7 ms·

The game is to get those people who aren't tech savvy, and PG knows and actively supports it. There literally is no way to do what IM is trying to do without so

by niggler 14y ago

The game is to get those people who aren't tech savvy, and PG knows and actively supports it. There literally is no way to do what IM is trying to do without somehow engaging in questionable behavior (reminiscent of Facebook in many ways)

ericd 14y ago
Don't make libelous public accusations of PG if you don't know anything about the situation.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  I think some of us are finding it difficult to draw other conclusions.
- walshemj 14y ago
  Well as in life its the "perception" of a thing, can be more powerful than the actuality.
- EwanToo 14y ago
  Unless the parent comment has been edited, I'm not sure what you think is libelous about it? It's certainly a questionable company, they either didn't bother to scan for open source software being rebundled, or deliberately chose not to scan, because they knew the result would be bad.
  - ericd 14y ago
    It looks like niggler edited his comment, but he's still saying that PG is an active proponent of this. YC companies are completely independent, and you really can't assign any blame to him for what one of YC's hundreds of portfolio companies do.
    - moe 14y ago
      PG accepted them into YC, funds them and defends them in public. If that's not an "active proponent" then I wonder how you define that term?
    - niggler 14y ago
      Comment was not edited. It looks like you viscerally reacted to a comment suggesting PG isn't a deity.
      - ericd 14y ago
        Ah, sorry, I thought it was edited, it seemed to read differently the second time. I was reacting to your implication that PG was somehow responsible for this, which, if you know anything about how YC operates, is obviously untrue. Edit: Reading some of your other comments in this thread confirms that you're assuming a lot of things that aren't true to build an internal narrative and participate in this silly little drama. YC is not controlling at all, and is frequently not directly involved with guiding a company, unless the founders reach out for advice. It's a self-directed program.
  - niggler 14y ago
    My comment wasn't edited -- I think the critic just realized that PG isn't holy or perfect ...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
karamazov 14y ago
"literally no way" is a very strong statement - do you have any proof?
- niggler 14y ago
  Any software that is desirable on its own will be sought out on its own. Plain and simple. There is no need to piggyback adobe PDF reader in any software that doesn't use PDFs because people who need a PDF reader will seek one out. Any sort of parasitism is trying to circumvent this process by convincing others that they need software that isn't directly needed for the problem at hand or otherwise forcing people to install software. And that's the type of behavior styled as "questionable" in this discussion. Tactics like omitting a "no thanks", while perfectly legal, seem as questionable in many other contexts.
  - jvrossb 14y ago
    I feel like you may be right for the wrong reasons. "Any software that is desirable on its own will be sought out on its own." is the prelude to many a failed software project. People say the same thing about films, games, apps, etc... and it's almost universally untrue. If you are right, it's not because no good software aught to be promoted and thus this (and by extension of your logic most any type of promotion) can't be legit, but rather that there doesn't exist a non-scummy way of conducting this particular type of promotion. Is that true?
    - niggler 14y ago
      I'm not saying that "no good software ought to be promoted", but rather that the promotion should happen at the places where people would seek them out (e.g. Google). Advertise for photoshop where designers would go to look for software (e.g. in design magazines, google, etc).
      - jvrossb 14y ago
        Gotcha.
notJim 14y ago
> PG knows and actively supports it. I don't think this statement is really fair. If you read the previous post about this, he was clearly surprised and troubled, and he again seems troubled here. He also mentioned in a comment in this thread [1] that he didn't seem to know about InstallMonetizer, and that the team is working on a different product. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5093047 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5093047
- niggler 14y ago
  Something seems off here, reminiscent of Rupert Murdoch's testimony regarding phone hacking. Being troubled is easy to say, but the fact that a company he has invested in is engaging in questionable activities doesn't really jive well with PGs claims regarding office hours. Not to say that he isn't genuinely troubled, but I would have hoped YC would inculcate his values (which, if they did act in accordance with PG's stated views, would have resulted in a far different product)
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    Are you seriously, unironically comparing PG to Rupert Murdoch? Have you hit your head on something particularly hard recently? The facts here are simple: 1. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 startups in the current YC batch (http://ycombinator.com/w13smaller.html http://ycombinator.com/w13smaller.html). 2. They are all coached by around 7 active partners (http://ycombinator.com/w13smaller.html http://ycombinator.com/w13smaller.html) and perhaps some program alumni. 3. But those people also continue to support participants from past batches too. 4. This is (so far) an isolated incident -- YC hasn't even had time to change any of its procedures, even if it deems it necessary to do so. 5. Immediately after it being brought to his attention, PG followed up with the owners and they made some changes as a result... 6. ...even though they aren't in YC for IM, YC has no real influence or control over IM or even the team. So what's your expectation here? Should YC be performing a full background check on participants? If IM wasn't mentioned during the application or interview process, how reasonable is it to expect YC to have known about it? Are we supposed to expect someone at YC to be able to glance at something like IM and sense whether it's icky or not, or are we supposed to expect them to spend hours digging into it? A program like YC is bound to attract some bad apples eventually (and we don't even know that these guys are "bad"), especially since YC explicitly looks for people doing things that might seem questionable at first.
taproot 14y ago
> There literally is no way to do what IM is trying to do without somehow engaging in questionable behavior For starters, default to not install the crapware. Alternatively, instead of creating more required user actions than necessary. While the software is installing, show splash screen type adverts of software the user may also be interested in installing with a way to add them to the install queue on the fly or select it after the install is done. Sure, they rate of install will be shit, but if they were really interested in doing the right thing this wouldn't be a problem and the users of said applications would be legitimate users, not just angry computer illiterate people.
- jlgaddis 14y ago
  > "... rate of install will be shit, but if they were really interested in doing the right thing ..." That's just it -- they aren't. The sole purpose is to generate revenue. They don't make money when users don't install the software.
- niggler 14y ago
  The customers (advertisers) actively push for insidious installation methods. Legitimate software developers don't advertise using those methods (have you ever seen an ad for WinEdt?), preferring google or other direct methods. So the population IM attracts are precisely those unscrupulous developers and programs that profit from questionable behavior. Working in a proper manner runs counter to their customers' goals.
  - taproot 14y ago
    Legitimate software producers do use similar methods I outlined above. Examples, and correct me if I'm wrong, my memory is quite shaky on this subject, ubuntu installer, steam installer, most PC games, and I think even the open office installer uses similar. The examples are usually just advertising other products they own, or features within their software so not exactly direct examples but its not a huge jump by any means. While I agree the population of customers they will attract are those shady toolbar guys, it certainly doesn't follow that they cannot make a business out of pushing good software. I think as long as they tailor the ads to relating software or software people will likely install alongside the current piece it could work. Taking the high road could even payout bigtime down the line when more developers catch on and realise it won't detract from their image/brand by using such a service.

