What we discovered about InstallMonetizer
It's unclear exactly how much of a right we as investors have to tell the companies we fund what to do. But on the other hand we don't like the idea that someone we funded might be doing something illicit, so we felt like we should at least investigate the claims and if there was a problem, try to convince IM to fix it.
Here's a list of things people said about IM or similar products, and what we discovered about each:
1. They make "drive-by installers." A drive-by installer installs software without the user's knowledge. This accusation is false. Other companies in this business do such things, but IM doesn't. Every IM install screen has a decline as well as an accept button, and if the user declines, no software is installed.
2. The apps that get installed are "crapware." This one seems a matter of opinion. A lot of the world's most popular apps and sites seem like junk to us. But the users are choosing to install these things.
3. IM "monitors and uploads user’s ongoing usage activity of the bundled crapware." This fact is disclosed in the IM EULA (which admittedly probably no one reads), but more importantly isn't used for any money-making purpose. The usage info is (a) collected only for the first 30 minutes and (b) is only used to prove to the advertiser that the install is by a human and not a bot.
4. "This surprisingly includes not only IP but the globally unique MAC addresses." This information also isn't used for marketing purposes, only if advertisers request it to clear up discrepancies in dowload figures. We asked IM to switch to uploading hashes of the IP and MAC address instead, and they are going to start doing that.
5. Comments on HN mentioned that a lot of companies in this business wrap OSS in violation of the license terms. When we asked IM, they scanned their publishers and found that 6% of them were doing this. Those publishers have been banned from using IM, and all future publishers will be thoroughly screened for ownership of their software.
6. Comments on HN also pointed out that some apps installed by this type of installer are excessively hard to uninstall-- e.g. because when you try to uninstall them, they re-install themselves. This again is something that while common practice in this industry, IM won't do. They ban advertisers who do such things.
187 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 223 ms ] threadI will remain liking your work! :)
But please, keep paying attention... I think that sometimes if companies can get away with doing bad stuff, they will (in that case maybe it was not malicious, but getting IP and MAC addresses is kinda dangerous for example).
Set the default to opt-out with no encouraging language and you'll see how much users really "want" it.
Glad to see they are the kind of people we can safely work with.
You may of course defend the product on technical grounds (accept buttons, EULAs, etc) but I find it hard to believe that you truly think it is anything but a nuisance to end-users.
I don't know what IM installs - but I see Norton on their webpage. I can easily see "most end-users" installing something, seeing the opportunity to install Norton Anti-Virus, and thinking to themselves "oh yea, that sounds like that'd be useful".
Just about everybody on HN is extremely technically savvy - we can't assume that our computing preferences are shared by "most end-users". Note that I am just responding to the assertion that "it['s] hard to believe that [PG] truly think[s] it is anything but a nuisance to end-users".
> we can't assume that our computing preferences are shared by "most end-users".
Those are still anecdotes, but I think most of us actually can say this or that about end-users preferences, after countless of hours spent on cleaning their computers. I for one think that calling it "nuisance" is a massive understatement.
While i dislike the idea of crapware, if it funds useful pieces of software, perhaps its a nuisance that could be tolerated.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5086435
Quoting Rafael: "You'll find they only have 42 current advertisers... and not Norton/others listed on the site."
The whole world of Windows software seems pretty grim, and when people get something for free or cheap they're often willing to click through a bunch of buttons to get it, but as far as I can tell IM isn't actually misleading anyone. E.g. as far as I can tell it's no worse than all the upsells people have to click through to register domains on GoDaddy.
Edit: spelling
I'm glad they're looking at a different avenue. While we can debate the particulars about whether or not certain windows installer ride-alongs or all of them are scammy, I don't think it's a valuable business. Comparing to GoDaddy doesn't make it sound better via association.
Hope to see something more awesome from these folks soon.
As a non-pg entity, I feel vicarious indignation. Who are these random nobodies who think they're entitled to question how/where you spend your time and effort?
And the people who get up on their soapbox about the ethics of YC or how you've tacitly endorsed deceptive practices? Ugh... eff the eff off
EDIT: to head off the obvious criticism, yes I do think there are legitimate questions about IM's business model. My point is: show some humility and circumspection when asking them. Unless you've had to earn $1 directly from a customer (no boss managing and organizing your work) you're an outsider looking in at a completely different universe. Act accordingly.
