11 ms·

I can speak quite a bit about this "industry": We (VLC) receive 1 of those offers per day. They are liars, shady business, IP violators and are downright dange

by jbk 14y ago

I can speak quite a bit about this "industry": We (VLC) receive 1 of those offers per day. They are liars, shady business, IP violators and are downright dangerous. They have all those great offers for you, but they refuse to give any details as soon as you ask any question. More than half of them are "the biggest in the world" (sic). They lie about download numbers, about download size, about number of software actually installed and about their connexions. They even lie on the actual payback price. If you refuse, they build special websites, copying yours, with your IP and trademark and register adwords with your name, in every way possible. They also resell their solutions/websites to other people, using "Affiliate networks", so that once you take one down, 20 appear. And the guy who you took down had no idea who you were or what the software was... They also have deals with download.com/softopedia/softonic to change/rewrap your installer, without your agreement, often violating your license; or they give back money to those websites, so they are ranked higher than normal other downloads. And of course, open source software are never respected. I believe OP is very polite: There are no good reasons to not shame them publicly.

jiggy2011 14y ago
Exactly this. I'm often advising people to install VLC when they are having problems with Windows Media Player, but whenever I tell them to google for it on their own they end up with some toolbar infested crap. So now I specifically instruct them to go to videolan.org.
- kbutler 14y ago
  Googling for "vlc", "vlc download", or "vlc player", the top 3-4 results are all to videolan.org. Ads may distort this for some users, though...
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    yes, this didn't always used to be the case though. Hopefully some google algo tweaks are working to help.
  - rogerdpack 14y ago
    Yes unfortunately unless you have adbock installed the "first" results in a google search for "vlc" are typical for the (adware, spammy) sites.
    - wiredfool 14y ago
      In a clean, private window of safari, I'm seeing 4 videolan results before cnet and others of varying levels of crapitude.
      - EwanToo 14y ago
        He mentions "adblock", if I google for "vlc" I get an advert for a adware version of VLC above the videolan.org ones.
  - jbk 14y ago
    Maybe because I spent almost 3 hours per week to clean it.
    - tobylane 14y ago
      What do you do, what proportion of your time is advancing yours or flagging them?
      - jbk 14y ago
        Sorry, I cannot answer to that publicly. Mail me.
        gus_massa 14y ago
        I understand that some details should be kept secret, but it would be nice to read a blog post about this.
    - socialist_coder 14y ago
      Wow. That really sucks man. I hope something changes where you don't have to do this forever. I told my Dad's wife to download VLC and she ended up with the crapware version too. I didn't even realize they existed until then. I was shocked =( You have my sympathies.
      - jbk 14y ago
        Thanks :)
    - socialist_coder 14y ago
      Do you know if the Intel App-Up site is legit or do they also bundle the crapware installers? http://www.appup.com/app-details/vlc?edgSrcID=398114176 http://www.appup.com/app-details/vlc?edgSrcID=398114176 It's the first thing I see for "VLC" when I turned off Ad Block.
      - jbk 14y ago
  - makomk 14y ago
    Probably the ads. For a while, Google helped made this even worse by paying companies like Dell to set the default search on new PCs to specially-customised version of Google with far more prominent ads that were less clearly distinguished from normal search results.
    - creativityland 14y ago
      Wow. Source?
      - eitland 14y ago
        Dell has been installing crap since at least 2006/07. Thats when I started wondering why all new PCs at a certain company where all infected just few days after purchase. Then I realized this thing (myway?) was being installed by default. I really didn't think it was ever a Google product though. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  - Symmetry 14y ago
    True now, but it wasn't true a year ago when I installed Windows 7.
  - robot 14y ago
    videolan.org has a pretty confusing name. I bet if it was vlcplayer.com it would get better downloads.
    - jbk 14y ago
      For the same reasons mozilla.org is not firefoxbrowser.com
      - mh- 14y ago
        perhaps not the best example, since the Mozilla Foundation (mozilla.org) runs the Firefox promotions to getfirefox.com.
  - slowpoke 14y ago
    On your Google, with your results, with your search history and thus in your specific filter bubble. Fuck, people, don't you get this already? There is no n-th result on Google. Don't act like there is.
- tterrace 14y ago
  This just happened to my friend yesterday when I told him to install VLC. I think he may have clicked an ad instead of the first search result. I saw three pages for different add-ons and toolbars with several pre-checked checkboxes apiece. After unchecking and clicking through it just exited (hopefully) and launched the VLC install program.
rpm4321 14y ago
