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

101–110 of 188 posts

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#101

Post by notJim »

niggler wrote: post #52
jiggy2011 wrote: post #34

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)

> PG knows and actively supports it.

I don't think this statement is really fair. If you read the previous post about this, he was clearly surprised and troubled, and he again seems troubled here. He also mentioned in a comment in this thread [1] that he didn't seem to know about InstallMonetizer, and that the team is working on a different product.

[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5093047

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#102

Post by jiggy2011 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #99
powrtoch wrote: post #88

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…

I guess most of us here got used to YC's reputation and don't want to see it loosing it. > 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.

Yep, if there are less VCs and incubators willing to fund these companies then these companies will find it harder to get favourable terms, therefor there is less incentive to start these sorts of business.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#103

Post by TeMPOraL »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #100
ddunkin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To be fair, I don't think the prostitution analogy holds too well here. At least a prostitute is providing a service that there is legitimate demand for from the end user. You could also argue that one could "clean it up" by making it safer and better regulated. A more apt analogy might be drug dealers subsidising medication by cutting it with heroin.

> To be fair, I don't think the prostitution analogy holds too well here.

I agree. That's why I often tell people that I have higher regard for prostitution than for telemarketing - the former at least provide value in response to a genuine need (whether we feel it's beneficial for society or not). Telemarketers however, just like install bundlers, actively try to exploit people.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#104

Post by niggler »

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.

Comment was not edited. It looks like you viscerally reacted to a comment suggesting PG isn't a deity.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#105

Post by DoubleCluster »

ddunkin wrote: post #64
dsl wrote: post #13

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…

Well... I would like to disagree on your opinion about cleaning up prostitution. Over here in the Netherlands it seems to work just fine. If person A pays person B for doing intimate stuff that doesn't really harm anyone.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#106

Post by notJim »

powrtoch wrote: post #88

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…

There are shitty things in the world. Some of those shitty things are profitable. Many many profitable things are not shitty. It is entirely up to the individual whether they want to be a part of the shitty things, particularly when the individual has the privilege of being in demand. If you're a software developer who decides to work on scammy tools to make money, that's fine, but don't expect me to not factor that information into how I decide what kind of person you are.

Further, YC is supposed to be innovation, and disrupting entrenched markets. Profitable innovation and profitable disruption, yes, but as I said, there's more than one way to make money, and the way YC claims to want to make money is in those ways. Bundling crapware with Windows installers is not a disruptive or innovative way of making money. It would be classified as a shitty, scummy way of making money that has been happening for years. Many of us here that admire YC admire them because we think that innovation and disruption ultimately are beneficial. So when YC, instead of funding innovation and disruption, funds scumminess and shittiness that's been happening for years, we are disappointed in them.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#107

Post by jiggy2011 »

powrtoch wrote: post #88

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…

Nobody necessarily expects YC to be a charity, on the other hand they have made significant PR and marketing capital on the basis of being basically a force for good in the world.

For example PGs own writings: http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#108

Post by seanlinehan »

ricw wrote: post #97
powrtoch wrote: post #88

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 IM would be solving a problem, I would agree. Unfortunately it is crapware. Crap. Ware. It is not solving a problem. It is making the world a worse place. Maybe they should start Investing into viruses?! where does this end? It's something I wouldn't expect of pg and yc. It's simply immoral and shit behaviour. Divest or be disgraced!

Classic straw man argument. Viruses are illegal in almost every case and thus clearly they should not, and will not, invest in viruses. Not that I support IM, but they are solving a clear and distinct problem: software is hard to monetize.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#109

Post by photon137 »

Extremely disappointed. If integrity in all aspects of a business is a lower priority than growth, then I don't suppose there is any difference between Wall Street and Silicon Valley investors anymore.

Questionable practices should be just that - questionable - and remain that way. This "ironing" over by stalwarts like pg poses the danger of this stuff becoming the norm over time.

Re: What we discovered about InstallMonetizer

#110

Post by jneen »

powrtoch wrote: post #88

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…

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

Maybe they should start investing in private prisons and arms dealers. I hear they make loads of money.

To come down from that loaded statement, a good investment is different from a profitable one. Or at least, I'd like our culture to believe that.

Post reply on HN