Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Y Combinator is funding the future of spam in Windows

istartedsomething.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 468 posts

Re: Y Combinator is funding the future of spam in Windows

#331

Post by illuminate »

coderdude wrote: post #53
jiggy2011 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the end user is not the customer here, so the perception of their brand in the users eyes is nowhere near as important as the ROI they can deliver for the bundleware vendors. Think of it like the IRS, they don't increase the tax take by being nice to people.

So who cares about their image then? The original software vendor, probably. If they bundle crap with your install then take it up with them. If enough people did then they would probably stop using this company. So it all comes back to them eventually. Even if it's not in a negative PR way.

"So who cares about their image then? The original software vendor, probably."

They care about their bottom line over their image, or they wouldn't get in with the toolbars.

Re: Y Combinator is funding the future of spam in Windows

#332

Post by Symmetry »

kbutler wrote: post #142
jiggy2011 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. I'm often advising people to install VLC when they are having problems with Windows Media Player, but whenever I tell them to google for it on their own they end up with some toolbar infested crap. So now I specifically instruct them to go to videolan.org.

Googling for "vlc", "vlc download", or "vlc player", the top 3-4 results are all to videolan.org. Ads may distort this for some users, though...

True now, but it wasn't true a year ago when I installed Windows 7.

Re: Y Combinator is funding the future of spam in Windows

#333

Post by Gabler »

patio11 wrote: post #152

So when earlier it was mentioned, I assumed "They have to have a different angle on this; they're a YC company." And seeing a strong thread title and no evidence for it other than "The industry they're in is ridiculously seedy", I thought maybe HN was in rush to judgement mode. So I thought I'd try, you know, installing something. Make your own call: http://images1.bingocardcreator.com/blog-images/hn/its-not-a...

My parents have fallen for this sort of thing within days of getting a new computer. It's so hard to get rid of and it made them feel like they were downloading viruses when they were really downloading legitimate software. It's a shame you've ended up having to do stuff like this when you are performing what should be, totally secure installs.

Re: Y Combinator is funding the future of spam in Windows

#334

Post by illuminate »

coderdude wrote: post #41
jiggy2011 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know what a "bad egg" is? Just because some behaviour is acceptable to "InstallMonetizer" does not mean it will necessarily be acceptable to me. Besides if they are seeking to maximise revenues for investors there will always be that incentive to find ways to justify bundling more intrusive stuff.

Like most people they probably know what sucks to have sprung on them. If they don't want their brand to suck as well then they can strive to align with peoples' expectations of how such software should behave. You don't like popups? I'll bet they know that. I think the investors can see the value in not tarnishing the brand and so that might fuel their efforts to make sure none of their advertisers can be classified…

"You don't like popups? I'll bet they know that."

Knowing is not caring.

Re: Y Combinator is funding the future of spam in Windows

#335

Post by dkuntz2 »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #206
dkuntz2 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal protections against rebundling aptitude? Something released under the GPL? Which means everyone has all of the ability to easily change the sucker. If you're packaging something as a deb, you can potentially bundle other things, but at the same time, because a deb is a glorified tar.gz, someone can just provide information on how to get rid of the offending thing. Or, if you're using Arch, the AUR maintainer ju…

I don't mean aptitude itself. I mean , if you are bundling your own software for Ubuntu you get to distribute it however you like. If somebody else decides to redistribute it minus the crapware then you can potentially sue them. So you can say "the only legal way to get my software is to download this file which is bundled with InstallMonetizerForUbuntu". Whether it is bundled as a .tar.gz or a .deb and whether it co…

I've said nothing about distribution. Only packaging. And specifically giving people instructions on how to do it themselves. Which isn't illegal. Nor is it particularly endorsing something illegal.

> So you can say "the only legal way to get my software is to download this file which is bundled with InstallMonetizerForUbuntu".

But, once I have that downloaded, I don't have to go straight to installation. I can remove files and change the install script. Sure, you can give me a binary file, but the only binary files I've ever received are after I've paid for something, and I've never found paid software bundled with crapware, even on Windows.