Sure, there may be factors here we don't understand here but I think now would be an excellent time to unveil whatever grand plan they have to head off the PR shitstorm this is in the process of creating.
As I have mentioned elsewhere YC have gained significant nerd-cred which has no doubt been beneficial to them. This seems to be largely because they appear as a company that has strong driving principles about the sort of changes they want to see in the world.
No it doesn't mean that. What it means is that you, as a non-doctor, should excercise some discretion and humility wen choosing your words. Expressing harsh condemnation and judgment when you have a small piece of the picture is an unbelievable asshole move. None of these Tough Guys throwing around words like "crapware" and "spammer" would ever call anyone out like this in public, I guarantee it -- it's all keyboard courage and nerdrage.
This seems to be largely because they appear as a company that has strong driving principles about the sort of changes they want to see in the world.
IMO it's more due to the fact that YC asks for nerds to come as they are -- the entry process asks you how you're a hacker, and if you're selected you get an interview where pg wants you to geek out with him about your product. No flashy pitches or navigating social networks to get the right intro -- it's a process that cuts out all the BS that doesn't appeal to nerds.
The idea that there is some violated goodwill is just backwards rationalization. And it doesn't change my point, which is, essentially: who are you to question where YC invests?
A free man, in a free country, on a message forum where all are free to post their opinions?
The reason all the "random nobodies" are questioning IM's business model is that they have deep-seated feelings about the scammy business and the evilness of Windows installers. They spent hours cleaning up mountains of crap from their relatives' and friends' computers. They understand how non-tech users feel helpless in the face of sneaky bullshit artists piling that crap onto their hard drives, and they feel enraged when they think about it, and for a good reason too.
So in fact, nobody who's in business of building installers that distribute crap toolbars deserves humility and circumspection. They might possibly be that rare exception, a flower blooming on a dunghill, but asking sharp questions to establish that is neither impolite nor inappropriate. It comes with the territory they've chosen to grow on.
Your moral indignation is as laughable as it is corrupt. Just as much of it would be appropriate defending an actual spammer - I can see you directing people to get off their soapboxes and telling them they don't get to judge the spammer's business until they earned $1 from a customer. A "completely different universe" indeed. Get a clue.
In my case (by extension, my business), the appropriate units here would be "months" (assuming 720 hrs/month).
Yet I still don't see this as a YC issue, I don't see anything more justifiable than a quibble over PG's response to it, and I'm a little stunned at the vitriol here.
Still though, the response seems disproportionate. It's not like YC has recently developed a pattern of funding distasteful businesses (or teams); why did everyone automatically assume YC was behaving badly?
There still seems to be a problem in people jumping to conclusions before having enough information at hand. A lot of the comments on Aaron's case were symptomatic of this (the fallout too).
I'm not sure if this is a new problem here or not, but it seems to be getting a lot uglier recently.
Maybe the business shouldn't stay afloat, maybe it should wind itself down.
I say this as someone who was approached by InstallMonetizer in 2011/2012 to add IM to the installers of my Windows apps. I declined, of course, because I wouldn't want to trick my customers with the tactics that InstallMonetizer uses. Tricking customers with EULA-like 'offer screens' to install browser toolbars is wrong.
I would rather close down my business than treat my customers that way.
pg, the world of Windows software is grim, but mostly it's because majority of users are not tech-savvy. It's not that they are willing or not to click through buttons, they simply don't know what they're doing. I've seen this countless of times, and cleaned up many more computers from the results of such installations. IM might not be misleading anyone, but it's mostly because you cannot mislead a person who doesn't even listen to you.
All in all, whether or not IM will make Windows software space worse depends strongly on how they'll select the advertisers. It's a lot of trust to be put in a company, so no wonder people are sceptical.
I also think that GoDaddy is a very low standard to compare to, much, much lower than what we came to expect from YC startups.
(EDIT: spelling)
Although admittedly I have no idea what GoDaddy's checkout procedure is like since I have honestly never used it, maybe it is especially terrible in which case that is not a glowing reflection on this software..
However, thinking of less technical users here.
When you are in the mode to buy something , you are probably prepared for an upsell at some point and know what to look out for.
When installing something on your computer, a less savvy user is likely not knowledgeable enough to understand the implications of something extra being installed on their computer with often full administrative privileges.
They are also unlikely to understand the difference between an extra system component that must be installed for technical reasons (.Net, DirectX etc) and some third party software that is completely separate and not required.
