Download.com’s new policy
p2pnet.net News View:- At first sight, the new policy of Download.com seems to be a wonderful advance.
From now on, no program bundled with third-party software (adware) will be referenced on the CNET’s download website.
“No exceptions”, says CNET Download.com senior vp Scott Arpajian.
But is this really for the best?
First of all, we have to wonder if the war is solely against “spyware,” that is, against software designed to establish a profile of the user, or to gather confidential information for marketing purposes, or if it’s merely against “adware”.
Every application which imposes ads on its users through partner programs will fall under the last heading and indeed, Download.com carefully states that it “distinguishes adware, which is a bundled and typically third-party product, from ad-supported software”.
But in reality, publishers with the means to internally manage the commercialization of their advertising space are rare, and many rely on specialists to do it.
Now, adware can be totally innocuous and not violate users’ privacy in the way that spyware does. And for a number of publishers, it’s the only way to present a product for free to their users.
We could applaud Download.com’s move, observing that free (”gratuit”) software has to be free (”libres”) and open-source, and that proprietary software is evil.
But that would be far too sweeping an assessment. After all, proprietary software has been contributing to the development of the Internet for decades. Even if the term “proprietary” make us think of Microsoft and its Windows software, it also covers programs such as mIRC, ICQ, Winamp, or even, Napster! So it would be absurd to condemn proprietary software on the basis of the fight against the giant of Redmond.
So does Download.com plan to put an end to non-commercial software ?
Software owners must pay up to $949 dollars a year for the privilege of having their products on the world’s first download directory.
Even if free submissions still exist, publishers are sentenced to having their software listed in the shadows. And this situation gets worse as more publishers decide to play the “buy a better position” game.
So, if you need to earn money to be referenced, but you’re forbidden to use adware, you have to somehow make the software commercially viable.
Download.com has a vested interest in featuring this kind of software. Indeed, the platform itself proposes to retail it. It “now offers you the ability to quickly turn the power of the leading trial product distribution network in the world into a cost-efficient sales channel”, pocketing from eight to 12 percent of the gross revenue.
And that’s a neat strategy.
Progressively, publishers will become totally dependant on the online retailer, just as manufacturers depend on chain stores offline.
So rather than being praised, Download.com’s decision may actually be threatening the future of free (”gratuit”) software, and its diversity.
Guillaume Champeau – Ratiatum.com
==============
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
new policy – Download.com bans Adware, p2pnet, April 28, 2005
May 1st, 2005 at 12:32 am
I agree….
May 1st, 2005 at 5:20 am
“So rather than being praised, Download.com’s decision may actually be threatening the future of free (”gratuit”) software, and its diversity.”
I disagree.
Free software will not pay to be on download.com.
Not when it’s much easier AND more convenient to be on sourceforge.
Ah! But you’ll say you need to provide the source to be on sourceforge.
And that IS what makes software free as in freedom.
No source <=> limited freedom.
The loss is on those who are trapped with proprietary software,
problem similar to gambling and drugs.
Big society issues we should try to eradicate for the good of all.
May 1st, 2005 at 5:31 am
The real problem is with releasing source code is not to do proprietay issues at all. Lot of programes are lazy and dont document there programes that well. They just fear the pear review of there work.
May 2nd, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Sounds like the same sorta thing mp3.com tried to pull.
–Shmoo, aka independentmusician
of Electric Gypsy and admin for Boycott-Riaa.com
May 2nd, 2005 at 4:35 pm
The “trusted, safe, secure” strategy of download.com is flawed and here is why…
(1) Download.com has a marketing problem as it relates to Adware and bundled applications
Clearly, the tact they have taken in the past doesn’t work. But I believe it has less to do with end users being “sheeple” (part sheep, part people) and more to do with their failed marketing efforts. It’s no wonder no one noticed their warning messages… they were below the fold. Why would I ever scroll down when the click to initiate my download is front and center?
(2) Policing software vendors
This practice becomes a very slippery slope. When thinking about downloadable software it seems they all have issues…
- Adobe can bundle Yahoo’s toolbar but no one else can bundle applications?
- Google’s Toolbar and Desktop Search products are clearly tracking user behavior so are they spyware?
- AOL’s IM serves advertisements that also generate pop-ups so will they be excluded? It also has bundled Viewpoint as well as WildTangent for “improving” advertising. Is this bundle activity accepted?
- Apple’s iTunes software, as well as the Windows Media Player, is reporting back end user activity which is clearly a spyware like activity?
- Real Networks’ Real Player creates consumer confusion in changing preferences and bundling other components, creating shortcuts, etc. so where do they get classified?
And if you exclude software from the Download.com database does that also apply to advertisers? MSN spent a lot of money advertising their toolbar on CNET in 2004. Would they take those ad dollars again? Freeze.com sells screen savers with convoluted co-registration functions as well as bundled applications… I’m not sure if CNET takes their money but Yahoo and AOL certainly do.
One other thing came to mind… how are you going to prevent software publishers that download “adware” or other third party software after the initial install? In a word you cannot. And the reality is this problem might be greater in scale than your initial bundling challenge.
Finally, whatever Download.com does will not change the perception of their end users. Take it from someone who has been knee deep in this stuff for 5+ years… consumers are sheeple and will blame everyone except themselves for what happens on their PC. They will download software from Download.com and directly from parties with third party bundles and they will still blame Download.com for the impact even if they didn’t actually contribute to the problem.
(3) Ignoring consumer demand
P2P applications are the most popular downloads on the Internet including CNET users. Do you punt all that traffic despite consumer interest in those applications? When/If Grokster wins their lawsuit (results expected later this summer) they may very well become flavor of the month and when users go to Download.com and don’t find what they are looking for will they start using Google instead? You sure don’t want to encourage downloading applications from anywhere except Download.com if you are CNET.
In the end, Download.com should make a better consumer marketing effort to educate end users about what they are installing and the potential impact. Get someone over there to build a splash page warning or move a more prominent banner graphic above the fold. Or create a separate category of bundled application providers. Consumer awareness is really the only solution to all these problems. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The big winners of course are the anti-spyware technologies (or anti-software as I like to call them) who are generating hundreds of millions of dollars based on sales of fear. A multi-billion dollar industry (Internet Advertising) in the hands of people with no vested interest in its success is scary.
All should beware of the “spyware/adware” undertow and its impact on ecommerce and online advertising in general. The current discussion is lathered in media hysteria because it makes good copy. Good copy does not equal good policy, and we could end up with another DMCA on our hands.
May 3rd, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Nobody pays attention to download.com any more anyway, there’s this nifty little thing called Google that’s much better for searching for downloads. Or BitTorrent, but that’s an entirely different argument.