I can still write a script that would get rid of the bundled things provided you already have the packaged file, and distribute that script to anyone who wants it.

And while yes, people will create decrapifyers, I'm talking about preventative measures (modifying the installer).

Re: Y Combinator is funding the future of spam in Windows

#336

Post by binarycrusader »

jey wrote: post #310
binarycrusader wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...through extensive vetting and rigorous testing... I wanted to upvote your comment, but then I almost died laughing when I read that. Most Linux distributions are better about it now than they were many years ago, but I still remember being absolutely floored when RedHat had packaged a Perl module with a syntax error some years ago. Same goes for Debian; some of the more "fringe packages" (those of upstream project…

Usually there's a few tiers of packages, with the first tier packages being extensively tested and maintained, and the second tier packages mostly just provided as a convenience. I believe Debian calls the first-tier "main" and the second-tier "contrib" (and Ubuntu calls them "main" and "universe").

Yep, I'm aware of that. Although not every Linux distribution makes that distinction and the person to whom I replied certainly didn't leave room for that.

But in the past, even the packages in the "first tier" were often pretty busted. But even for that tier, Linux distributions are not performing "extensive vetting and rigorous testing". They don't generally test beyond relying that other components that use it work as expected, and for many components, those are only as well tested as the tests that are included with the component.

Yes, some distributions do run security analysis tools or other things on the components they integrate, but that still doesn't count as "extensive vetting and rigorous testing".

Re: Y Combinator is funding the future of spam in Windows

#337

Post by juan_juarez »

patio11 wrote: post #152

So when earlier it was mentioned, I assumed "They have to have a different angle on this; they're a YC company." And seeing a strong thread title and no evidence for it other than "The industry they're in is ridiculously seedy", I thought maybe HN was in rush to judgement mode. So I thought I'd try, you know, installing something. Make your own call: http://images1.bingocardcreator.com/blog-images/hn/its-not-a...

The sad fact is that pretty much every aspect of monetizing and advertising websites is seedy. Unless you're directly selling a product, the road to profitability is full of moral compromises.

Re: Y Combinator is funding the future of spam in Windows

#338

Post by robot »

kbutler wrote: post #142
jiggy2011 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. I'm often advising people to install VLC when they are having problems with Windows Media Player, but whenever I tell them to google for it on their own they end up with some toolbar infested crap. So now I specifically instruct them to go to videolan.org.

Googling for "vlc", "vlc download", or "vlc player", the top 3-4 results are all to videolan.org. Ads may distort this for some users, though...

videolan.org has a pretty confusing name. I bet if it was vlcplayer.com it would get better downloads.

Re: Y Combinator is funding the future of spam in Windows

#339

Post by huhtenberg »

api wrote: post #119
jbk wrote: post #49

I can speak quite a bit about this "industry": We (VLC) receive 1 of those offers per day. They are liars, shady business, IP violators and are downright dangerous. They have all those great offers for you, but they refuse to give any details as soon as you ask any question. More than half of them are "the biggest in the world" (sic). They lie about download numbers, about download size, about number of software actu…

A lot of people these days are bashing Apple and Google for creating walled gardens with their app stores, but this is really the primary reason such walled gardens have taken off. They offer a mostly crapware-free experience. If Linux on the desktop were to get popular, I'd hate to imagine what might happen to the open source Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu repositories.

> They offer a mostly crapware-free experience.

You must've forgotten Path fiasco, with its quiet uploading of user's full address book to company's servers, which turned out to be - SUR-PRI-SE - a "standard industry practice". Wall garden sanctuary my ass. Same rotten ethics, except far less visible.

Re: Y Combinator is funding the future of spam in Windows

#340

Post by JoachimSchipper »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #281
swies wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html

That rings kind of hollow after Blecharczyk ("among the nicest of all the people we've funded") was outed as an unrepentant habitual spammer. YC is demonstrably not immune to scumbags, which is not to say that other angels and VCs do better.

(For those who'd have to look it up: this refers to AirBnb.)
Post reply on HN