by Xcode. So, no way to mess with it and install crappy things.
    - gsnedders 14y ago
      You can run arbitrary scripts in the installer, so you can install anything you want.
h2s 14y ago
I can see the future of apt-get on Ubuntu now... $ sudo apt-get install emacs After this operation, 86.3 MB of additional disk space will be used and AVG Toolbar Pro! GOLD EDITION will be installed to Chromium Do you want to continue [Y/n]?
- dkuntz2 14y ago
  If that happens, all someone needs to do is repackage Debian's version of aptitude for Ubuntu. Or an older version from Ubuntu. Really, this is a non-issue on Linux, because either 1) someone will just "fix" it an release their alternative, or 2) everyone will just stop using the offender.
  - lmm 14y ago
    You could've said the same thing about e.g. download.com. Turns out there's such a thing as momentum.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    Depends on what type of software you are talking about. For copyright protected proprietary software (which Canonical want people to develop for their OS) there may be legal protections which prevent it from being rebundled outside of torrent sites (which have their own risks). #2 assumes a savvy enough userbase.
    - dkuntz2 14y ago
      Legal protections against rebundling aptitude? Something released under the GPL? Which means everyone has all of the ability to easily change the sucker. If you're packaging something as a deb, you can potentially bundle other things, but at the same time, because a deb is a glorified tar.gz, someone can just provide information on how to get rid of the offending thing. Or, if you're using Arch, the AUR maintainer just adjusts the PKGBUILD to do it for you. It's not particularly hard. And sure, having people install a different package manager requires a savvy enough userbase, to an extent. If they can copy and paste a couple commands into the terminal, they can change it (wget [somefile] && dpkg -i [somefile]). How hard.
rsynnott 14y ago
> Is there something about OS X that makes bundleware more difficult to develop or is it just easier to monetise an OS X app without bundleware? MacOS apps very rarely have an installer, so there's little opportunity to install this sort of thing.
- veidr 14y ago
  Installers are (rightfully) rare on OS X, but that doesn't preclude installing any random crapware you want. Your app can do it on first launch (or hey, tenth launch to make it less visible). Lots of apps have a first-launch screen where they confirm some options and maybe even ask for an admin password for housekeeping. Hmm, Monetizer.framework?
  - rsynnott 14y ago
    Users are trained to just accept whatever in installers, however, while popups on first launch demanding admin passwords will often be treated with a little more suspicion.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      Yes, I changed my UAC settings under Windows to require the admin password before sudoing (or whatever MS calls it). It was just too easy to me even as a relatively experienced user to knee-jerk click the "Allow" button.
veidr 14y ago
There is now a modest obstacle -- Apple's walled-garden app store approach. The default settings of the very latest OS won't allow a novice user to run a crapware installer, and Apple's app store won't feature them (unless the harried reviewer glances away from his monitor to drink some water or something). HOWEVER, Mac OS X has never had this problem, and before the app store there was nothing inherently harder about writing crapware that bundles whatever creepy garbage could be monetized. So actually I really wonder why OS X and Linux never had this problem (to any major extent). Is it merely the awesomeness of single-digit market share? In that case, Ubuntu's safe but Apple better start worrying about it. Personally I suspect it's more complicated than that, but my ideas are half-baked.
bjustin 14y ago
OS X applications are usually distributed as disk images (.dmg) containing the app itself, a symlink to /Applications for easily copying the app there, and maybe supporting files. Installers are unusual, except for huge software packages like Office or odd things like preference panes, which are not as easy to get to the right place. I presume that people using Macs tend to be 1) wary of downloading any programs from random websites and 2) wary of having to run something like an installer. The Mac App Store means that people will only do these things less going forward.
- oftenwrong 14y ago
  >I presume that people using Macs tend to be 1) wary of downloading any programs from random websites and 2) wary of having to run something like an installer. If only. Last time I did a "check up" on my sister's macbook she had managed to install a toolbar and some other evil shitware that would hijack her google searches to collect her info and redirect her to bing.

Someone 14y ago

IMO, some of it is due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory. One developer starts with an advert, somebody else has two, a third developer gets paid to sneak in some toolbar, the first notices "hey, I can make money that way, too", and the ball gets rolling. Now, the question is why this has not happened for Mac Software, at least not on that scale. Gruber (2004) claims it is due to zero tolerance (http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/broken_windows http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/broken_windows). I think that is partly true, and it sort-of started with the original PC. Installing a DOS program such as Lotus123 was a nightmare, where people had to answer such question as "number of lines on a page" and "how does your printer do bold" to configure a printer. Installing hardware, similarly, was a nightmare (what IRQ should we use? Do you have extended or expanded memory? etc).

jiggy2011 14y ago
Interesting analogy, it's certainly true that there is some sense of "community" for both Linux and Mac users in that people will generally choose these platforms because they have certain beliefs about how things should work and won't tolerate things that fall outside of this. Windows on the other hand has no community and is kind of an multi-cultural wasteland where everything goes thus will tolerate more BS. Not sure I agree with Gruber's conclusion though, if Mac had a large uptake in market share then that community would become diluted. As it stands the random Grandma that uses a Mac without understanding computers gets a sort of herd immunity because there is a larger percentage of more nerdy and vocal users who won't tolerate BS. If grandmas become the overwhelming majority of Mac users they lose some of that because the crapware vendors know that grandma is very unlikely to read the blogposts condemning their software.
- brudgers 14y ago
  It's low market penetration which explains the difference between OSX and Linux on the one hand and Windows on the other. The iOS and Android app stores are full of crapware. Yes, that crapware does not have all the features of it's counterpart in the Windows ecosystem. Yet, much of it provides little value or functionality and even functional applications collect vast amounts of data not necessary for that functionality.