I don't think the average HN user is really interested in having InstallMonetizer change their business practices (it seems futile to form a witch hunt against one of many companies).
Currently, the OP above makes it looks as though YC did invest in InstallMonetizer and that you endorse their current practices and are defending them against the mass of hate.
I think a better way of handling this would be to make it clear that engaging in questionable business practices is not the way to get funded by YC, and distance yourself as much as possible from these guys.
Just my two cents, FWIW.
This is worse than that. I know the types of people who have browsers full of ask.com/aol/etc toolbars. They aren't technically inclined. They don't even recall how those toolbars ever came to be there and they never wanted them.
They aren't able to see through the tricks. They want to download software. They know that's the goal. Installers simply have to keep offering them opportunities to download software and they'll keep agreeing to it to achieve their goal.
At the moment, their website states:
"We are a YCombinator company (YCW2012) and are backed by some of the most prestigious investors in the silicon valley."
Even the 48 bit mac address alone is 281,474,976,710,656 possibilities, and thus likely rainbow-table proof, especially if salted.
IP addresses don't have 32 bits of entropy either for that matter.
Personally, though... is this a product you're proud of?
That being said, this sort of thing is sort of depressing. It's representative of the ho-hum dregs of innovation being offered up by most startups, at least in the Internet sphere. If I didn't know better, and I don't, I'd say the net is showing signs of being stuck in a holding pattern. Yuck.
All the interesting stuff seems to be in other areas: bio-medical, consumer devices, high-tech hobbyist stuff, and in the big ticket realm aerospace and transportation.
This raises a question though: does this company make something that users want? When a user installs a specific program is he/she looking to install other software as well? Is the argument that InstallMonetizer bundles useful software that it feels will enhance the user's life in some way? (going off the adage that the consumer does not really know what they want i.e. they'd just ask for a faster horse)
I recognise you are treading a fine line between defending a company you feel a duty to and practices and business model that you probably wouldn't select for Y-Combinator on the publicly visible business model. I hope they pivot to a less controversial model and leave you in a more comfortable place.
* You are right that the users are the advertisers but that must make the person running the installer the victim or at best the product.
Which is the default? Decline or accept?
It seems like they are working to clean up a dirty industry. Just like AdWords did to the PPC business.
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 bundle they chose to download). Additional steps on install only take away from the user experience and taint the experience of the application you are wrapping.
A more apt analogy might be drug dealers subsidising medication by cutting it with heroin.
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.
I'm generally under the thought that person B is always being exploited in some way or another, but there are always other cases out there.
No consumer wants this stuff. The advertiser's software is a nuisance and gives no advantages to the end-user.
Well, could you provide a screenshot of that screen? Usually users are misled into thinking they are accepting the install of the software they actually downloaded.
> The apps that get installed are "crapware." This one seems a matter of opinion.
Yeah... I don't think very highly of your opinion if you really think like that. Making someones computer slower or less usable by installing "unwanted software" is something that should be forbidden in my opinion. Really, do you have any idea how much hours of my life were lost by removing crapware from computers?
I did check the ycombinator.com website for any indication if the type of company or product was of any concern. I did not find anything about that. This probably means ycombinator is actually just interested in the money and not in making the world a better place. Silly idealistic me...
Edited: the graphic isn't visible on their pages, but still available on their servers; see GuessWhy's comment:
Also, if this company pitched a new product to the investors, and then used the funding, or at least the branding, to run their old product (especially one deemed spammy or scammy by a majority of HN readers), it sounds like this company has figured out how to game the angel investing game.I'd be willing to bet a dollar that InstallMonetizer will tank if they relied on opt-in, but will make bank if they rely on opt-out.
Just like the US Postal Service if direct mailing was opt-in instead of opt-out. What's your point?
By the way, here's an example of what we're talking about: http://imgur.com/8SGXUPP. Oracle bundles the ask toolbar with Java installs now. This is the default state, i.e., the box is default-checked. Why, users love the ask toolbar, they probably have a 95% install rate!
Anybody who consciously decides that they want the ask toolbar on their computer can find the standalone download here:
http://sp.ask.com/toolbar/install/apnasktoolbar/download.php
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.
Edit: Reading some of your other comments in this thread confirms that you're assuming a lot of things that aren't true to build an internal narrative and participate in this silly little drama. YC is not controlling at all, and is frequently not directly involved with guiding a company, unless the founders reach out for advice. It's a self-directed program.
