What Happens When You Install the Top Download.com Apps

This is the #1 reason Windows is no longer on my kid's computers; it's too easy to install crap-ware no matter what security package you use.

That's a major indictment of CNET. They're in the crapware/adware/spyware business. Some of the crapware downloaded even bears their logo.

The two programs frantically fighting over the browser home page was amusing.

I had to install the DirectX user runtime recently and was pretty shocked to see Microsoft has loaded it up with lots of crapware. First when you click download from its page at http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=35 you're prompted to set MSN as your homepage, download the malicious software removal tool, and download IE11 (if you're on Windows). Then after you skip that you get the download and when you run it it will try to get you to install the Bing bar in the installer. Overall just a really shady and crap experience, especially coming from Microsoft.

Also agreeing to set MSN as your homepage with the install bloats the download size from a svelte 286kb for the DX web installer to 2.4mb (just to set a homepage!?). Way to completely defeat the purpose of providing a small installer by bundling in crap.

> Because when the product is free the real product is YOU.

I disagree with this conclusion. Also, I have a related issue with some of the opinions I hear e.g. on HN that confuse me.

Many a person says in defense of ads - "but surely authors have to support themselves, otherwise there'd be no site/software", "TANSTAAFL", etc. But this seems to me to be in disagreement with observable reality.

What I see is a strong and direct correlation between amount of ads and crappiness/dishonesty. For websites, it is usually "the more ads there are, the more likely content is wrong/crap/nonexisting and the author is there to take your money". For applications, similarly - more ads means crappier downloads, and - if it's the author's site that's full of banners - the program is most likely shit.

What I observe is that there are two reliable types of sources/downloads: 1) linked on author's site, free and free of ads - they signal that the author actually cares about the content they're providing (see "the toilet-paper companies"[0]) and 2) linked on author's site, that ask you to pay up front - here it signals that the author is honest.

So do the authors really have to "support themselves"? Or is it that the honest ones either do it for free (because they care, and they get money needed to support it elsewhere) or sell in clear terms? And the ad-dependent money makers have no business being on the Internet in the first place?

That's why I also feel no guilt for browsing with AdBlock on - neither the ads nor the ad-serving pages are a good deal for anyone in any way.

As for the Downloads.com, CNET, et al. - I hope that the introduction of Windows Store/package manager will shut them down for good. They're evil, they deserve to be down.

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8319102

Even the Windows Java client installer tries to get you to install the Ask toolbar (or at least it did; I haven't seen an update recently). I imagine it must be quite lucrative for Oracle; either that, they stopped caring about Java's reputation as a user-facing technology for web content or desktop applications, or users just don't notice these things.