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

What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 188 posts

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#81

Post by ay »

ddunkin wrote: post #54
jiggy2011 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly, the MAC address (which is a far stronger unique identifier than an IP address) will usually only survive the first hop in an IP transmission.

Not even 'usually', it doesn't exit your LAN at all, once it hits your router, it is stripped and your data is packed with a different MAC address on the WAN (or any other layer 2 identifier depending on your connection), same for each hop after that.

If you use EUI-64 as your interface ID in IPv6, your MAC address is part of your IPv6 address. That said, no modern OS does that anymore, times 1% of IPv6-enabled users, so the closer term is "almost never".

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#82

Post by holograham »

dxdt wrote: post #46

Despite the defense of InstallMonetizer, their payment model and practices do not appear to be what you would find with a legitimate software business. InstallMonetizer has been used by malware as a method to make money as early as April 2011. It was being silently installed by a large botnet, and I assume that the botnet affiliate was making money off the installs. Their installers are also labeled as a malware by A…

my company's IA dept treats IM as malware FWIW...and we have industry leading IA/CND operations

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#83

Post by jessedhillon »

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…

You're a much more patient and understanding person than I am, pg. My initial reaction to pretty much every comment here is "Peanut gallery -- start your own incubator, or just accomplish one noteworthy thing in your life."

As a non-pg entity, I feel vicarious indignation. Who are these random nobodies who think they're entitled to question how/where you spend your time and effort?

And the people who get up on their soapbox about the ethics of YC or how you've tacitly endorsed deceptive practices? Ugh... eff the eff off

EDIT: to head off the obvious criticism, yes I do think there are legitimate questions about IM's business model. My point is: show some humility and circumspection when asking them. Unless you've had to earn $1 directly from a customer (no boss managing and organizing your work) you're an outsider looking in at a completely different universe. Act accordingly.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#84

Post by Aaronontheweb »

sbov wrote: post #39
notJim wrote: post #23

I dunno, 1. and 2. seem like a cop out to me. When crappy freeware Windows installers provide a checkbox (checked by default, of course) to opt out of Bonzai Buddy or a million Ask.com toolbars or some bullshit malware scanner, they are still shitty and sketchy, and it's disappointing to me to know that YC is now behind a company that makes such software. And saying this crapware is popular does little to assuage my…

Why don't you include examples of IM misbehaving rather than other companies you're trying to associate with them? The other post about this was full of this and it's crap.

The example of Babylon translator being bundled via IM in the previous thread was specific to IM, as was the input from anti-malware companies who had targeted IM's products specifically.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#85

Post by 205guy »

DoubleCluster wrote: post #19

> Every IM install screen has a decline as well as an accept button Well, could you provide a screenshot of that screen? Usually users are misled into thinking they are accepting the install of the software they actually downloaded. > The apps that get installed are "crapware." This one seems a matter of opinion. Yeah... I don't think very highly of your opinion if you really think like that. Making someones computer…

Yes, I definitely think we need screenshots (too lazy to sign up and get them myself). There used to be a graphic on their website (gone now) that showed an offer looking like a decline/agree license page. Under it they claimed their text is optimized for conversions--in other words, getting people to click.

Edited: the graphic isn't visible on their pages, but still available on their servers; see GuessWhy's comment:

  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5093242
Also, if this company pitched a new product to the investors, and then used the funding, or at least the branding, to run their old product (especially one deemed spammy or scammy by a majority of HN readers), it sounds like this company has figured out how to game the angel investing game.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#86

Post by 205guy »

garry wrote: post #78
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.

Garry, you've spoken up a lot here to defend IM, and that's fine, they probably need defending. However, it would've been nice to disclose in this thread that you're a YC partner.

I know, it's in your profile, and easy to find, as I did. But I'm a newbie here, I don't know personalities, and your posts made it sound like you're some Joe-User happy with IM's product, which isn't really the case.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#87

Post by moe »

ericd wrote: post #74
EwanToo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

PG accepted them into YC, funds them and defends them in public. If that's not an "active proponent" then I wonder how you define that term?

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#88

Post by powrtoch »

I don't understand all the moralizing going on in this thread.

VC is about funding the companies that could make a lot of money. When did we start expecting them to be the morality police?

Sure, if YC wants to build up a reputation for funding "honorable" startups, then they can choose to do so (and will choose to do so to the extent that they think it makes business sense). The comments here that say "This might be bad for YC's image and hurt YC long term" are all well and good. But lots of them amount to "this is bad and you should feel bad", and these just seem disconnected from the reality of market economics.

If YC doesn't fund some scuzzy but profitable company, someone else will. You can't solve job-outsourcing by asking companies not to outsource jobs, because the companies that play along will just get their asses kicked by those who don't. If you want to solve this problem, you have to do it at some other level (usually the laws and taxes level).

It's unreasonable to demand that YC pass on profitable businesses just because we don't like what those businesses are doing. I agree that IM doesn't seem to be making the world a better place, but that's not a problem that gets fixed by asking everyone to cooperate in starving them out.

Perhaps there's a line at which it's worthwhile to call out people for following the incentives that the market has given them, but I think this line is probably a lot closer to the "murder" end of the spectrum than the "installer checkboxes" end.

(Expecting downvotes, think I'm okay with that.)

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#89

Post by zaidf »

oh_sigh wrote: post #22

What about opt-in vs opt-out? Would this company be profitable if all of their toolbars were opt-in only? I'd be willing to bet a dollar that InstallMonetizer will tank if they relied on opt-in, but will make bank if they rely on opt-out.

InstallMonetizer will tank if they relied on opt-in, but will make bank if they rely on opt-out.

Just like the US Postal Service if direct mailing was opt-in instead of opt-out. What's your point?

Post reply on HN