Any sort of parasitism is trying to circumvent this process by convincing others that they need software that isn't directly needed for the problem at hand or otherwise forcing people to install software. And that's the type of behavior styled as "questionable" in this discussion. Tactics like omitting a "no thanks", while perfectly legal, seem as questionable in many other contexts.
If you are right, it's not because no good software aught to be promoted and thus this (and by extension of your logic most any type of promotion) can't be legit, but rather that there doesn't exist a non-scummy way of conducting this particular type of promotion. Is that true?
Sure, advertise the crap out of your product, but do it in contexts where people expect to see them. It's like I'd let a friend through my doorstep, and a random salesman tried to sneak in while doors were open.
And first make sure that whatever you're promoting has any value for user. I'm yet to see a single thing install-bundled that is net-positive for user.
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
The facts here are simple:
1. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 startups in the current YC batch (http://ycombinator.com/w13smaller.html).
2. They are all coached by around 7 active partners (http://ycombinator.com/w13smaller.html) and perhaps some program alumni.
3. But those people also continue to support participants from past batches too.
4. This is (so far) an isolated incident -- YC hasn't even had time to change any of its procedures, even if it deems it necessary to do so.
5. Immediately after it being brought to his attention, PG followed up with the owners and they made some changes as a result...
6. ...even though they aren't in YC for IM, YC has no real influence or control over IM or even the team.
So what's your expectation here? Should YC be performing a full background check on participants? If IM wasn't mentioned during the application or interview process, how reasonable is it to expect YC to have known about it? Are we supposed to expect someone at YC to be able to glance at something like IM and sense whether it's icky or not, or are we supposed to expect them to spend hours digging into it?
A program like YC is bound to attract some bad apples eventually (and we don't even know that these guys are "bad"), especially since YC explicitly looks for people doing things that might seem questionable at first.
A) Your purported argument about scale really suggests that YC may have more investments than they can reasonably manage, but that doesn't absolve them from blame. This is EXACTLY the same argument Rupert Murdoch made (We have so many newspapers that we couldn't possibly be aware of hacking at one paper)
B) Your sixth fact is
There are actually two parts here, and I'd like to hone into the first for a moment: "even though they aren't in YC for IM". It seems VERY odd that PG would allow companies to pivot without first having an office hour or discussion with partners on the matter, and if what you are saying is true then there are deep procedural issues. Murdoch tried to make the same argument regarding autonomy of the individual units under News Corp.C) Your second and third fact focus on partners and alumni. They have additional senior staff, so how was this allowed to happen? If the partners and alumni did share the same mores as PG purports to hold now, and if at least one partner or alumnus dealt with IM, then there's an internal inconsistency (akin to blaming rebekah brooks for what is really a cultural issue)
D) Your fourth fact tries to argue that this is a single bad apple. It's the first instance being reported. Of course it's an isolated incident insofar as no other company attempted the same effort, which is exactly what James Murdoch claimed regarding News of the World.
E) " Immediately after it being brought to his attention, PG followed up with the owners and they made some changes as a result..."
The problem is that the underlying problem wasn't resolved. PG decided to point to the TOS, which doesn't address the nature of the business model. This is akin to James pointing to ATT's terms of service and security model.
I'm pretty sure that for whatever "fact" you wish to throw there's an analogue, and until there's some sort of real "accountability" I don't see how you could have such unwavering support.
My expectation is simple: if YC wants to invest in those types of firms, that's their prerogative and they should own their decision. Don't try to pull some cognitive dissonance. Just say that you are comfortable with investing in the malware model, and this entire discussion would be moot. The only reason my reply makes sense is because PG and YC claim to aspire to something higher. If we all drop that assumption, then the original issue is really irrelevant.
And with regards to your last comment: " YC explicitly looks for people doing things that might seem questionable at first.", I think you misunderstand what 'questionable' means there. Questionable there means "i doubt it could succeed", not "shady business practices".
And, again, even if someone knew about IM -- even if it was mentioned on their application as a past project -- there is absolutely no reasonable expectation that YC's principals should have looked far enough into it to come to the same conclusions that other people here did.
