8 ms·

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per year. In a similar vein, this is why Piriform cut them off from providing CCleaner via Ninite. Because automatic updating is a feature of CCleaner's business model, too. The paid version of CCleaner has automatic updates. Ninite was essentially taking that revenue model away from Piriform and using it for themselves. With free software supported by offers, Ninite is hiding those offers in exchange for cash. It's basically a paid ad-blocking service.

danielweber 14y ago
I will complain that Adobe wants to be updated what feels like every time my Windows machine restarts, but it never asks to install any adware as it does so.
protospork 14y ago
> First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Speak for yourself; I only ever see it on system startup. I only reboot once every few months (and it doesn't respond to waking up from standby), but there's a new Adobe security panic every two weeks or so, so that's not really acceptable. Plus it opens as a pop-under window for some reason, so I'm generally unaware of it until I've opened a browser, which I'll then have to close and reopen. The 'stealing revenue' argument is definitely valid, but in Adobe's case it's such a hateful method that I can't sympathize at all.
- ChikkaChiChi 14y ago
  Adobe lost any credibility in this argument when they 'accidentally' pushed out a Flash update that sideloaded McAfee.
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  I thought that Adobe's rolling out automatic updates for Flash Player might finally end my having to (endlessly) maintain it on my parents' computers. No dice... (It doesn't work -- at all, it often seems, or at least consistently nor in anything like a timely manner.) After some horrible experiences with Adobe Support, I've decided that Adobe as a company is crapware. I am sorry for e.g. some of the engineering talent there that may be doing good work. But, they (you) seem to exist these days within a horrible company organization.
- drivers99 14y ago
  Also, you have to remember to uncheck McAfee every time. Even I have missed that option on one occasion.
- rplnt 14y ago
  In addition to this, the updater alway starts the default browser.. while not opening any new page.
- kbenson 14y ago
  > The 'stealing revenue' argument is definitely valid, but in Adobe's case it's such a hateful method that I can't sympathize at all. Is it? If their (Piriform, as in the original example) model is based around providing a service for a product they release for free, but someone else can provide that service better, then perhaps they need to re-think their business model. Either be way cheaper, or provide something that Ninite can't or won't. Maybe even partner with Ninite and explain that your product can't exist without that revenue, so why not just integrate deeper and share a bit of revenue, rather than having it fail and upset customers of both parties.
cones688 14y ago
Ninite Updater Pro is for SysAdmins, not the normal casual user - it allows for silent and remote install. I would be interested to know how you propose using Adobe flash updater to push out a critical security patch to 10k + enterprise users.
- JohnTHaller 14y ago
  Ninite Updater is a $10 a year service aimed at home users, completely separate from their Ninite Pro offering. Ninite Free does not automatically update. The article was pushing Ninite as an alternative to Flash's built-in updater but omitting the fact that Ninite Updater is paid.
webjprgm 14y ago
Ninite isn't an expensive paid Adobe Flash updater. It's a useful sysadmin tool for automating several painful processes. I think it should exist and other companies should not be able to bully them to shut down. As a consumer you can pay if you think Ninite's functionality is useful or not if you think it isn't. On an ideological level, I would look at whether they are stealing content and reselling it or just automating something the user would do for him/herself. It sounds like automating to me. I make scripts to automate my workflows all the time, including the flash installer. (Though I don't download it as part of the script, I have pre-downloaded it and put it in a folder to use. So I have to manually get the latest before I run the script on a batch of machines.)
GhotiFish 14y ago
You're right. With them being for profit, they have lost their credibility. Frankly, just look at their website: https://ninite.com/updater/ https://ninite.com/updater/ Aren't there other free updaters? Sure, but they don't work like Ninite Updater. With Ninite Updater it's one step to download and install all your updates in the background at once. Yup, This story is not black and white. I'm actually on adobe's side.
- kijin 14y ago
  What's wrong with being for-profit? People need to put food on their tables after all.
  - criley 14y ago
    Non profits like Mozilla still pay employees.
    - driax 14y ago
