91–100 of 188 posts
I kind of figured this from the get-go. I met them at Affiliate Summit and was quite impressed with them, so the controversy felt a little overblown at first glance. Glad to see they are the kind of people we can safely work with.
Really though, if you weren't one of the criticized parties (for funding them), would you really think the same about points two and three? And even bothered to point out the first? Regardless of whether you should have funded them, your post sounds rather biased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ar…
> we can't assume that our computing preferences are shared by "most end-users".
Those are still anecdotes, but I think most of us actually can say this or that about end-users preferences, after countless of hours spent on cleaning their computers. I for one think that calling it "nuisance" is a massive understatement.
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…
pg, the world of Windows software is grim, but mostly it's because majority of users are not tech-savvy. It's not that they are willing or not to click through buttons, they simply don't know what they're doing. I've seen this countless of times, and cleaned up many more computers from the results of such installations. IM might not be misleading anyone, but it's mostly because you cannot mislead a person who doesn't even listen to you.
All in all, whether or not IM will make Windows software space worse depends strongly on how they'll select the advertisers. It's a lot of trust to be put in a company, so no wonder people are sceptical.
I also think that GoDaddy is a very low standard to compare to, much, much lower than what we came to expect from YC startups.
(EDIT: spelling)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, I always feel these "choices" are like being sold an extended warranty. It's presented as a choice but is "strongly recommended", non tech savvy users are likely not sure what "recommended" means in this context. Does it mean that the software might break my computer without it? Does it stop me getting a virus? Anybody who consciously decides that they want the ask toolbar on their computer can find the stan…
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)
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…
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?
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…
> If YC doesn't fund some scuzzy but profitable company, someone else will.
This is never a valid argument for explaining your behavior. There's a good chance that someone else will do it anyway, so now there are two bad actors instead of one.
These guys have gotten a lot of flack they don't deserve. A friend of mine builds and distributes what most people would consider "crapware" (toolbars, adware, etc.) and was flat out denied by IM when he tried to use them for distribution. Sure a bad apple or two might slip through, but according to my friend its rare to ever be denied by a distributor unless you're not willing to pay going rates. It seems like they…
This industry sounds dirty by nature, you can't 'clean up' spammers or prostitution either. Just because a pimp won't sell his girl to just any old John, doesn't make the whole act any better. It's people in the middle trying to make money off of someone else's hard work. It is really simple, just don't attempt to trick users into installing stuff they didn't want to download in the first place (anything outside the…
A more apt analogy might be drug dealers subsidising medication by cutting it with heroin.