You may be right about the industry as a whole, but I'm betting you're wrong about this particular instance based on what I know about PG and YC. When I was reading the original TC article, I was thinking that there is actually an incredible opportunity here to create a legitimate ad network that would allow desktop developers to monetize similarly to how it's done on the web - to basically become the DoubleClick of the desktop world. Why should ad supported desktop apps be any different than ad supported mobile or web apps? Edit: These downvotes are pretty surprising, I didn't realize I was even being controversial. Can someone explain why creating a legitimate, privacy-respecting ad platform which allows desktop developers to monetize their applications in a manner that's almost exactly the same as ad supported web and mobile apps is that awful? I'm not even saying that's necessarily what they're up to, I can just see where there's a tremendous opportunity to try and clean up the industry, and how, based on the people involved, the author and the commenter above could very easily be jumping to the wrong conclusions.
- api 14y ago
  Desktop apps with built-in ads are okay. I've used a few here and there. I've also seen shareware model software that has ads that can be turned off by registering. That's fine too. In this case the ads are part of the application. They live within it. Uninstall the app, and the ads are gone. Such ads also tend not to invade users' privacy outside the app. They might send stuff about what you do in the app, but if you don't like it you can uninstall the app. One of the key words here is "toolbar." It's in the same class as "HIV," "ebola," "herpes simplex virus," etc. Saying you're bundling third-party adware such as toolbars and "browser helpers" and similar is like saying you're purposefully giving someone a disease. IT professionals managing Windows networks spend god-awful amounts of time removing such junk from Windows PCs. Not only do things like this invade privacy, they often slow down and break peoples' computers.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    I don't disagree with your overall point but "toolbar" is not in the same class as "HIV". A little perspective please.
api 14y ago
A lot of people these days are bashing Apple and Google for creating walled gardens with their app stores, but this is really the primary reason such walled gardens have taken off. They offer a mostly crapware-free experience. If Linux on the desktop were to get popular, I'd hate to imagine what might happen to the open source Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu repositories.
- lmm 14y ago
  Linux would probably do better because few people have any reason to stray outside their distribution's repositories. And these repositories are just as rigorous in their way as the Apple or Google walled gardens; Debian packages have to be signed by the GPG key of a debian maintainer who takes personal responsibility for that package, and whose identify has been verified by having their key signed by another debian member (with a chain that presumably goes all the way back to the original founders). I'm not aware of any cases of a debian maintainer being "struck off", but I'm sure there'll be procedures in place. You would get plenty of shady sites encouraging you to add another line to /etc/apt/sources.list for cool free screensavers, but it would be a lot more practical than it is in windows to tell people to ignore them and never install anything that doesn't come with the system.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    True, this seems like the most balanced solution. Install everything from repos but allow third party repos and stores. That way you are not tied to one gatekeeper but it is in your interest to get your app into at least one good repo that has a reputation to uphold.
- klrr 14y ago
  I'm not sure about Fedora but Debian has a very strict policy for the packages in their repos. http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    As I understand it, Fedora's packaging policy is more or less the same as Debian's. Free software only (stricter than Ubuntu), though there are some practical differences. They don't like packaging emulators that are primarily useful for non-Free ROMs. It is also my understanding, different than Debian, they don't like packaging software that no longer has a maintaining developer. Also no external kernel modules, no prebuilt libraries, etc. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Legal http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Legal
etix 14y ago
And this is not new, I've written an article on the exact same topic a year and a half ago about VLC: http://blog.l0cal.com/2011/07/07/these-companies-that-mislead-our-users/ http://blog.l0cal.com/2011/07/07/these-companies-that-mislea...
S4M 14y ago
After reading some comments and noticing that you're one of the VLC lead developers (awesome software, by the way!), I am wondering if you have a way to make VLC notify its users at the first launch (after install) and tell them something like "You have installed VLC, it should have come without any additional software such as tool bars or file compressors. If this was not your case, you probably installed it from a third party that arbitrarily and without our consent added external programs. We recommend you to install VLC from videolan.org, etc." That way, casual users will at least be aware of the external installs problem.
- joenathan 14y ago
  The type of person who would read that disclaimer is the type of person who wouldn't have downloaded from the wrong site in the first place.
- SwellJoe 14y ago