      Technically only the Mozilla Foundation is non-profit. The Mozilla Corporation which is the organization that has the deal with Google about the search feature, and is the one which distributes common versions of Firefox is not non-profit. Granted Mozilla Corporation is owned by Mozilla Foundation, but still, this just shows that in non-non-profits organizations the decisions are governed by owners, for better or for worse.
  - mratzloff 14y ago
    Because all software should be free, of course. They can make money from concert sales and T-shirts. Wait, that's not right...
    - camus 14y ago
      you made my day lol ...
  - GhotiFish 14y ago
e40 14y ago
You imply Ninite are charging for Flash, but they are not. The charge is for the Pro service. I don't use it (I use the free installers, and love them). I'm not in the target group for the Pro--admins that need to keep a lot of machines up to date. If I were in that group, I'd gladly pay. The whole focus on Ninite charging is a red herring. This also has to do with the free installer that Ninite provides to people who do NOT pay for the Pro.
- JohnTHaller 14y ago
  The article was talking up the fact that Ninite allowed you to update your apps. The Ninite Updater, intended for home users, is a paid service for $10 and is separate from Ninite Pro, intended for corporate users. Without paying the $10 fee, Ninite doesn't provide automatic updates.
swies 14y ago
First I want to say thanks! We love your work at PortableApps.com and send people there whenever they ask us to add portable software. Our value is keeping the catalog up-to-date and putting a nice interface around the updating process. Not ad-blocking. We actively uncheck toolbars for maybe 5 apps. If those apps removed their toolbar offers people would still use Ninite to track updates and automate work. On profits XOR good: We do make money, but we also work really hard to do good as in http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html Our website is completely free (and ad-free) for home users. We save people from about 15 minutes of mindless installer work every second. Our $9.99 home Updater product is just something to point home users at when they ask to donate to us. We're a company. We don't take donations. We also run http://ninite.com/accessible http://ninite.com/accessible to help visually-impaired people manage software. Actually, until last summer that was about the only way for people to install Flash with a screenreader http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility/2012/07/flash-player-installer-updated.html http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility/2012/07/flash-player-in... If publishers want to make updating their software artificially hard there's not a lot we can do except trust that people will see what's going on and move to other products.
- samstave 14y ago
  Ninite is fantastic. There simply should not be any naysayers - the naysayers cannot provide the experience Ninite provides. Ninite's ability to group many products into a singular downloadable installer is heaven. Keep up the awesome work.
  - format 14y ago
    Not being able to choose where things get installed killed Ninite for me. Their reasoning is "where an app is installed is an implementation detail that users shouldn't worry about." My SSD can only hold so much, and I don't see the benefit of having a browser or file sharing app on an SSD. That seems like a detail I should care about.
    - tracker1 14y ago
      I usually install to the default location.. shutdown the app if running, move the directory, and symlink/mklink the default location to the new location. This is especially helpful for games/apps you are actively using (on the SSD) but when you're done, or not playing as much, it's still available, just not as fast.
tjoff 14y ago
"First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems." No, just no. Btw. anyone knows how to manually force flash to check for updates? And an easy way to check flash versions across all different browsers?
- astrodust 14y ago
  "Works quite well" apparently means "pops up all the time about yet another national security threatening flaw that needs to be patched urgently" and "crashes frequently for no apparent reason when trying to perform said updates." I guess that's marketing for you.
  - mistermumble 14y ago
    Also left unexplained is why Adobe needs to constantly update Reader. The PDF spec has not changed in forever. Why should this software need updating if there are no changes in functionality or spec compliance?
    - astrodust 14y ago
      Security problems as far as I know. Many governmental workers have it installed, so it's used as a spear phishing vector. "Re: UN Resolution #XYZ (Attached PDF)" is how these things play out. You open the PDF and your computer develops, ah, magical new capabilities, like sending copies of everything you do to Eastern Europe or China.
    - jodrellblank 14y ago
      http://www.reddit.com/r/geek/comments/ddh5p/the_iso_pdf_standard_hasnt_been_updated_since/c0zfics http://www.reddit.com/r/geek/comments/ddh5p/the_iso_pdf_stan...