Furthermore, I'm not sure where people are getting the notion that YC funds things on some moral basis. As far as I know, there has never been any statement to that effect, nor is it supported by data. At most I would say only that YC looks for startups that "make something that people want". You seem to be on some kind of mission to "expose" YC, except that all you're really doing is exposing what you have imagined YC to be. This makes you look silly, not them. Every single batch, there is at least one thread on HN wondering why YC funded some company or another, usually because people disagree with the business model. Yet, people are still surprised when YC funds something they disagree with.
I did not at all misunderstand what questionable means. I used it exactly as I meant to.
Finally, your continued comparison to Murdoch is beyond absurd. You are performing a slightly more contemporary version of Godwinning this thread. I shouldn't dignify it with a response, but, Murdoch was found to have been willfully ignorant of what was going on, all while there were widespread (and well-founded) allegations that in fact the top-level executives of his various companies were (and still are) carrying out his wishes in spirit, if not in letter. The News of the World incident was only the one that they happened to get caught at. Only the most imaginative mind could find some kind of allegory between that situation and this one.
You are trying to claim that YC has divested its interest. Clearly that didn't happen -- if it already did, then PG wouldn't have had to respond. Stop trying to change the subject by focusing on the application -- the problem you are trying to avoid explaining is on the fact that somehow they went from state A to state B, a massive shift, without anyone at YC noticing (ironically, this is exactly the storyline in the News of the World scandal that you find criminal in one case and plausable in another). YC is a significant investor in most of these companies and (based on their claims) has a sufficiently frequent engagement with the companies that it would be hard to pivot without them noticing.
"I'm not sure where people are getting the notion that YC funds things on some moral basis."
I don't think they are, but PG is in a state of cognitive dissonance: he is trying to claim that he is being "moral" by not sponsoring spam yet is profiting from the practice. That's the part that rubs me wrong (and, incidentally, another aspect of the phone hacking scandal that rubbed me wrong) Defending cognitive dissonance is not just silly -- it's deceptive and does a disservice to silicon valley.
Honest question: why not?
Seems reasonable, even if only to protect brand image.
It's listed on the LinkedIn pages of both co-founders as their current business, together with AdMonetizer as a previous business. I assumed that checking the LinkedIn pages of applicants and taking a brief look at the websites of their businesses would be a minimum background check, but I guess I assumed incorrectly.
For starters, default to not install the crapware.
Alternatively, instead of creating more required user actions than necessary. While the software is installing, show splash screen type adverts of software the user may also be interested in installing with a way to add them to the install queue on the fly or select it after the install is done.
Sure, they rate of install will be shit, but if they were really interested in doing the right thing this wouldn't be a problem and the users of said applications would be legitimate users, not just angry computer illiterate people.
That's just it -- they aren't.
The sole purpose is to generate revenue. They don't make money when users don't install the software.
So the population IM attracts are precisely those unscrupulous developers and programs that profit from questionable behavior. Working in a proper manner runs counter to their customers' goals.
The examples are usually just advertising other products they own, or features within their software so not exactly direct examples but its not a huge jump by any means.
While I agree the population of customers they will attract are those shady toolbar guys, it certainly doesn't follow that they cannot make a business out of pushing good software. I think as long as they tailor the ads to relating software or software people will likely install alongside the current piece it could work. Taking the high road could even payout bigtime down the line when more developers catch on and realise it won't detract from their image/brand by using such a service.
Less experienced users can't do that -- they have to read every single word on the screen and make a decision about it. They mitigate this by memorizing specific actions. i.e., "to send an email, first I click in this area, then I click on the blue thing, then I click in that area..." (which is why constantly changing UI is such a problem for them, btw).
So what do they do with installers like this one? They just click "Next" with all the defaults on. The text on a screen like this is no different to them than the text of the EULA that none of us read.
Amongst my non-computer literate friends, many of them adopt the "click next quickly until the install starts or it stops working" tactic.
If users like this software so much then why do the creators of this software have to work so hard to make it next to impossible to remove? Who would want to get rid of software they love?
Good show!
I wrote here: http://www.withinwindows.com/2013/01/16/installmonetizer-qui...
Long zheng wrote here: http://www.istartedsomething.com/20130115/y-combinator-is-fu...
I'll respond to each of your items individually.
1. OK.
2. Maybe. Or more likely users are mistakenly installing these applications because the offer screen is made to look exactly like the EULA acceptance dialog seen in every other installer.
But we don't expect this to be fixed. Anti-malware vendors have stepped in and are improving their definitions to catch this garbage but it's very much a cat/mouse game. (IM has been detected a few times, btw.) IM is very aware of this "threat" and designed their system around random domain names to mitigate detection issues as they arise. (Think about it -- Does IM, a legitimate company, really need to use fcgoatcalear.us and fcvalcsoi.us domain names? Come on.)
3. No idea where you got this information, given InstallMonetizer bundled software shows no actual EULA. The only EULAs shown during install are ones provided by the package author and the offer advertisers. Can you clarify this point, please?
4. Wrong. Existing IM bundles out there still send PII in the clear. This isn't something they can just flip a switch on and fix. (I saw IM edited their privacy policy to note the new hashing procedures but sadly that doesn't cover the bundles on the Internet today. So it's wrong.)
5. Yeah, I saw the company slip in the "Open-source software is a community product and you may not use our co-bundles with it" line. What a slap in the face of those who use commercially-permissive OSS libraries in their software...
Note that Paul's response said that they "are going to start" uploading hashes.
1. They already edited their privacy policy, so as far as I'm concerned it's "live". But...
2. It's not. And it will never be, because it's hard-coded into the software bundled out on the Internet today. They may provide new bundles with hash code in place, but it's too late...
4. I don't think there is any claim that this can be fixed instantly.
5. This is not for OSS-using libraries -- that's totally cool. Everyone uses open source. What they've banned is people wrapping VLC to make money off software they haven't written. That's not cool.
4. It's in the privacy policy, so it's supposedly live. Or are you saying the policy is wrong?
5. That may be the intent, but did you read the policy? It's a one liner banning all OSS.
If you were seriously concerned about internet privacy you'd be discussing in depth Google, Microsoft, etc.. policies which affect virtually all inet users and not some small operation like IM.
So does writing IT software for the Mafia.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/seems-legit-sounds-legit
Well that sounds easy to spoof.
InstallMonetizer has been used by malware as a method to make money as early as April 2011. It was being silently installed by a large botnet, and I assume that the botnet affiliate was making money off the installs.
Their installers are also labeled as a malware by AV vendors, and treated as such by network monitoring infrastructure.
You can make a lot of money doing all kinds of popular things -- pimping women, selling drugs, selling 'likes' on facebook, selling botnets that create fake clicks on advertisers, ponzi schemes, etc. Some are illegal, some are just barely legal, but they are all damaging to someone. This line of business is known as 'scummy' and InstallMonetizer is plain 'scummy'.
Simple fact, trying to rationalize it doesn't help.
[1] http://installmonetizer-review.blogspot.com/ " 3. Which type of bundled software does Install Monetizer include in your installation package? Most of the bundled software are toolbars, though the company is always changing which software are available. When I first started Install Monetizer they offered just two softwares. A toolbar called White Smoke and good old Real Player. Today they have about seven install packages available. However, only USA Search and Facebook Profile turned profitable."
IM actually screens out advertisers and publishers who break browsers, and they don't work with them.
Seems better to me. As another commenter mentioned, IM is trying to legitimize a space that's scummy, the way Google did for PPC.
"Survata is a survey-wall -- meaning you have to answer a survey before you see a given article. They have about 20 publishers signed up, and they're all non-spammy content."
Survata is also YC funded.
FYI, all survey walls are "spammy content" and the data from them is garbage. Installer bundles are spammy content. This is all scummy. Please stop funding these types of companies. And please stop with the borderline meatpuppet posts and plugs.
Or, to put it another way, if they care one ioda about the enduser experience and staying in business, they should not add Babylon software to their bundle.
Babylon is diabolically hard to uninstall. Even after following instructions found on a number of websites, trying different malware removers and doing about:config on Mozilla, it still keeps propagating - EVEN NOW, months later.
I dare someone to install the Babylon software on their main PC and then try to remove it. Go ahead, follow instructions you find on the Internet. Good luck, you'll need it.
It's an ugly, ugly piece of work.
I can't speak for installs from other sources, because I hear what you say is true. But I saw with my own eyes that it didn't happen with IM.
I know, it's in your profile, and easy to find, as I did. But I'm a newbie here, I don't know personalities, and your posts made it sound like you're some Joe-User happy with IM's product, which isn't really the case.
There are contrarians in every thread, but if there is one thing for certain besides death and taxes, it's the fact that nobody wants this garbage on their machines. It's the cancer of Windows. To see someone so adamantly defending it had me really confused.