Adirael 14y ago

A lot of OS X apps are installed by dragging the app to /Applications, no installer involved, it may be one of the reasons.

jiggy2011 14y ago
Not familiar with the OSX installation procedure, but I assume that dragging the app into the folder runs some installer script? Are there perhaps restrictions on what can be done via these scripts that would require 2 distinct actions to install say a browser toolbar and application?
- czr80 14y ago
  No, it's just copying the bundle.
- ewolf 14y ago
  Nope, no installer script. If a program needs installer script (to install drivers etc.), you get a package installer (like on Windows), however, they are rather rare and I've never seen any crapware in those so far.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jvzr 14y ago
  Dragging an app into /Applications does just that: it copies a directory (hidden with an .app extension) that contains resources and executable. No script. Some apps however come with an installer, but that's for apps that do more (e.g. need to install drivers, etc.). However, it's Apple's own installer which I think is provided by Xcode. So, no way to mess with it and install crappy things.
  - gsnedders 14y ago
    You can run arbitrary scripts in the installer, so you can install anything you want.

h2s 14y ago

I can see the future of apt-get on Ubuntu now... $ sudo apt-get install emacs After this operation, 86.3 MB of additional disk space will be used and AVG Toolbar Pro! GOLD EDITION will be installed to Chromium Do you want to continue [Y/n]?

dkuntz2 14y ago
If that happens, all someone needs to do is repackage Debian's version of aptitude for Ubuntu. Or an older version from Ubuntu. Really, this is a non-issue on Linux, because either 1) someone will just "fix" it an release their alternative, or 2) everyone will just stop using the offender.
- lmm 14y ago
  You could've said the same thing about e.g. download.com. Turns out there's such a thing as momentum.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Depends on what type of software you are talking about. For copyright protected proprietary software (which Canonical want people to develop for their OS) there may be legal protections which prevent it from being rebundled outside of torrent sites (which have their own risks). #2 assumes a savvy enough userbase.
  - dkuntz2 14y ago
    Legal protections against rebundling aptitude? Something released under the GPL? Which means everyone has all of the ability to easily change the sucker. If you're packaging something as a deb, you can potentially bundle other things, but at the same time, because a deb is a glorified tar.gz, someone can just provide information on how to get rid of the offending thing. Or, if you're using Arch, the AUR maintainer just adjusts the PKGBUILD to do it for you. It's not particularly hard. And sure, having people install a different package manager requires a savvy enough userbase, to an extent. If they can copy and paste a couple commands into the terminal, they can change it (wget [somefile] && dpkg -i [somefile]). How hard.

rsynnott 14y ago

> Is there something about OS X that makes bundleware more difficult to develop or is it just easier to monetise an OS X app without bundleware? MacOS apps very rarely have an installer, so there's little opportunity to install this sort of thing.

veidr 14y ago
Installers are (rightfully) rare on OS X, but that doesn't preclude installing any random crapware you want. Your app can do it on first launch (or hey, tenth launch to make it less visible). Lots of apps have a first-launch screen where they confirm some options and maybe even ask for an admin password for housekeeping. Hmm, Monetizer.framework?
- rsynnott 14y ago
  Users are trained to just accept whatever in installers, however, while popups on first launch demanding admin passwords will often be treated with a little more suspicion.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    Yes, I changed my UAC settings under Windows to require the admin password before sudoing (or whatever MS calls it). It was just too easy to me even as a relatively experienced user to knee-jerk click the "Allow" button.

veidr 14y ago

There is now a modest obstacle -- Apple's walled-garden app store approach. The default settings of the very latest OS won't allow a novice user to run a crapware installer, and Apple's app store won't feature them (unless the harried reviewer glances away from his monitor to drink some water or something). HOWEVER, Mac OS X has never had this problem, and before the app store there was nothing inherently harder about writing crapware that bundles whatever creepy garbage could be monetized. So actually I really wonder why OS X and Linux never had this problem (to any major extent). Is it merely the awesomeness of single-digit market share? In that case, Ubuntu's safe but Apple better start worrying about it. Personally I suspect it's more complicated than that, but my ideas are half-baked.

bjustin 14y ago

OS X applications are usually distributed as disk images (.dmg) containing the app itself, a symlink to /Applications for easily copying the app there, and maybe supporting files. Installers are unusual, except for huge software packages like Office or odd things like preference panes, which are not as easy to get to the right place. I presume that people using Macs tend to be 1) wary of downloading any programs from random websites and 2) wary of having to run something like an installer. The Mac App Store means that people will only do these things less going forward.

oftenwrong 14y ago
>I presume that people using Macs tend to be 1) wary of downloading any programs from random websites and 2) wary of having to run something like an installer. If only. Last time I did a "check up" on my sister's macbook she had managed to install a toolbar and some other evil shitware that would hijack her google searches to collect her info and redirect her to bing.