by niggler 14y ago

ericd 14y ago

Don't make libelous public accusations of PG if you don't know anything about the situation.

jiggy2011 14y ago
I think some of us are finding it difficult to draw other conclusions.
walshemj 14y ago
Well as in life its the "perception" of a thing, can be more powerful than the actuality.
EwanToo 14y ago
Unless the parent comment has been edited, I'm not sure what you think is libelous about it? It's certainly a questionable company, they either didn't bother to scan for open source software being rebundled, or deliberately chose not to scan, because they knew the result would be bad.
- ericd 14y ago
  It looks like niggler edited his comment, but he's still saying that PG is an active proponent of this. YC companies are completely independent, and you really can't assign any blame to him for what one of YC's hundreds of portfolio companies do.
  - moe 14y ago
    PG accepted them into YC, funds them and defends them in public. If that's not an "active proponent" then I wonder how you define that term?
  - niggler 14y ago
    Comment was not edited. It looks like you viscerally reacted to a comment suggesting PG isn't a deity.
    - ericd 14y ago
      Ah, sorry, I thought it was edited, it seemed to read differently the second time. I was reacting to your implication that PG was somehow responsible for this, which, if you know anything about how YC operates, is obviously untrue. Edit: Reading some of your other comments in this thread confirms that you're assuming a lot of things that aren't true to build an internal narrative and participate in this silly little drama. YC is not controlling at all, and is frequently not directly involved with guiding a company, unless the founders reach out for advice. It's a self-directed program.
- niggler 14y ago
  My comment wasn't edited -- I think the critic just realized that PG isn't holy or perfect ...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

karamazov 14y ago

"literally no way" is a very strong statement - do you have any proof?

