CNET apologizes to users for adware bundling…then talks out the other side of its mouth

By | December 9, 2011

As most of you know, we exposed CNET and its software bundling last September. Apparently not enough people read our article to get their attention, but behold! On December 7, CNET’s Vice President and General Manager, Sean Murphy, issued the following open letter to all CNET Community Members – which we assume includes a lot people who download — or who used to download software — from CNET’s Download.com.

You’ll notice he says: “Some press surfaced yesterday about how we’re bundling advertising offers with an open source software called Nmap.” The date on his letter was December 7, 2011.

Our Infoave Premium readers we’re informed about CNET Download.com’s bundling in September 2011. See the article published on September 23, 2011 on our InfoAve Tips & Tricks Web site https://thundercloud.net/infoave/new/?p=2864 . Apparently, we’re not powerful enough to influence CNET to do the right thing. However, when CNET was exposed two months later by developer who was incensed (and good for him!) at CNET’s bundling of his software. Only then was it that CNET finally acquiesced and aplogized to all the people whose trust they betrayed – included developers who, like us, were shocked to see our software bundled with adware in a package created by Download.com.

First, read the letter sent by Sean Murphy:

“Dear Download.com Community,

Some press surfaced yesterday about how we’re bundling advertising offers with an open source software called Nmap. The bundling of this software was a mistake on our part and we apologize to the user and developer communities for the unrest it caused. In addition to immediately taking Nmap out of the download manager, we reviewed all open source files in our catalog to ensure none are being bundled. It is a Download.com policy not to bundle open source software and we will continue to take pains to ensure this does not happen again.

Following on the heels of the Nmap post, there was much speculation about how Download.com protects user security. The security of our users is extremely important to us and we put all files through a rigorous scanning and compliance process before adding them to the Download.com catalog or to the download manager. Some files have been flagged after our initial screening; however, in each case, the flag was proven a false positive. In addition to our scanning, all third-party offers are clearly identified as such, and there is no requirement for the user to download and install the offer; rather, a user has the option to Accept or Decline. Further on the point of user engagement, we are removing the registration requirement to use the Direct Download Link on our site. This allows you, the user, to download the Installer without using the download manager.

Thank you for your patience as we address the issues stated above, and please continue to share feedback on the Download.com user experience.

Sincerely,

Sean
Sean Murphy
Vice President & General Manager”

He sounds very sincere and very contrite, doesn’t he? But as so often happens in the American business world, image matters but substance does not. He wants community members to think they’re going to stop bundling software and that they are totally committed to removing the adware bundling from its software. But Mr. Murphy sings a different tune to the developers who distribute software on Download.com.

On the same day (December 7, 2011) Mr. Murphy wrote this note to software developers:

“…First, on the press that surfaced yesterday: a developer expressed anger and frustration about our current model and how his file was being bundled. This was a mistake on our part and we apologize to the developer and user communities for the unrest it caused. As a rule, we do not bundle open source software and in addition to taking this developers file out of the installer flow, we have gone in and re-checked all open source files in our catalog. We take feedback from our developer & user communities very seriously and take pains to both act on it and respond in a timely manner.

With that, I want to share progress made thus far: This week we will launch the alpha phase of our new installer. This alpha phase is intended to test the tech and do QA, and will roll through the next few weeks to ensure that our installer is bug free. Between this week and the end of January we will be completing the necessary engineering and administrative work to roll out our beta, which will include a small group of developers who’ve agreed to participate in the beta launch. Our goal is to exit beta by end of February and have the necessary systems in place to enable opt-in, influence over advertising offers (for those offers that impact your product), download funnel reporting and revenue share back to you, the developers. In the weeks/months following the full release, we will continue to iterate on the model, adding more features to the Installer and bringing greater efficiency to our own download funnel (read: increased install conversion).

The initial feedback from developers on our new model has been very positive and we are excited to bring this to the broader community as soon as possible. More communication will follow as we move into Q1, and until then, thank you for continuing to work with Download.com…”

(Read the entire letter to developers here: http://nl.com.com/view_online_newsletter.jsp?list_id=e482&send_date=12%2F07%2F2011 )

It appears to us that Mr. Murphy is more sorry for being outed than for betraying the millions of people who trusted Download.com for spyware/adware free, unbundled software. It appears from Mr. Murphy’s letter to developers, that CNET will still be bundling, but in a different way – a way that give developers more say in how their software is bundled.

So guess who’s being left out. Again? You and me and everyone who once trusted CNET’s Download.com for safe, unbundled download. These days, more and more, it’s all about the money. CNET discovered that they could make a lot of money by bundling software – and now that the revenue stream has been turned on – they are very reluctant to shut it off.

Trying to find a fair way to bundle software is like trying to find a fair way to cheat. It’s not going to happen. The only acceptable resolution is for CNET to offer software for download that is not bundled with anything else. It’s not all about fairness or honesty, it’s all about the money. And CNET is going to find a way to bundle software in the future whether we like it or not.

9 thoughts on “CNET apologizes to users for adware bundling…then talks out the other side of its mouth

  1. Jean Leclair

    I will be taking Advance Care off my computer. Just a few days ago I downloaded and updated to the next version.
    I have run it twice on Quick Care and it wants me to buy the Prov Version. I have not had any problems before. Just want you to know that when I get my confirmation which I applied for on your site 12/08/11. I am waiting for the email so that may download Registry and Optimizer. I will get rid of Cnet. It seems they are very sneaky.

    Reply
  2. John in Oz

    Honesty, integrity, respect and courtesy from Governments, Corporations, Banks and many individuals disappears when a situation allows them to make MORE MONEY, irrespective of the consequences. If I buy a product, or take it, as offered, for no cost, the said product is what I expect to receive. If I agree to MilkyJoe putting a carton of milk in my ‘fridge at no cost to me, I don’t want him putting cheese, butter, and cream in there also, as it will clutter my ‘fridge, and he has no authority from me to do it.
    The same applies to the likes of CNet, I do not want anything cluttering my computer if I didn’t agree for them to put it there. Damned effrontery on their part and there should be a punishment for doing so. Of course, their argument would be,”You agreed, it’s in the superfine print”. OK fellas, put it in bold print and allow people to understand the implications if they proceed!
    As of many weeks ago, thanks to the understandable, good advice from TC & EB, I steer clear of CNet.

    Reply
    1. SkyRider

      Well said John.
      What a great analogy of ‘bundling’.
      Like you say, it all comes down to the money, but the ‘fine print’ is where the damage is done in the first place.
      I was a regular user of C-Net, but now I am always looking for the Softwre Sites own download link.

      Reply
  3. Jeannie

    CNet is a pain and I refuse to download anything from them. Try using MajorGeeks.com Whatever you download from them is only what you choose and nothing more. J.

    Reply
  4. mack

    Whatever site you download freeware from, always READ the fine print in those windows that pop up and ask if you want to continue, I have picked up worms and trojans from some sites I have been using for a long time.

    Reply
  5. Don

    Well David, your slingshot his Goliath where it hurts–the pocketbook. Too bad the moral aspect of businnes is overlooked by Cnet. Think I will defer doing business whith CNet until I hear from you. Thanks again.

    Reply
  6. Janice M

    I just wanted to say thank you once AGAIN, TC & EB! You two are fantastic when it comes to keeping those of us who are novices in the computer world, on the straight and narrow. I’m so grateful that you are HONEST and FAIR in your evaluations and practices. Because of that, I TRUST what you say & buy what I can from YOU!

    I appreciate you sooooooooooo much; keep up the GREAT work!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *