

Download.com wrapping downloads - forgotAgain

Download.com is now wrapping downloads with their own installer.<p>I just tried a download of my product and I find it really sleazy the way they wrapped it. By default they install a toolbar, change the user's  default search engine to Bing, and change the user's home page to MSN.<p>I wonder how Microsoft feels about being associated with such a sleazy activity which acts directly against the interests of developers.<p>They have a FAQ page here: http://cnet-upload.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2064<p>If you want to opt out they will "carefully consider your  request on a case-by case basis" sent here cnet-installer@cbsinteractive.com
======
acangiano
My guess: Microsoft was probably ecstatic about this. Until it becomes a PR
headache (it's just about to start). At that point, Microsoft will probably
condemn this as misleading and something they don't endorse. They'll probably
cut them off from whatever referral program they are currently on.

~~~
AJ007
I think the toolbar war is one of the most significant yet under reported
stories involving the battle for search engine market share.

Where as Google has let third parties distribute their own toolbars and funnel
the traffic back via paid search feeds, Microsoft has taken the approach to
just changing the default search provider to Bing. When someone downloads an
ugly toolbar, its Microsoft's brand that takes a hit, where as no one is
associating IAC's toolbars with Google (even though Google is paying them
somewhere around $1 billion a year, maybe 70% of that is from toolbars.)

I doubt Microsoft is ecstatic about this, partnerships with other major
players such as conduit most likely blow download.com's measly traffic numbers
out of the water. Heck I would expect conduit is sending more installs per day
than download.com will send a month.

------
latch
There'll be a backlash. Microsoft will kill the program and claim that
"Microsoft relies on a number of 3rd parties for its marketing. In this case,
the 3rd party acted without consulting Microsoft and as soon as Microsoft was
made aware of the issue, they cancelled the program"

~~~
lbarrow
A claim that may actually be true in this case.

~~~
wpietri
Sure, but as Mark Twain once said, one of the best ways to lie is to tell just
part of the truth.

Things I'd like to know: When did they find out? Why didn't they detect this
before the general public? Are they clawing back every dollar they ever paid
this and all intermediate vendors? Will they sue for reputational damage and
the penalties allowed under their affiliate program terms?

If they didn't know about this, they certainly should have expected it.

------
tajddin
This really does seem like a violation. We develop enterprise help desk
software and also offer it via Download.com and didn't receive a notification
of this change.

It doesn't exactly look great on our software that a toolbar is installed
alongside it -- especially for a professional business product.

~~~
astrodust
Maybe you can answer this question. Why would any developer use download.com
instead of just self-hosting on something like S3? I've always found "download
sites" to be nothing but trouble and do everything I can to avoid them.

When I see someone's official site being at a place like that, it feels kind
of like your office would be in your mom's basement and your business cards
were chosen from a template at Kinko's.

~~~
forgotAgain
Our product was placed there several years ago. It hasn't been obvious how to
get it removed. We are actively trying to do so now.

It's not our official site but it was a one time a legitimate place to
distribute software from. They just killed that of course.

------
fomojola
The upsell is here! They'll expose your direct download link to people who are
registered. Who registers for download.com?!?!

And, if you pay them for the privilege of hosting your content with them,
they'll let you opt out of it. This is how they try and make money.

Take your software down: its 2011, you can distribute yourself, cut out the
middle man, and (unless you're getting 20000 downloads a day) still not pay
very much for it.

~~~
phillco
> Who registers for download.com?!?!

I did. 10 years ago.

------
QuestionWriter
More info on this - [http://www.ghacks.net/2011/08/17/the-cnet-download-com-
insta...](http://www.ghacks.net/2011/08/17/the-cnet-download-com-installer/)

~~~
GFischer
That's what I had experienced - the Babylon toolbar, another one in a long
line of annoying crapware.

My girlfriend accidentally installed it when downloading a PDF printer or
similar.

They have a search page that looks just like Google's (maybe to minimize the
need to switch back).

I didn't get the Microsoft toolbar version, I guess the Babylon one was bad
enough.

I used to like C-net, now it's definitely going downhill.

------
ars
I wonder if you could bundle an uninstaller into your package - just for them.
They install some adware, you uninstall it right after.

~~~
timerickson
What if that was the whole app? There is a recursion joke in here somewhere...

------
bradleyland
I'm surprised this doesn't violate the license of many of the applications
available on Download.com. Time to abandon ship?

~~~
0x0x0x
Here's to hoping Apple and Microsoft's respective App Stores will help kill
parasitic download sites (CNET and MacUpdate especially).

~~~
gommm
What is the problem of macupdate?

~~~
0x0x0x
They used to:

    
    
        * list alpha/beta software as new releases, even without the dev's consent
        * re-list software as updated, even when no updates have occurred
        * the owner has on several occasions rewritten various app descriptions
        * re-wrote and misspelled one of my company names and ignored requests to change it 
        * ban any form of in-app mature content based on "religious principles" IIRC
        * refused to list one of my apps because the owner didn't see the "utility" in in it, 
        even though Apple and VersionTracker both happily hosted 500K D/Ls..
    

That comes from the corrospondence I've had with the owner over the years.
He's generally been a giant asshole and we finally quit updating to them
several years ago.

It's always possible things have changed.

edit: format

------
scamsover
It's called "OpenInstall", see openinstall.com - after looking up the domain
owner, old owners, servers and registration of the company as well as multiple
addresses, I found it is the same company responsible for this:
[https://plus.google.com/109412257237874861202/posts/FXL1y8qG...](https://plus.google.com/109412257237874861202/posts/FXL1y8qG7YF)

"Viveli" or "GameTheory" are the company names, see comments on Cutts page.
According to the posting, they even lost ties to their former toolbar partners
Zugo.com because Bing.com shut them down for forced installs (like on
Bright.com or on CNET).

<http://www.openinstall.com/aboutus.html> \- seems like most of them are
former founders of "FreeCause", a toolbar company that hides installs under
the false impression of charitable donations.

The person behind it is Eduardo Vivas, who just opened up his new startup
Bright.com, which is Co-Reg scam, if you look at the getsatisfaction.com
support requests this becomes very clear. Sign up people, send them to
education affiliate offers, cold call them from a call-center and have them
download a toolbar to get access to job postings.

Scam.

~~~
marksman_missed
I can see in the plus article that you usually do pretty thorough research,
but this time you're wrong. OpenInstall didn't do the CNET deal. Try checking
out installcore.com

~~~
scamsover
I have the openinstall toolbar path install wizard, linked to a bunch of
silent installers and originally found on download.com and a couple other
smaller "game" sites, in our malware database. The database is collected by a
robot that scans the net for such "non typical" installers. Maybe CBS changed
it or was just trying them out. Either way, they are scammers.

Public entries are available:

[http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/Threat/Encyclopedia...](http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/Threat/Encyclopedia/Entry.aspx?Name=Adware%3AWin32%2FOpenInstall&ThreatID=157719)

[http://www.malware.com.br/cgi/search.pl?id=QWR3YXJlOldpbjMyL...](http://www.malware.com.br/cgi/search.pl?id=QWR3YXJlOldpbjMyL09wZW5JbnN0YWxs)

[http://amada.abuse.ch/?search=cdn.openinstall.com.s3.amazona...](http://amada.abuse.ch/?search=cdn.openinstall.com.s3.amazonaws.com)

Concerning are the MC alerts:

[http://www.malware-control.com/statics-
pages/66beb6cff7a046d...](http://www.malware-control.com/statics-
pages/66beb6cff7a046d7848de11b36dda920.php)

[http://www.malware-control.com/statics-
pages/8509e4805e78b0b...](http://www.malware-control.com/statics-
pages/8509e4805e78b0b018f7e03d4df94656.php)

[http://www.malware-control.com/statics-
pages/89267efa2271745...](http://www.malware-control.com/statics-
pages/89267efa22717455b07207051b48a3c8.php)

The external reference links to avast, bitdefender, etc. are all broken and
"OpenInstall" can't be found in their databases. I assume openinstall payed
them off to remove the entries.

------
ggchappell
(1) I really appreciate this post & discussion. It has been clear for a long
time that lots of website owners pay little or no attention to the experiences
customers have with fulfillment providers (and Download.com _is_ fulfillment,
in the larger sense). It's time to hold people accountable for this kind of
thing.

(2) Microsoft has been associated with sleazy stuff for years. I'm thinking of
the installation of all kinds of nonsense software when you buy "Microsoft
Windows" pre-installed. I doubt this issue is the kind of thing they consider
a problem. Sad, but true.

~~~
indrax
I believe horrible pre-installed software is the responsibility of the
hardware manufacturers. If it were Microsoft doing it, they'd also do it for
purchased copies.

~~~
dpark
It's entirely a hardware manufacturer thing, just as Android "customizations"
are a hardware/carrier thing. Microsoft doesn't make an extra dime when
HP/Dell/Asus/etc. bundles that crap. In fact that stuff probably hurts MS
significantly. Lack of system-slowing crap is a big benefit for Apple.

------
tlrobinson
Is this even legal? Did you give them permission to distribute your software?

------
jgmmo
I cant find this issue with any of the software the company I work for sells
via download.com, it looks like people who pay CNET millions of dollars per
year are not affected.

------
gus_massa
Clicky: <http://cnet-upload.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2064>

~~~
RuadhanMc
For once I'd like to see a little more honesty... you know: "we did it for the
money" rather than "we did it for the users". Liars.

\--------------------

2\. Why is CNET Download.com making this change?

The same reason you have your applications on Download.com – for the users.
The CNET Download.com Installer ensures a safe and improved download
experience by making it easier for Download.com users to complete downloads
and launch the software’s installer.

\--------------------

------
georgieporgie
Assuming you have a piece of software which is supported by bundled toolbar
installation, does this mean that Download.com effectively steals your slice
of the pie?

(not that I advocate toolbar bundling, but it is one way that some apps make
money)