greghinch 14y ago
> Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. It saddens me that we've gotten to a point where operating a service company for profit can't also be seen as doing good. Everyone has to pay the bills (and maybe even be rewarded for their efforts?), even the do-gooders.
- JohnTHaller 14y ago
  A for profit company can also be seen as doing good. My issue with the article is the complete one-sided-ness and the fact that they say that Ninite is an alternative to using the Flash updater but neglect to mention that Ninite costs $10 a year for updates while Flash's built-in automatic updater is free.
  - greghinch 14y ago
    I don't think that's any sort of bias; the article's point is that Ninite's update process is much simpler to manage than the Adobe one, particularly if you are managing a network. I will freely admit I haven't used Ninite, but I know that almost anything would be an improvement on the Adobe updater. The value Ninite creates is worth $10 a year (is the point in the article).
workbench 14y ago
This post sums up one of the reasons I'm so glad I no longer use windows.
eliasmacpherson 14y ago
http://xkcd.com/1197/ http://xkcd.com/1197/ This is a reasonably accurate description of Flash updater, how is your experience any different? It deserves being panned.
tghw 14y ago
> Because automatic updating is a feature of CCleaner's business model, too. The paid version of CCleaner has automatic updates. As a user of the free version of CCleaner, I'm almost certain it also has auto updates, unless they removed that in a very recent version.
- JohnTHaller 14y ago
  CCleaner Free offers notifications only of when an update is available. At that point you must click a clink to download the new version from Piriform's website where you are presented with additional offers to upgrade to the paid version and/or ads.
SeanDav 14y ago
Perhaps you should have disclosed your own interests before criticizing Ninite....
- ndr 14y ago
  Do you see any conflict of interest there? Where?
  - SeanDav 14y ago
    How can you not see a potential conflict of interest here? The OP is the founder of a website which encourages you to download various software from their site. Ninite could potentially allow users to bypass the OP's site, which could clearly cause the OP some irritation.
- JohnTHaller 14y ago
  I have no interests concerning Ninite. I think they offer a handy service. But the article was completely one-sided and left out some key points so I offered a factual counterpoint. The site I run, PortableApps.com, is in no way competitive with Ninite as we offer portable software while Ninite is meant to streamline installation of local software.
Tuna-Fish 14y ago
> First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems No, it does not. Simply put, giving end-users popups for system maintenance is flatly unacceptable.
shinratdr 14y ago
> In a similar vein, this is why Piriform cut them off from providing CCleaner via Ninite. Because automatic updating is a feature of CCleaner's business model, too. The paid version of CCleaner has automatic updates. Maybe CCleaner should rethink that one, that is an awful business model. I wonder if they do the same thing with their OS X version too, because if so they might want to have a chat with the MacUpdate Desktop folks too. IMO you can't blame app update tools for breaking a business model. That's a really idiotic business model to begin with. Charging for updates, fine. But charging for the ability to auto-check for updates? There is a reason nobody else in the industry does that. Because it's stupid.
- oofoe 14y ago
  The big problem for me (and maybe Piriform?) is that now I don't have any of their products on my systems because I can't get them through Ninite. I used to religiously install their CCleaner, their defrag and system information tools. They're all very good, but I'm not going to walk through three separate installers for something that Ninite used to do in seconds. When I bring up a new system, I just go to Ninite, check some stuff and I'm done. For most machines, there is nothing else to do. I suppose this is sort of a cautionary tale... "Don't try to take your installer back from Ninite after they've showed everyone how it can be so much better."
  - JohnTHaller 14y ago
    I'd wager they are more concerned with preserving their paid revenue stream than losing a few free users. Any company offering a freemium product has to strike that balance.
    - oofoe 14y ago
      Well, I did say "maybe"... I guess what I was trying to get at is that before I would enthusiastically recommend their products to other people. Now I don't use them, so I never mention them to anyone. I don't seem to have a problem using separate installers for something like Blender, but the activation energy seems too high for installing "small" utilities[1]. That said, if I could get larger applications from Ninite, I'd pull from there in a heartbeat! [1] Utilities may not /actually/ be small.

