(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.

–Shmoo, aka independentmusician
of Electric Gypsy and admin for Boycott-Riaa.com

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.