  VLC is open source. It would be trivial for a rebundler to remove that warning. If they are violating the license already, there seems to be no impediment to changing the code for personal gain.
  - jbk 14y ago
    VLC for Windows is hard to compile to be honest. But binary patching is doable, indeed.
    - TeMPOraL 14y ago
      Yeah, it usually is trivially easy. If I were to do it, first thing I'd do is to look for the string in executable and patch it by hand with a hex editor.
    - Zak 14y ago
      What's the legality of distributing a binary-patched app covered by the GPL? Something makes me think it's questionable.
jacquesm 14y ago
> They also have deals with download.com/softopedia/softonic to change/rewrap your installer, without your agreement, often violating your license; or they give back money to those websites, so they are ranked higher than normal other downloads. I can confirm this, it's the reason we stopped having a download altogether even though it offered features that were hard to do without a download. Using software I wrote as a vector to spread malware is really beyond the pale.
- nivla 14y ago
  Heck, if it was just downloads I could still somehow steer clear of it but I really hate it when companies like Oracle and Adobe bundle this with their security updates and it is checked on by default[1]!! Even worse to realize that reputable companies such as Google, Ask and McAfee compensate them for doing it. [2][3] [1] http://i.imgur.com/3zWPK.jpg http://i.imgur.com/3zWPK.jpg [2] http://i.imgur.com/5mAdH.png http://i.imgur.com/5mAdH.png [3] http://i.imgur.com/P9CKl.png http://i.imgur.com/P9CKl.png
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    That has to be a new low. Incredible, I never knew it had gotten this bad. I saw the whole download.com debacle as a bunch of jerks taking over a formerly reputable domain, but it looks as if this is now considered legitimate income across the board.
  - graue 14y ago
    I believe Google Earth's Windows download does the same thing: there is a checkbox to download Chrome as well and set it as the default browser, and it's checked by default. On the download page, not in the installer.
ralphleon 14y ago
"They are liars, shady business, IP violators and are downright dangerous." This is completely prejudice! You've never met Install Monetizer, and don't know if they participate in the same activities as the companies that you're referring to. "I believe OP is very polite: There are no good reasons to not shame them publicly." This is childish, and I'd expect better from any contributing member of VLC.
- stevoski 14y ago
  I'd give him some lenience...for anyone who distributes desktop software via the web, there is a continuous battle against fake or wrapped distributions.
- jbk 14y ago
  Please read: > I can speak quite a bit about this "industry" I never mentionned IM. Also, see the comment from patio11 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5060399 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5060399
Shorel 14y ago
> They also have deals with download.com/softopedia/softonic The problem here is that those sites still rank very high in search results.
- illuminate 14y ago
  Why is it that they've lasted as long as they have? They offer so little to the end-user.
newsmaster 14y ago
Please please please create auto-subtitles functionality for VLC on the Mac. I switched from Windows recently and there's nothing compared to Media Player Classic for easy subtitles. Thanks thanks thanks.
- jbk 14y ago
  What do you mean?
  - newsmaster 14y ago
    On Media Player Classic you can easily download subtitles for whatever movie you're watching by going to File>Subtitle Database>Download. It will search a DB online somewhere then let you choose and automatically load them into the player. This is something I've not found on any video players available on the Mac. It would be an awesome if it was coded into VLC. http://tothepc.com/img/2010/02/movie-subtitles-media-player-2.png http://tothepc.com/img/2010/02/movie-subtitles-media-player-...
    - jbk 14y ago
      OK, for next major!
tyang 14y ago
But how do you really feel? ;)
georgemcbay 14y ago
The really sad part of malware that is tied to freeware or shareware is that the whole thing is a self-inflicted downward spiral. The software authors will tell you they need that malware money because nobody pays for shareware anymore. You know why I stopped downloading and buying shareware years ago? Malware. And the really unfortunate thing is that a few big bad apples can and did ruin it for everyone else. I don't have time to figure out who is going to install shit on my system vs who isn't, so I just assume everything is bad and avoid it all, with the exception of a handful of known-good products (like VLC) from known-good sources (the author's own websites). The end result is an ecosystem in which new useful tools (even ones that aren't malware peddlers) now have a near-impossible time creating a critical mass of users, so any money to be made in that market can only come from these terrible spammy practices, which is just sad.
- krickle 14y ago
  This is why the Mac Gatekeeper is an awesome idea. Unfortunately they fucked up the implementation. Also they are the only CA so they can control who signs apps or not.
voltagex_ 14y ago
Thank you for not caving into their offers. Also, good luck with your Windows 8 project!
euxneks 14y ago
I used to work for an Affiliate Network. I can confirm the only thing that was cared about was the bottom line.

