Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash • Hacker News Board

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#111

Post by Nursie » Wed, May 01, 2013, 11:54 PM UTC

kijin wrote: post #41

Nursie wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in your free market there is no copyright on software?

When did Ninite ever infringe on anyone's copyright?

Didn't say they were. I was replying to the folks saying that the distribution of flash without crapware was a free market solution. In a free market with no copyright, sure. In a market in which there is copyright though, adobe (copyright holder) decide on the distribution method. Which is what happened here.

The folks I was replying to seemed to think that adobe stopping them was anti free market. I just wanted to clarify that that meant they didn't agree with copyright in any form, which is quite an extreme position.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#112

Post by Nursie » Wed, May 01, 2013, 11:59 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #94

Nursie wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in your free market there is no copyright on software?

Free markets and government-granted monopolies are at odds, yes. http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Ok, just wanted to check. Personally I find that an extreme position and don't think abandoning copyright is a useful or beneficial idea.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#113

Post by shinratdr » Thu, May 02, 2013, 1:07 AM UTC

JohnTHaller wrote: post #10

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per…

> In a similar vein, this is why Piriform cut them off from providing CCleaner via Ninite. Because automatic updating is a feature of CCleaner's business model, too. The paid version of CCleaner has automatic updates.

Maybe CCleaner should rethink that one, that is an awful business model. I wonder if they do the same thing with their OS X version too, because if so they might want to have a chat with the MacUpdate Desktop folks too.

IMO you can't blame app update tools for breaking a business model. That's a really idiotic business model to begin with. Charging for updates, fine. But charging for the ability to auto-check for updates? There is a reason nobody else in the industry does that. Because it's stupid.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#114

Post by oofoe » Thu, May 02, 2013, 2:27 AM UTC

shinratdr wrote: post #113

JohnTHaller wrote: post #10

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per…

> In a similar vein, this is why Piriform cut them off from providing CCleaner via Ninite. Because automatic updating is a feature of CCleaner's business model, too. The paid version of CCleaner has automatic updates. Maybe CCleaner should rethink that one, that is an awful business model. I wonder if they do the same thing with their OS X version too, because if so they might want to have a chat with the MacUpdate D…

The big problem for me (and maybe Piriform?) is that now I don't have any of their products on my systems because I can't get them through Ninite. I used to religiously install their CCleaner, their defrag and system information tools. They're all very good, but I'm not going to walk through three separate installers for something that Ninite used to do in seconds.

When I bring up a new system, I just go to Ninite, check some stuff and I'm done. For most machines, there is nothing else to do.

I suppose this is sort of a cautionary tale... "Don't try to take your installer back from Ninite after they've showed everyone how it can be so much better."

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#115

Post by kijin » Thu, May 02, 2013, 2:57 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #111

kijin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did Ninite ever infringe on anyone's copyright?

Didn't say they were. I was replying to the folks saying that the distribution of flash without crapware was a free market solution. In a free market with no copyright, sure. In a market in which there is copyright though, adobe (copyright holder) decide on the distribution method. Which is what happened here. The folks I was replying to seemed to think that adobe stopping them was anti free market. I just wanted to…

Ninite does not distribute Flash. Adobe does, and always has. Ninite merely provides an automatic way to download Flash from Adobe's servers and say "No" to every crapware installation prompt.

Adobe gets to decide on the distribution method, whether with or without Ninite. There's nothing stopping Adobe from bundling McAfee with Flash in such a way that it becomes impossible to install Flash without McAfee, it's a free market after all. Instead Adobe gave users a choice as to whether or not to install McAfee, and Ninite helps users express that choice.

> they didn't agree with copyright in any form

The article doesn't say anything about copyright or DMCA. Nobody else has expressed any view on copyright in this thread. The only person in this thread who is talking about copyright is you.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#116

Post by GhotiFish » Thu, May 02, 2013, 3:10 AM UTC

kijin wrote: post #40

GhotiFish wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. With them being for profit, they have lost their credibility. Frankly, just look at their website: https://ninite.com/updater/ Aren't there other free updaters? Sure, but they don't work like Ninite Updater. With Ninite Updater it's one step to download and install all your updates in the background at once. Yup, This story is not black and white. I'm actually on adobe's side.

