Ask dotTechies: What are your thoughts on third party offers/advertisements bundled with program installers?
July 7, 2010 48
Email article | Print article 
Day by day we are seeing an increasing number of program installers coming bundled with third party offers/advertisements. Why? Simply because these third party offers/advertisements allow developers to take advantage of a business model that differs from the traditional make-money-by-selling-software mindset and enters the freeware-but-ad-supported system (shareware/commercial software that have third party offers/advertisements are just plain pathetic). After all, freeware developers are only human and they also desire to make money – can’t really blame them for that. The problem is adverts in program installers are notoriously unpopular among users.
Users have come to accept adverts on websites (although some users do block them, most realize that ads are needed to keep a website alive). So, then, why are ads in programs so hated? Isn’t the principle the same – adverts in program installers are needed to keep freeware alive, right? Well the root cause of the problem lies in the fact that adverts bundled in installers started off with useless – and often dangerous and malicious – programs being offered in the ads. While this is now changing, as developers realize that advertisements in programs are potentially a good money maker they are trying to get legitimate advertisers instead of undesirable ones, that sinking feeling about adverts being malicious in installers is still there among users. Plus it doesn’t help that many users often accidentally and unknowingly install third party/unrelated programs because many adverts are opt out instead of opt in.
So, then, that brings me to the main question of this article: What are your thoughts on third party offers/advertisements bundled with program installers? Do you support and encourage them, do you dislike and discourage them, do you dislike but accept them, etc.? To get the discussion started, I will share my opinion first.
As a website owner, I realize how critical advertisements are as a source of revenue. So, I support adverts in software installers (for freebie or freeware software only – not paid/commercial software) simply because freeware/freebie software developers need a source of revenue also. However, the software offerings in the adverts need to be
- 100% legitimate (not malicious or harmful in any way, shape, form, or fashion)
- Opt in (the best way to do this is to have neither “Yes install this” or “No don’t install this” selected by default – let the user select which one they want)
- Clearly labeled as not being a part of the software the user originally downloaded to install
That said, what is your opinion in the matter? Feel free to share in comments below.
I whole-heartedly accept the fact that these software developers need these ads for revenue. As long as they don’t use deceit to force you to install these bundled nonsense, then I am a-ok!!
As most have already said, I agree with you.. I think the adverts in freebies/freeware is ok, so long as it is an Opt-in. the user should be able to accept or decline at will. If the adverts are malicious or if it is a forced install, i think those are quite wrong. I understand the need for them for a source of revenue and am ok with them being there just as long as i can check/uncheck the install box..
I hate but accept
I don’t like it, but I do realize it helps reduce costs of the applications
I don’t mind ads at all during an install, or even when a program opens, as long as they’re somewhat related to the program I’m running, and they don’t force me to wait more than a few seconds. Installation choices should always be OPT-IN, or like Ashraf’s idea of no pre-checks on “Yes I want it” or “No I don’t”. It’s way too easy for my mouse to register two clicks instead of one and always at the most inopportune moments!
Another thing I would like to see: a way to get an explanation of any optional software before I decide. The one-liner next to the checkbox RARELY says what the program will do, or a full product/company name, or whether it’s required for some functionality in the program I’m installing, or whether I can easily uninstall it. And if I don’t have time to explore things right at that moment, why couldn’t the installer let me change my mind later?
Somehow I don’t think I’ve EVER missed anything good just by avoiding these extra installs, but I might be willing to try some if I knew what I was getting into.
While I agree with you, I do think that making all software open source would solve this problem, along with many others.
I feel that having third party installers bundled with a program is an acceptable way of getting revenue. I do not like the opt-out idea, but if you keep your eyes out when installing software, you shouldn’t get tricked into installing anything you don’t want. Of course, you should be watchful all the time you are on you’re PC, so you can remain safe.
I am not so sure about the ’100% legitimate.’ I mean, who can be sure of that unless you know it beforehand.
Install??! I’ve switched to only Free Software. If it doesn’t come with complete source code, I don’t use it.
(I’m talking to you too, Ubuntu.)
I pretty much agree with ashraf. Although I dislike it I think it is necessary. And with one exception I have never been forced to install something unwanted on my computer. That time I could easily remove it :-). I do not remember at any time not noticing the third party software that was bundled with an installer and accidentally installing it. I am usually pretty careful about things like that.
Welcome back Friend,
I agree 100%
The opt out option must be there.
Dr Nitin
I agree with the principle, provided it’s also easy to uninstall any 3rd party toolbar or software, and the consequences of accepting such 3rd party software are made clear.
I utterly detest deception- for example, where you expect a license agreement for the software you’re installing, but are presented with one for the 3rd party software; the general appearance of the prompt to ‘accept’ is what you expected for the program…
One I met recently had completely mixed accepting the license for the software with accepting the 3rd party offering- one checkbox. To install the software without the 3rd party add-on, you had to reject the program’s license too!
Ultimately, most who provide a service will only do so for reward so IF programmers aren’t going to charge for their work, this is the alternative and I don’t have a problem with that.
If you don’t like it, you can always uncheck the install box or, if you mistakenly accept it, uninstall later. Opt in, opt out, it doesn’t make a difference. If you want to see the program development continue, take steps to see that the developer gets paid.