by jbk 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago

Exactly this. I'm often advising people to install VLC when they are having problems with Windows Media Player, but whenever I tell them to google for it on their own they end up with some toolbar infested crap. So now I specifically instruct them to go to videolan.org.

kbutler 14y ago
Googling for "vlc", "vlc download", or "vlc player", the top 3-4 results are all to videolan.org. Ads may distort this for some users, though...
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  yes, this didn't always used to be the case though. Hopefully some google algo tweaks are working to help.
- rogerdpack 14y ago
  Yes unfortunately unless you have adbock installed the "first" results in a google search for "vlc" are typical for the (adware, spammy) sites.
  - wiredfool 14y ago
    In a clean, private window of safari, I'm seeing 4 videolan results before cnet and others of varying levels of crapitude.
    - EwanToo 14y ago
      He mentions "adblock", if I google for "vlc" I get an advert for a adware version of VLC above the videolan.org ones.
- jbk 14y ago
  Maybe because I spent almost 3 hours per week to clean it.
  - tobylane 14y ago
    What do you do, what proportion of your time is advancing yours or flagging them?
    - jbk 14y ago
      Sorry, I cannot answer to that publicly. Mail me.
      - gus_massa 14y ago
        I understand that some details should be kept secret, but it would be nice to read a blog post about this.
  - socialist_coder 14y ago
    Wow. That really sucks man. I hope something changes where you don't have to do this forever. I told my Dad's wife to download VLC and she ended up with the crapware version too. I didn't even realize they existed until then. I was shocked =( You have my sympathies.
    - jbk 14y ago
      Thanks :)
  - socialist_coder 14y ago
    Do you know if the Intel App-Up site is legit or do they also bundle the crapware installers? http://www.appup.com/app-details/vlc?edgSrcID=398114176 http://www.appup.com/app-details/vlc?edgSrcID=398114176 It's the first thing I see for "VLC" when I turned off Ad Block.
    - jbk 14y ago
- makomk 14y ago
  Probably the ads. For a while, Google helped made this even worse by paying companies like Dell to set the default search on new PCs to specially-customised version of Google with far more prominent ads that were less clearly distinguished from normal search results.
  - creativityland 14y ago
    Wow. Source?
    - eitland 14y ago
      Dell has been installing crap since at least 2006/07. Thats when I started wondering why all new PCs at a certain company where all infected just few days after purchase. Then I realized this thing (myway?) was being installed by default. I really didn't think it was ever a Google product though. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- Symmetry 14y ago
  True now, but it wasn't true a year ago when I installed Windows 7.
- robot 14y ago
  videolan.org has a pretty confusing name. I bet if it was vlcplayer.com it would get better downloads.
  - jbk 14y ago
    For the same reasons mozilla.org is not firefoxbrowser.com
    - mh- 14y ago
      perhaps not the best example, since the Mozilla Foundation (mozilla.org) runs the Firefox promotions to getfirefox.com.
- slowpoke 14y ago
  On your Google, with your results, with your search history and thus in your specific filter bubble. Fuck, people, don't you get this already? There is no n-th result on Google. Don't act like there is.
tterrace 14y ago
This just happened to my friend yesterday when I told him to install VLC. I think he may have clicked an ad instead of the first search result. I saw three pages for different add-ons and toolbars with several pre-checked checkboxes apiece. After unchecking and clicking through it just exited (hopefully) and launched the VLC install program.

