What we discovered about InstallMonetizer • Hacker News Board

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#71

Post by EwanToo » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 8:48 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #61

niggler wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The game is to get those people who aren't tech savvy, and PG knows and actively supports it. There literally is no way to do what IM is trying to do without somehow engaging in questionable behavior (reminiscent of Facebook in many ways)

Don't make libelous public accusations of PG if you don't know anything about the situation.

Unless the parent comment has been edited, I'm not sure what you think is libelous about it?

It's certainly a questionable company, they either didn't bother to scan for open source software being rebundled, or deliberately chose not to scan, because they knew the result would be bad.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#72

Post by davidroberts » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 8:48 PM UTC

d0m wrote: post #60

All the technical details aside, if you guys at YC ask yourself "Am I proud of funding this startup?" we both know what the answer is. In all fairness, PG said that YC funded another project from this company; I guess they've just used the YC name for credibility. I find it quite ironic how PG went from building a spam filters to funding a spam company. Just for your information, this is what you've put your money an…

I worked for a few months recently as a remote support agent for a big ISP, and many of my customer's browsers looked almost as bad as screenshot you posted. As I was cleaning up, I would ask them for each toolbar (because I was required to) "do you want me to remove this?" They would invariably reply "I don't know what it is or how it got there." I think this pretty much kills the "informed choice" rationalization. About the only toolbar they understood or wanted was Google, and maybe the one that came as part of the isp's setup package (because they were used to it).

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#73

Post by illuminate » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 8:58 PM UTC

dpweb wrote: post #43

Some of you guys are being ignorant, and too much time on your hands. What IM is doing seems legit from all the information here. It's giving devs some opportunity to make a living. If you don't like the wares don't install it. Simple. If you were seriously concerned about internet privacy you'd be discussing in depth Google, Microsoft, etc.. policies which affect virtually all inet users and not some small operation…

Is this intended to be persuasive? You're not doing your coworkers a service here.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#74

Post by ericd » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 8:59 PM UTC

EwanToo wrote: post #71

ericd wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't make libelous public accusations of PG if you don't know anything about the situation.

Unless the parent comment has been edited, I'm not sure what you think is libelous about it? It's certainly a questionable company, they either didn't bother to scan for open source software being rebundled, or deliberately chose not to scan, because they knew the result would be bad.

It looks like niggler edited his comment, but he's still saying that PG is an active proponent of this. YC companies are completely independent, and you really can't assign any blame to him for what one of YC's hundreds of portfolio companies do.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#75

Post by josephlord » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 8:59 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #25

holograham wrote: post #9

Thanks for this explanation pg This raises a question though: does this company make something that users want? When a user installs a specific program is he/she looking to install other software as well? Is the argument that InstallMonetizer bundles useful software that it feels will enhance the user's life in some way? (going off the adage that the consumer does not really know what they want i.e. they'd just ask f…

In this case the users are the advertisers. Clicking on a decline button for other software they don't want (in the worst case) is for the end-users the price of getting software they do want.

That isn't the worst case. The Windows using victim* could install something accidentally by careless clicking (the "Yes,Yes, Yes" Windows installer process).

I recognise you are treading a fine line between defending a company you feel a duty to and practices and business model that you probably wouldn't select for Y-Combinator on the publicly visible business model. I hope they pivot to a less controversial model and leave you in a more comfortable place.

* You are right that the users are the advertisers but that must make the person running the installer the victim or at best the product.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#76

Post by garry » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 9:01 PM UTC

withinrafael wrote: post #30

Paul, I'm one of the two people you're indirectly addressing with this HN post. (The second is Long Zheng.) I wrote here: http://www.withinwindows.com/2013/01/16/installmonetizer-qui... Long zheng wrote here: http://www.istartedsomething.com/20130115/y-combinator-is-fu... I'll respond to each of your items individually. 1. OK. 2. Maybe. Or more likely users are mistakenly installing these applications because the off…

3. It's included in the EULA of the app itself. They modify the installer.

4. I don't think there is any claim that this can be fixed instantly.

5. This is not for OSS-using libraries -- that's totally cool. Everyone uses open source. What they've banned is people wrapping VLC to make money off software they haven't written. That's not cool.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#77

Post by garry » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 9:03 PM UTC

RyanZAG wrote: post #49

Confusing inept users into installing random toolbars[1] that break their browsers and force them to call IT pros to 'clean up' their computers is pretty scummy. Sorry, but it is. You can make a lot of money doing all kinds of popular things -- pimping women, selling drugs, selling 'likes' on facebook, selling botnets that create fake clicks on advertisers, ponzi schemes, etc. Some are illegal, some are just barely l…

I installed these things from an Install Monetizer install on my own computer. I uninstalled them. They were all completely uninstallable. None of them broke my browser.

IM actually screens out advertisers and publishers who break browsers, and they don't work with them.

Seems better to me. As another commenter mentioned, IM is trying to legitimize a space that's scummy, the way Google did for PPC.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#78

Post by garry » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 9:06 PM UTC

thoughtcriminal wrote: post #51

InstallMonetizer can't in good conscience offer Babylon translation satanware. Or, to put it another way, if they care one ioda about the enduser experience and staying in business, they should not add Babylon software to their bundle. Babylon is diabolically hard to uninstall. Even after following instructions found on a number of websites, trying different malware removers and doing about:config on Mozilla, it stil…

I was able to totally remove Babylon from my system after installing it through an IM ad unit.

I can't speak for installs from other sources, because I hear what you say is true. But I saw with my own eyes that it didn't happen with IM.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#79

Post by swampthing » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 9:06 PM UTC

watty wrote: post #63

swampthing wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you or I might find something to be a nuisance, doesn't mean most end-users will. Done right, I can easily see unsophisticated end-users being appreciative at being offered useful software that they would otherwise have not known about. I see this crap on my mom's computer all the time - she's bothered by it only if it affects performance or pops up with some message. If it's just sitting there, or if sh…

Do you really think "most end-users" prefer the stuff that IM installs? Come on.

"Prefer" is a higher bar than "don't care" / "not a nuisance".

I don't know what IM installs - but I see Norton on their webpage. I can easily see "most end-users" installing something, seeing the opportunity to install Norton Anti-Virus, and thinking to themselves "oh yea, that sounds like that'd be useful".

Just about everybody on HN is extremely technically savvy - we can't assume that our computing preferences are shared by "most end-users". Note that I am just responding to the assertion that "it['s] hard to believe that [PG] truly think[s] it is anything but a nuisance to end-users".

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#80

Post by darknoon » Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 9:07 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #16

SandB0x wrote: post #4

I think people will be wondering if this resembles the founders' ideas when they were funded by you, and if this represents the kind of company you wish to be funding. You may of course defend the product on technical grounds (accept buttons, EULAs, etc) but I find it hard to believe that you truly think it is anything but a nuisance to end-users.

They're working on something new, and all the office hours I had with them were about that. They're not even in our database of companies as InstallMonetizer but as the new thing. (I'm not sure if I can say the name because it may not be launched yet.) I knew they had some previous product that was called a Windows installer, but I don't think we ever talked about what it did. The whole world of Windows software seem…

Thanks for the update, pg.

I'm glad they're looking at a different avenue. While we can debate the particulars about whether or not certain windows installer ride-alongs or all of them are scammy, I don't think it's a valuable business. Comparing to GoDaddy doesn't make it sound better via association.

Hope to see something more awesome from these folks soon.