danielweber 14y ago

I will complain that Adobe wants to be updated what feels like every time my Windows machine restarts, but it never asks to install any adware as it does so.

protospork 14y ago

> First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Speak for yourself; I only ever see it on system startup. I only reboot once every few months (and it doesn't respond to waking up from standby), but there's a new Adobe security panic every two weeks or so, so that's not really acceptable. Plus it opens as a pop-under window for some reason, so I'm generally unaware of it until I've opened a browser, which I'll then have to close and reopen. The 'stealing revenue' argument is definitely valid, but in Adobe's case it's such a hateful method that I can't sympathize at all.

ChikkaChiChi 14y ago
Adobe lost any credibility in this argument when they 'accidentally' pushed out a Flash update that sideloaded McAfee.
pasbesoin 14y ago
I thought that Adobe's rolling out automatic updates for Flash Player might finally end my having to (endlessly) maintain it on my parents' computers. No dice... (It doesn't work -- at all, it often seems, or at least consistently nor in anything like a timely manner.) After some horrible experiences with Adobe Support, I've decided that Adobe as a company is crapware. I am sorry for e.g. some of the engineering talent there that may be doing good work. But, they (you) seem to exist these days within a horrible company organization.
drivers99 14y ago
Also, you have to remember to uncheck McAfee every time. Even I have missed that option on one occasion.
rplnt 14y ago
In addition to this, the updater alway starts the default browser.. while not opening any new page.
kbenson 14y ago
> The 'stealing revenue' argument is definitely valid, but in Adobe's case it's such a hateful method that I can't sympathize at all. Is it? If their (Piriform, as in the original example) model is based around providing a service for a product they release for free, but someone else can provide that service better, then perhaps they need to re-think their business model. Either be way cheaper, or provide something that Ninite can't or won't. Maybe even partner with Ninite and explain that your product can't exist without that revenue, so why not just integrate deeper and share a bit of revenue, rather than having it fail and upset customers of both parties.

cones688 14y ago

Ninite Updater Pro is for SysAdmins, not the normal casual user - it allows for silent and remote install. I would be interested to know how you propose using Adobe flash updater to push out a critical security patch to 10k + enterprise users.

JohnTHaller 14y ago
Ninite Updater is a $10 a year service aimed at home users, completely separate from their Ninite Pro offering. Ninite Free does not automatically update. The article was pushing Ninite as an alternative to Flash's built-in updater but omitting the fact that Ninite Updater is paid.

webjprgm 14y ago

Ninite isn't an expensive paid Adobe Flash updater. It's a useful sysadmin tool for automating several painful processes. I think it should exist and other companies should not be able to bully them to shut down. As a consumer you can pay if you think Ninite's functionality is useful or not if you think it isn't. On an ideological level, I would look at whether they are stealing content and reselling it or just automating something the user would do for him/herself. It sounds like automating to me. I make scripts to automate my workflows all the time, including the flash installer. (Though I don't download it as part of the script, I have pre-downloaded it and put it in a folder to use. So I have to manually get the latest before I run the script on a batch of machines.)

GhotiFish 14y ago

You're right. With them being for profit, they have lost their credibility. Frankly, just look at their website: https://ninite.com/updater/ https://ninite.com/updater/ Aren't there other free updaters? Sure, but they don't work like Ninite Updater. With Ninite Updater it's one step to download and install all your updates in the background at once. Yup, This story is not black and white. I'm actually on adobe's side.