niggler 14y ago
Any software that is desirable on its own will be sought out on its own. Plain and simple. There is no need to piggyback adobe PDF reader in any software that doesn't use PDFs because people who need a PDF reader will seek one out. Any sort of parasitism is trying to circumvent this process by convincing others that they need software that isn't directly needed for the problem at hand or otherwise forcing people to install software. And that's the type of behavior styled as "questionable" in this discussion. Tactics like omitting a "no thanks", while perfectly legal, seem as questionable in many other contexts.
- jvrossb 14y ago
  I feel like you may be right for the wrong reasons. "Any software that is desirable on its own will be sought out on its own." is the prelude to many a failed software project. People say the same thing about films, games, apps, etc... and it's almost universally untrue. If you are right, it's not because no good software aught to be promoted and thus this (and by extension of your logic most any type of promotion) can't be legit, but rather that there doesn't exist a non-scummy way of conducting this particular type of promotion. Is that true?
  - niggler 14y ago
    I'm not saying that "no good software ought to be promoted", but rather that the promotion should happen at the places where people would seek them out (e.g. Google). Advertise for photoshop where designers would go to look for software (e.g. in design magazines, google, etc).
    - jvrossb 14y ago
      Gotcha.

notJim 14y ago

> PG knows and actively supports it. I don't think this statement is really fair. If you read the previous post about this, he was clearly surprised and troubled, and he again seems troubled here. He also mentioned in a comment in this thread [1] that he didn't seem to know about InstallMonetizer, and that the team is working on a different product. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5093047 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5093047

niggler 14y ago
Something seems off here, reminiscent of Rupert Murdoch's testimony regarding phone hacking. Being troubled is easy to say, but the fact that a company he has invested in is engaging in questionable activities doesn't really jive well with PGs claims regarding office hours. Not to say that he isn't genuinely troubled, but I would have hoped YC would inculcate his values (which, if they did act in accordance with PG's stated views, would have resulted in a far different product)
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  Are you seriously, unironically comparing PG to Rupert Murdoch? Have you hit your head on something particularly hard recently? The facts here are simple: 1. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 startups in the current YC batch (http://ycombinator.com/w13smaller.html http://ycombinator.com/w13smaller.html). 2. They are all coached by around 7 active partners (http://ycombinator.com/w13smaller.html http://ycombinator.com/w13smaller.html) and perhaps some program alumni. 3. But those people also continue to support participants from past batches too. 4. This is (so far) an isolated incident -- YC hasn't even had time to change any of its procedures, even if it deems it necessary to do so. 5. Immediately after it being brought to his attention, PG followed up with the owners and they made some changes as a result... 6. ...even though they aren't in YC for IM, YC has no real influence or control over IM or even the team. So what's your expectation here? Should YC be performing a full background check on participants? If IM wasn't mentioned during the application or interview process, how reasonable is it to expect YC to have known about it? Are we supposed to expect someone at YC to be able to glance at something like IM and sense whether it's icky or not, or are we supposed to expect them to spend hours digging into it? A program like YC is bound to attract some bad apples eventually (and we don't even know that these guys are "bad"), especially since YC explicitly looks for people doing things that might seem questionable at first.

taproot 14y ago

> There literally is no way to do what IM is trying to do without somehow engaging in questionable behavior For starters, default to not install the crapware. Alternatively, instead of creating more required user actions than necessary. While the software is installing, show splash screen type adverts of software the user may also be interested in installing with a way to add them to the install queue on the fly or select it after the install is done. Sure, they rate of install will be shit, but if they were really interested in doing the right thing this wouldn't be a problem and the users of said applications would be legitimate users, not just angry computer illiterate people.

jlgaddis 14y ago
> "... rate of install will be shit, but if they were really interested in doing the right thing ..." That's just it -- they aren't. The sole purpose is to generate revenue. They don't make money when users don't install the software.
niggler 14y ago
The customers (advertisers) actively push for insidious installation methods. Legitimate software developers don't advertise using those methods (have you ever seen an ad for WinEdt?), preferring google or other direct methods. So the population IM attracts are precisely those unscrupulous developers and programs that profit from questionable behavior. Working in a proper manner runs counter to their customers' goals.
- taproot 14y ago
  Legitimate software producers do use similar methods I outlined above. Examples, and correct me if I'm wrong, my memory is quite shaky on this subject, ubuntu installer, steam installer, most PC games, and I think even the open office installer uses similar. The examples are usually just advertising other products they own, or features within their software so not exactly direct examples but its not a huge jump by any means. While I agree the population of customers they will attract are those shady toolbar guys, it certainly doesn't follow that they cannot make a business out of pushing good software. I think as long as they tailor the ads to relating software or software people will likely install alongside the current piece it could work. Taking the high road could even payout bigtime down the line when more developers catch on and realise it won't detract from their image/brand by using such a service.