rpm4321 14y ago

You may be right about the industry as a whole, but I'm betting you're wrong about this particular instance based on what I know about PG and YC. When I was reading the original TC article, I was thinking that there is actually an incredible opportunity here to create a legitimate ad network that would allow desktop developers to monetize similarly to how it's done on the web - to basically become the DoubleClick of the desktop world. Why should ad supported desktop apps be any different than ad supported mobile or web apps? Edit: These downvotes are pretty surprising, I didn't realize I was even being controversial. Can someone explain why creating a legitimate, privacy-respecting ad platform which allows desktop developers to monetize their applications in a manner that's almost exactly the same as ad supported web and mobile apps is that awful? I'm not even saying that's necessarily what they're up to, I can just see where there's a tremendous opportunity to try and clean up the industry, and how, based on the people involved, the author and the commenter above could very easily be jumping to the wrong conclusions.

api 14y ago
Desktop apps with built-in ads are okay. I've used a few here and there. I've also seen shareware model software that has ads that can be turned off by registering. That's fine too. In this case the ads are part of the application. They live within it. Uninstall the app, and the ads are gone. Such ads also tend not to invade users' privacy outside the app. They might send stuff about what you do in the app, but if you don't like it you can uninstall the app. One of the key words here is "toolbar." It's in the same class as "HIV," "ebola," "herpes simplex virus," etc. Saying you're bundling third-party adware such as toolbars and "browser helpers" and similar is like saying you're purposefully giving someone a disease. IT professionals managing Windows networks spend god-awful amounts of time removing such junk from Windows PCs. Not only do things like this invade privacy, they often slow down and break peoples' computers.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  I don't disagree with your overall point but "toolbar" is not in the same class as "HIV". A little perspective please.

api 14y ago

A lot of people these days are bashing Apple and Google for creating walled gardens with their app stores, but this is really the primary reason such walled gardens have taken off. They offer a mostly crapware-free experience. If Linux on the desktop were to get popular, I'd hate to imagine what might happen to the open source Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu repositories.

lmm 14y ago
Linux would probably do better because few people have any reason to stray outside their distribution's repositories. And these repositories are just as rigorous in their way as the Apple or Google walled gardens; Debian packages have to be signed by the GPG key of a debian maintainer who takes personal responsibility for that package, and whose identify has been verified by having their key signed by another debian member (with a chain that presumably goes all the way back to the original founders). I'm not aware of any cases of a debian maintainer being "struck off", but I'm sure there'll be procedures in place. You would get plenty of shady sites encouraging you to add another line to /etc/apt/sources.list for cool free screensavers, but it would be a lot more practical than it is in windows to tell people to ignore them and never install anything that doesn't come with the system.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  True, this seems like the most balanced solution. Install everything from repos but allow third party repos and stores. That way you are not tied to one gatekeeper but it is in your interest to get your app into at least one good repo that has a reputation to uphold.
klrr 14y ago
I'm not sure about Fedora but Debian has a very strict policy for the packages in their repos. http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/
- jlgreco 14y ago
  As I understand it, Fedora's packaging policy is more or less the same as Debian's. Free software only (stricter than Ubuntu), though there are some practical differences. They don't like packaging emulators that are primarily useful for non-Free ROMs. It is also my understanding, different than Debian, they don't like packaging software that no longer has a maintaining developer. Also no external kernel modules, no prebuilt libraries, etc. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Legal http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Legal

etix 14y ago

And this is not new, I've written an article on the exact same topic a year and a half ago about VLC: http://blog.l0cal.com/2011/07/07/these-companies-that-mislead-our-users/ http://blog.l0cal.com/2011/07/07/these-companies-that-mislea...

S4M 14y ago

After reading some comments and noticing that you're one of the VLC lead developers (awesome software, by the way!), I am wondering if you have a way to make VLC notify its users at the first launch (after install) and tell them something like "You have installed VLC, it should have come without any additional software such as tool bars or file compressors. If this was not your case, you probably installed it from a third party that arbitrarily and without our consent added external programs. We recommend you to install VLC from videolan.org, etc." That way, casual users will at least be aware of the external installs problem.

joenathan 14y ago
The type of person who would read that disclaimer is the type of person who wouldn't have downloaded from the wrong site in the first place.
SwellJoe 14y ago
VLC is open source. It would be trivial for a rebundler to remove that warning. If they are violating the license already, there seems to be no impediment to changing the code for personal gain.
- jbk 14y ago
  VLC for Windows is hard to compile to be honest. But binary patching is doable, indeed.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    Yeah, it usually is trivially easy. If I were to do it, first thing I'd do is to look for the string in executable and patch it by hand with a hex editor.
  - Zak 14y ago
    What's the legality of distributing a binary-patched app covered by the GPL? Something makes me think it's questionable.