kijin 14y ago
What's wrong with being for-profit? People need to put food on their tables after all.
- criley 14y ago
  Non profits like Mozilla still pay employees.
  - driax 14y ago
    Technically only the Mozilla Foundation is non-profit. The Mozilla Corporation which is the organization that has the deal with Google about the search feature, and is the one which distributes common versions of Firefox is not non-profit. Granted Mozilla Corporation is owned by Mozilla Foundation, but still, this just shows that in non-non-profits organizations the decisions are governed by owners, for better or for worse.
- mratzloff 14y ago
  Because all software should be free, of course. They can make money from concert sales and T-shirts. Wait, that's not right...
  - camus 14y ago
    you made my day lol ...
- GhotiFish 14y ago

e40 14y ago

You imply Ninite are charging for Flash, but they are not. The charge is for the Pro service. I don't use it (I use the free installers, and love them). I'm not in the target group for the Pro--admins that need to keep a lot of machines up to date. If I were in that group, I'd gladly pay. The whole focus on Ninite charging is a red herring. This also has to do with the free installer that Ninite provides to people who do NOT pay for the Pro.

JohnTHaller 14y ago
The article was talking up the fact that Ninite allowed you to update your apps. The Ninite Updater, intended for home users, is a paid service for $10 and is separate from Ninite Pro, intended for corporate users. Without paying the $10 fee, Ninite doesn't provide automatic updates.

swies 14y ago

First I want to say thanks! We love your work at PortableApps.com and send people there whenever they ask us to add portable software. Our value is keeping the catalog up-to-date and putting a nice interface around the updating process. Not ad-blocking. We actively uncheck toolbars for maybe 5 apps. If those apps removed their toolbar offers people would still use Ninite to track updates and automate work. On profits XOR good: We do make money, but we also work really hard to do good as in http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html Our website is completely free (and ad-free) for home users. We save people from about 15 minutes of mindless installer work every second. Our $9.99 home Updater product is just something to point home users at when they ask to donate to us. We're a company. We don't take donations. We also run http://ninite.com/accessible http://ninite.com/accessible to help visually-impaired people manage software. Actually, until last summer that was about the only way for people to install Flash with a screenreader http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility/2012/07/flash-player-installer-updated.html http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility/2012/07/flash-player-in... If publishers want to make updating their software artificially hard there's not a lot we can do except trust that people will see what's going on and move to other products.

samstave 14y ago
Ninite is fantastic. There simply should not be any naysayers - the naysayers cannot provide the experience Ninite provides. Ninite's ability to group many products into a singular downloadable installer is heaven. Keep up the awesome work.
- format 14y ago
  Not being able to choose where things get installed killed Ninite for me. Their reasoning is "where an app is installed is an implementation detail that users shouldn't worry about." My SSD can only hold so much, and I don't see the benefit of having a browser or file sharing app on an SSD. That seems like a detail I should care about.
  - tracker1 14y ago
    I usually install to the default location.. shutdown the app if running, move the directory, and symlink/mklink the default location to the new location. This is especially helpful for games/apps you are actively using (on the SSD) but when you're done, or not playing as much, it's still available, just not as fast.

tjoff 14y ago

"First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems." No, just no. Btw. anyone knows how to manually force flash to check for updates? And an easy way to check flash versions across all different browsers?

astrodust 14y ago
"Works quite well" apparently means "pops up all the time about yet another national security threatening flaw that needs to be patched urgently" and "crashes frequently for no apparent reason when trying to perform said updates." I guess that's marketing for you.
- mistermumble 14y ago
  Also left unexplained is why Adobe needs to constantly update Reader. The PDF spec has not changed in forever. Why should this software need updating if there are no changes in functionality or spec compliance?
  - astrodust 14y ago
    Security problems as far as I know. Many governmental workers have it installed, so it's used as a spear phishing vector. "Re: UN Resolution #XYZ (Attached PDF)" is how these things play out. You open the PDF and your computer develops, ah, magical new capabilities, like sending copies of everything you do to Eastern Europe or China.
  - jodrellblank 14y ago
    http://www.reddit.com/r/geek/comments/ddh5p/the_iso_pdf_standard_hasnt_been_updated_since/c0zfics http://www.reddit.com/r/geek/comments/ddh5p/the_iso_pdf_stan...

greghinch 14y ago

> Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. It saddens me that we've gotten to a point where operating a service company for profit can't also be seen as doing good. Everyone has to pay the bills (and maybe even be rewarded for their efforts?), even the do-gooders.

