Shared publicly  - 
 
This has already been mentioned, but I think it's worth repeating.

A lot of software authors are struggling to make a living without having to resort to putting adware into their installers. If it were me, I would feel it was a slap in the face to go and wrap my work with such and take the money (saying you can buy a premium subscription if you want to disable it).

Personally I think it is also a problem that this is essentially moving their advertisement from the web, where you at least have some level of control, and down to an executable running on your system (apparently even requiring admin rights).

Here are some further links on the subject:

http://www.ghacks.net/2011/08/17/the-cnet-download-com-installer/
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/93504-download-com-wraps-downloads-in-bloatware-lies-about-motivations
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/08/22/1740238/Downloadcom-Now-Wraps-Downloads-In-Bloatware
http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=27720.0
CNet screws the pooch, wraps all downloads in crapware installer. In case you haven't heard, CNet has decided to take the morally reprehensible and legally questionably step of wrapping all downlo...
3
Jørgen Ibsen's profile photoJeremy Collake's profile photo
3 comments
 
This story has spread like wildfire. I'm happy to say I was one of the first 'on the scene', as I found this EXTREMELY offensive, as I believe most all vendors have, regardless of whether the vendor's policy on bundles. If the vendor is anti-bundle (like me), they are offended their software is being bundled, especially if they were using Download.com as their primary mirror. If the vendor is pro-bundle, then they are losing revenue to Download.com in cases where they are bundling the same thing, not to mention their users must go through two sets of 'bundle checkboxes' during install. The whole idea was incredibly stupid. I am sure some executive thought it up, the type who cares only about money, and figured they could surely get away with it due to Download.com's clout. I don't want to see anyone lose their job, but the damage done to this foundation of internet software distribution is colossal - and the person or people responsible for this decision should face the consequences.
 
Good point about installers already including adware +Jeremy Collake. And as you already posted, some conscious Download.com employees have posted a little clarification along with letting people know they can opt out at the moment:

"In the meantime, if you’re a developer and would like your software to be excluded from the installer, you can send a request for exclusion here: cnet-installer@cbsinteractive.com. No requests have been denied so far, to the best of my knowledge."
 
Yes, they responded the same day and DID remove the bundle from my software. I also learned that CNET employees don't like this any more than we do. As I've said elsewhere, consumers must make it clear to the upper corporate management that this policy will cost them more money than it makes them -- as that is the only language they understand, fiscal math. Also, as I say everywhere, consumers have the power in their hands to force companies to act ethically. Choose who you do business with, and YOU can start forcing companies to behave. Companies abusing consumers is nothing new, but it has been taken to a whole new level on the internet (as has just about everything).
Add a comment...