As everybody mentioned here, I too agree 100% on what Ashraf’s take on 3rd party bundled specially in freewares. But to lessen the chance of getting all these additional obtrusive installers, one must take caution and responsible to NOT HAVING THE HABIT of click and click, instead, READ carefully so you know what exactly you are clicking. By doing this, none of this browser toolbars would get in to your system. I understand the developers of programs need to earn to sustain and continue with their programs future delevopment, that is why they include such advertisements and toolbars to their programs. Hope i share some clarification here.
I foresee a larger problem for the developers who adopt this practice. If you have a good product and bundle install it with some less than reputable product what image do users have of your product? I blame Microsoft squarely for the click click click installers that got people to be complacent about not reading what is actually being done with the install. (Do you wish to install? click Are you sure? click Tired of reading these instructions? click etc…) and the indecipherable legal language of the EULA. There is no magic bullet to fix this issue, except for users to call companies on this practice. Email the developers and express the harm they place their product in by bundling this stuff in. Create an environment that discourages this practice by boycotting the product, posting a “warning” about the bundled software on forums and sites like cnet etc… That being said, there is another party to blame and that is the undereducated public who repeatedly click through install software. We have a responsibility to protect ourselves and others from this “marketing” behavior. Sorry for the rant, just my two cents. (Yes, I repair comps daily and clean them up from this mess.)
Toolbars!!! I hate toolbars!!!
I find the bundling of these toolbars very offensive. It not freeware if these things are attached. Ask.com toolbar seems to be the most prolific one out the there. Some of the best freeware are now bundled with it (such as software from Piriform [CCleaner, Defraggle, Recuva and Speccy]) and there are more and more jumping on this bandwagon. I know that most have and opt out button, but some do not.
With the Ask.com toolbar comes checkask.exe, which tries to update the toolbar all the time.
I know the the freeware authors need to get some revenue somehow, but I ask them to rethink the bundling appoach.
For the most part I have no problem with third party software bundled with my download assuming there is an option to side step the installation of that third party software. I have rarely seen legitimate software bundled; it’s usually some kind of toolbar and I have a basic distrust for any toolbar including Google. I’ve never had one that wasn’t a problem sooner of later.
I understand that the dev’s of a particular software and the devs of the bundled software are both getting something out of the deal so I don’t have a huge problem with it as far as that goes, but when I see things like Ask and such bundled it makes me wonder what else the dev is will to do.
It makes you wonder just how FREE their software really is. Third party bundled software makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, but for the most part I don’t have a huge problem with it as long as you can untick it and it doesn’t install anything you didn’t ask for.
Freeware programmers put a lot of their time into creating programs for others to use for FREE! It is not wrong for them to want monetary compensation. Bundling toolbars and such is fair game as long as there is a clear option to remove the additional software.
Anything that installs toolbars or shortcuts without the option to remove the applications during the setup is irreparable to a user’s trust and deserves to be scorned. Few people actually read the EULA so owners of the bundled software can get screen time on many computers.
If anyone is too lazy to research the freeware they’re installing, or in a hurry to try a piece of new software, I’d recommend EULAlyzer. It scans text from a EULA for key words that notify the user if the EULA contains suspicious terms, not only pertaining to bundled toolbars and shortcuts.
Of course, it is best to know what you are installing!
I agree with Ashraf’s conclusion. I hate it when developers of BOTH freeware & paid programs try to sneak in unwanted toolbars, etc during an installation.
I HATE IT EVEN MORE WHEN DEVELOPERS SNEAKILY RESET YOUR SEARCH PAGE & HOMEPAGE TO THEIR OWN SITES & DISABLE YOUR BROWSER OPTION SO YOU CANNOT SET YOUR HOMEPAGE BACK TO YOUR OWN CHOICE.
If the advertising company doesn’t allow a developer to clearly show in an installer that a 3rd party software isn’t part of the desired program, can a developer add a page to the installer process that informs users that the next page offers optional programs from supporters?
It has been rather annoying that updaters for legitimate programs now come with nuisance-ware included. The Sun Java virtual machine is one example, it started with something from Norton and has evolved from there. I do not mind as much with freeware but the automatic opt-in really keeps you on your toes. The thing that gets to me is software that comes with baggage but gives you no option to decide whether it gets installed or not. It would be nice if Microsoft put out some tool through the sysinternals guys that would analyze installers and let you know what the software came with. This is what we need to really have options to get to the root of the problem. As for freeware authors I do not mind but wish they would follow some general rules like what Ashraf outlined so common users would not have to deal with these issues as much.
I’d only add that things like Adobe’s Acrobat Reader, or Flash, or Sun’s Java, that, while free, exist only to drive the market to buy actual products from Adobe/Sun/Etc., shouldn’t bundle stuff. They made a decision to base their business model on that software on a “free plugin, paid authoring tools” basis, and if that’s no longer tenable, well, maybe they should stop supporting it.
Basically I find this offensive because the companies are trying to profit off of you TWICE. Once by using you as yet another user out there with the plugin installed to try to convince people to buy their software, and then again as a way to get some money from a bundled offer. They want their cake and eat it too, and it’s really disgusting. (Oh, and if you actually do buy their offerings, they’re shooting for profiting off you three times since then you’re an actual customer too, as well as a statistic to drive more sales.)
I have to say that I hated them but, with so many software companies doing this I have become used to it.
Hate is not good anyway so, as long as I can opt out easily and there is no trickery involved – I’ll play the game albeit I should NOT have to do so when buying software.
Long story short they won’t stop doing this so I’ll keep opting out.
Have a Great Weekend and Vidimo Se!
I agree completely with your opinions, Ashraf.
Thanks for your work!