JohnTHaller 14y ago
A for profit company can also be seen as doing good. My issue with the article is the complete one-sided-ness and the fact that they say that Ninite is an alternative to using the Flash updater but neglect to mention that Ninite costs $10 a year for updates while Flash's built-in automatic updater is free.
- greghinch 14y ago
  I don't think that's any sort of bias; the article's point is that Ninite's update process is much simpler to manage than the Adobe one, particularly if you are managing a network. I will freely admit I haven't used Ninite, but I know that almost anything would be an improvement on the Adobe updater. The value Ninite creates is worth $10 a year (is the point in the article).

workbench 14y ago

This post sums up one of the reasons I'm so glad I no longer use windows.

eliasmacpherson 14y ago

http://xkcd.com/1197/ http://xkcd.com/1197/ This is a reasonably accurate description of Flash updater, how is your experience any different? It deserves being panned.

tghw 14y ago

> Because automatic updating is a feature of CCleaner's business model, too. The paid version of CCleaner has automatic updates. As a user of the free version of CCleaner, I'm almost certain it also has auto updates, unless they removed that in a very recent version.

JohnTHaller 14y ago
CCleaner Free offers notifications only of when an update is available. At that point you must click a clink to download the new version from Piriform's website where you are presented with additional offers to upgrade to the paid version and/or ads.

SeanDav 14y ago

Perhaps you should have disclosed your own interests before criticizing Ninite....

ndr 14y ago
Do you see any conflict of interest there? Where?
- SeanDav 14y ago
  How can you not see a potential conflict of interest here? The OP is the founder of a website which encourages you to download various software from their site. Ninite could potentially allow users to bypass the OP's site, which could clearly cause the OP some irritation.
JohnTHaller 14y ago
I have no interests concerning Ninite. I think they offer a handy service. But the article was completely one-sided and left out some key points so I offered a factual counterpoint. The site I run, PortableApps.com, is in no way competitive with Ninite as we offer portable software while Ninite is meant to streamline installation of local software.

Tuna-Fish 14y ago

> First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems No, it does not. Simply put, giving end-users popups for system maintenance is flatly unacceptable.

shinratdr 14y ago

> In a similar vein, this is why Piriform cut them off from providing CCleaner via Ninite. Because automatic updating is a feature of CCleaner's business model, too. The paid version of CCleaner has automatic updates. Maybe CCleaner should rethink that one, that is an awful business model. I wonder if they do the same thing with their OS X version too, because if so they might want to have a chat with the MacUpdate Desktop folks too. IMO you can't blame app update tools for breaking a business model. That's a really idiotic business model to begin with. Charging for updates, fine. But charging for the ability to auto-check for updates? There is a reason nobody else in the industry does that. Because it's stupid.

oofoe 14y ago
The big problem for me (and maybe Piriform?) is that now I don't have any of their products on my systems because I can't get them through Ninite. I used to religiously install their CCleaner, their defrag and system information tools. They're all very good, but I'm not going to walk through three separate installers for something that Ninite used to do in seconds. When I bring up a new system, I just go to Ninite, check some stuff and I'm done. For most machines, there is nothing else to do. I suppose this is sort of a cautionary tale... "Don't try to take your installer back from Ninite after they've showed everyone how it can be so much better."
- JohnTHaller 14y ago
  I'd wager they are more concerned with preserving their paid revenue stream than losing a few free users. Any company offering a freemium product has to strike that balance.
  - oofoe 14y ago
    Well, I did say "maybe"... I guess what I was trying to get at is that before I would enthusiastically recommend their products to other people. Now I don't use them, so I never mention them to anyone. I don't seem to have a problem using separate installers for something like Blender, but the activation energy seems too high for installing "small" utilities[1]. That said, if I could get larger applications from Ninite, I'd pull from there in a heartbeat! [1] Utilities may not /actually/ be small.