What's wrong with being for-profit? People need to put food on their tables after all.

I realize I'm opening up myself to more, but hell it ain't about the karma.

Nothing's wrong with being for-profit. Redhat's for profit, I like them. What I don't like is the cut of David's gib in this David and Goliath story.

If Adobe turned to Ubuntu and said "Hey, don't put our plugin in your repositories, we want to spam mcaffe at linux users". That would be a really good reason to get the pitchforks and torches out! Adobe is instead responding to another for-profit company who's removing adobe's advertisement in place of their own.

The consumer gains a little from this, yah they're less obnoxious, but they're still selling package management, what I would argue a fundamental operation in an OS, for the low low price of only 9.99.

This article is angry at Adobe for making Windows hard to use by baiting users. Ninite is guilty of the same crime, even if it's to a lesser extent.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#117

Post by Nursie » Thu, May 02, 2013, 3:54 AM UTC

kijin wrote: post #115

Nursie wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't say they were. I was replying to the folks saying that the distribution of flash without crapware was a free market solution. In a free market with no copyright, sure. In a market in which there is copyright though, adobe (copyright holder) decide on the distribution method. Which is what happened here. The folks I was replying to seemed to think that adobe stopping them was anti free market. I just wanted to…

Ninite does not distribute Flash. Adobe does, and always has. Ninite merely provides an automatic way to download Flash from Adobe's servers and say "No" to every crapware installation prompt. Adobe gets to decide on the distribution method, whether with or without Ninite. There's nothing stopping Adobe from bundling McAfee with Flash in such a way that it becomes impossible to install Flash without McAfee, it's a fr…

Other than the guy who posted a link to mises.org and agreed that copyright and the free market do clash. And I certainly didn't mention the DMCA, that was all you.

--edit-- And it could still be a copyright violation if the terms of the license require non-automated install. As it's adobe's product they get to say how it is copied (installed).

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#118

Post by JohnTHaller » Thu, May 02, 2013, 4:24 AM UTC

e40 wrote: post #44

JohnTHaller wrote: post #10

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per…

You imply Ninite are charging for Flash, but they are not. The charge is for the Pro service. I don't use it (I use the free installers, and love them). I'm not in the target group for the Pro--admins that need to keep a lot of machines up to date. If I were in that group, I'd gladly pay. The whole focus on Ninite charging is a red herring. This also has to do with the free installer that Ninite provides to people wh…

The article was talking up the fact that Ninite allowed you to update your apps. The Ninite Updater, intended for home users, is a paid service for $10 and is separate from Ninite Pro, intended for corporate users. Without paying the $10 fee, Ninite doesn't provide automatic updates.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#119

Post by JohnTHaller » Thu, May 02, 2013, 4:26 AM UTC

greghinch wrote: post #62

JohnTHaller wrote: post #10

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per…

> Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. It saddens me that we've gotten to a point where operating a service company for profit can't also be seen as doing good. Everyone has to pay the bills (and maybe even be rewarded for their efforts?), even the do-gooders.

A for profit company can also be seen as doing good. My issue with the article is the complete one-sided-ness and the fact that they say that Ninite is an alternative to using the Flash updater but neglect to mention that Ninite costs $10 a year for updates while Flash's built-in automatic updater is free.

Re: Adobe wants Ninite to stop rolling out crapware-free Flash

#120

Post by JohnTHaller » Thu, May 02, 2013, 4:29 AM UTC

SeanDav wrote: post #85

JohnTHaller wrote: post #10

This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per…

Perhaps you should have disclosed your own interests before criticizing Ninite....

I have no interests concerning Ninite. I think they offer a handy service. But the article was completely one-sided and left out some key points so I offered a factual counterpoint. The site I run, PortableApps.com, is in no way competitive with Ninite as we offer portable software while Ninite is meant to streamline installation of local software.