jacquesm 14y ago

> They also have deals with download.com/softopedia/softonic to change/rewrap your installer, without your agreement, often violating your license; or they give back money to those websites, so they are ranked higher than normal other downloads. I can confirm this, it's the reason we stopped having a download altogether even though it offered features that were hard to do without a download. Using software I wrote as a vector to spread malware is really beyond the pale.

nivla 14y ago
Heck, if it was just downloads I could still somehow steer clear of it but I really hate it when companies like Oracle and Adobe bundle this with their security updates and it is checked on by default[1]!! Even worse to realize that reputable companies such as Google, Ask and McAfee compensate them for doing it. [2][3] [1] http://i.imgur.com/3zWPK.jpg http://i.imgur.com/3zWPK.jpg [2] http://i.imgur.com/5mAdH.png http://i.imgur.com/5mAdH.png [3] http://i.imgur.com/P9CKl.png http://i.imgur.com/P9CKl.png
- jacquesm 14y ago
  That has to be a new low. Incredible, I never knew it had gotten this bad. I saw the whole download.com debacle as a bunch of jerks taking over a formerly reputable domain, but it looks as if this is now considered legitimate income across the board.
- graue 14y ago
  I believe Google Earth's Windows download does the same thing: there is a checkbox to download Chrome as well and set it as the default browser, and it's checked by default. On the download page, not in the installer.

ralphleon 14y ago

"They are liars, shady business, IP violators and are downright dangerous." This is completely prejudice! You've never met Install Monetizer, and don't know if they participate in the same activities as the companies that you're referring to. "I believe OP is very polite: There are no good reasons to not shame them publicly." This is childish, and I'd expect better from any contributing member of VLC.

stevoski 14y ago
I'd give him some lenience...for anyone who distributes desktop software via the web, there is a continuous battle against fake or wrapped distributions.
jbk 14y ago
Please read: > I can speak quite a bit about this "industry" I never mentionned IM. Also, see the comment from patio11 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5060399 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5060399

Shorel 14y ago

> They also have deals with download.com/softopedia/softonic The problem here is that those sites still rank very high in search results.

illuminate 14y ago
Why is it that they've lasted as long as they have? They offer so little to the end-user.

newsmaster 14y ago

Please please please create auto-subtitles functionality for VLC on the Mac. I switched from Windows recently and there's nothing compared to Media Player Classic for easy subtitles. Thanks thanks thanks.

jbk 14y ago
What do you mean?
- newsmaster 14y ago
  On Media Player Classic you can easily download subtitles for whatever movie you're watching by going to File>Subtitle Database>Download. It will search a DB online somewhere then let you choose and automatically load them into the player. This is something I've not found on any video players available on the Mac. It would be an awesome if it was coded into VLC. http://tothepc.com/img/2010/02/movie-subtitles-media-player-2.png http://tothepc.com/img/2010/02/movie-subtitles-media-player-...
  - jbk 14y ago
    OK, for next major!

tyang 14y ago

But how do you really feel? ;)

georgemcbay 14y ago

The really sad part of malware that is tied to freeware or shareware is that the whole thing is a self-inflicted downward spiral. The software authors will tell you they need that malware money because nobody pays for shareware anymore. You know why I stopped downloading and buying shareware years ago? Malware. And the really unfortunate thing is that a few big bad apples can and did ruin it for everyone else. I don't have time to figure out who is going to install shit on my system vs who isn't, so I just assume everything is bad and avoid it all, with the exception of a handful of known-good products (like VLC) from known-good sources (the author's own websites). The end result is an ecosystem in which new useful tools (even ones that aren't malware peddlers) now have a near-impossible time creating a critical mass of users, so any money to be made in that market can only come from these terrible spammy practices, which is just sad.

krickle 14y ago
This is why the Mac Gatekeeper is an awesome idea. Unfortunately they fucked up the implementation. Also they are the only CA so they can control who signs apps or not.

voltagex_ 14y ago

Thank you for not caving into their offers. Also, good luck with your Windows 8 project!

euxneks 14y ago

I used to work for an Affiliate Network. I can confirm the only thing that was cared about was the bottom line.