Advertising vs Traditional Shareware
Alex Allan
(PIM) and I am considering whether to put advertising (e.g. Aureate
network) on this app or to just have a "normal" expire after 30 day deal.
Which option will:
a) Get me more money
and
b) Be best for my customers.
Thanks.
--
Alex Allan
alex [@] home.cam.net.uk
http://www.cam.net.uk/home/alex
Steve Estvanik
news:MPG.131e38dc8...@news.f9.net.uk...
> I am currently developing an *off-line* personal information manager
> (PIM) and I am considering whether to put advertising (e.g. Aureate
> network) on this app or to just have a "normal" expire after 30 day deal.
>
much from a user; so you'd need to develop thousands of users. advertising
in general generates $1-5 per thousand displays. you can always do both
methods, though.
--
====================
Steve Estvanik
Build traffic http://cascoly.com/webdesign.htm
BLAST your site to thousands of FFA links pages
http://www.submitad.com/reseller/show.cgi?1339
Discover the 3 habits *every* effective website employs!!
http://foreverweb.com/cgi-foreverweb/swa.cgi?IM9252
Free online polling services http://cascoly.com/asp/poll/pollmain.htm
Promote your contest or giveaway for free http://cascoly.com/contest.htm
=====
Andrew McKay
wrote:
>I am currently developing an *off-line* personal information manager
>(PIM) and I am considering whether to put advertising (e.g. Aureate
>network) on this app or to just have a "normal" expire after 30 day deal.
>
>Which option will:
>a) Get me more money
> and
>b) Be best for my customers.
This isn't my area of expertise, however I would think that the PIM
market is a particularly tough one to crack. Many other solutions out
there already.
If your primary motivation is money then be aware that it can take
many months before you see any income at all from a shareware
application. Some people are fortunate and see proceeds quickly, but I
would guess the average to be six months or longer.
Two types of customer. One type aren't going to register no matter how
much you hassle them. The other are minded to register, but usually
only if you give them enough hassle.
I have no personal experience of using adware. There are a fairly
significant number of people (I think I'm among them) that really
don't like adware and won't use it whatever happens. As such you are
denying yourself access to that corner of the market.
I'm personally okay with shareware timeouts. I register lots of
shareware over a period of time, if it is of use to me. Thus my vote
would be in the drop-dead arrangement.
Andrew
Larry Gross
represent an "adware" company (www.conducent.com). While I realize that
some developers here have strong opinions in opposition to advertising in
software, I'll take my chances to offer a point of view.
Adware provides more than just revenue -- it helps developers find out
information about their users and how their applications are being used.
Market and user info to developers plays an important role in keeping
customers.
We've never taken the view that a 100-percent advertising support model will
work for every developer. License revenue remains important. We've seen
many developers using a business model, in which they produce a "lite
version" that's ad-enabled, but with some key functionalities turned off.
If the user opts for a license, the functionalities appear. Some developers
decide to turn off advertising after a license is paid, and others
developers just leave advertising active.
So, it's a tough call on which route will earn you more money. I'd put it
all to a spreadsheet, if it were me. All the info you need is fairly easy to
find.
As far as your users, well... if you really get many complaints, just
disable the advertising in a quick update. I don't think you'll end up doing
that. At least, it's just not been our experience.
Rgds.
Larry Gross, Director of Business Development
Conducent, Inc. (http://www.conducent.com)
Sterling, VA
"Alex Allan" <al...@home.cam.net.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.131e38dc8...@news.f9.net.uk...
> I am currently developing an *off-line* personal information manager
> (PIM) and I am considering whether to put advertising (e.g. Aureate
> network) on this app or to just have a "normal" expire after 30 day deal.
>
> Which option will:
> a) Get me more money
> and
> b) Be best for my customers.
>
cmi...@my-deja.com
that when they installed ad supported shareware their E-mail
address was added to Spam lists. I am not saying it is true
but how do you feel about your customer feeling that they
receive Spam because of you.
Yes customers ask crazy questions and believe crazy things.
Get ready for questions like
"What data is being read from my PC" Obviously you don't know
because you have no control over it - the adware companys
can transfer whatever they want but do you see what they are
transfering documented anywhere?
Other questions will follow - "Can they detect what other software
I have installed on my system?" Your honest answer will have to
be something like "Technically yes but they seem like nice people
so I doubt they would do something like that"
Just a few more things to consider
Cathy
In article <MPG.131e38dc8...@news.f9.net.uk>,
al...@home.cam.net.uk (Alex Allan) wrote:
> I am currently developing an *off-line* personal information manager
> (PIM) and I am considering whether to put advertising (e.g. Aureate
> network) on this app or to just have a "normal" expire after 30 day
deal.
>
> Which option will:
> a) Get me more money
> and
> b) Be best for my customers.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Alex Allan
> alex [@] home.cam.net.uk
> http://www.cam.net.uk/home/alex
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Estvanik
> that when they installed ad supported shareware their E-mail
> address was added to Spam lists. I am not saying it is true
> but how do you feel about your customer feeling that they
> receive Spam because of you.
yep, you can start asking yourself so many questions, and try to solve so
many non existent problems that you never get around to actually producing a
product.....
most of the arguments against ads are just recyclings of previous
discussions about nag screens, time outs, etc, etc.... there comes a time
when you just need to make a decision and get on with your projects.
i've been using ads in my software for about 2 years now and i have NEVER
had any user ask any of the questions you list here.
cmi...@my-deja.com
fan of ads ;)
Cath
In article <#lcN5Wwf$GA.254@cpmsnbbsa05>,
Borje Hagsten
the nice feeling of total independence it gives me. I and I alone decide
how things shall look and feel in the program. When you let in ads for
other companies into your software, you also give away that freedom
completely. I couldn't even dream of doing a stupid thing like that.
Integrity is worth far more than some lousy money to me.
Some of the crappy adware I have seen instantly tries to connect you to
the Internet. Here in Sweden, we usually pay per minute online, so we
aren't connected all the time. To have to close down everything again
just because some stupid software tried to connect us automatically and
thereby launched both the browser and the connection dialog is a real
setback for that idiotic piece of software - and it's almost guaranteed
to be deleted, instantly and in anger.. ;-(
"Crappy adware"? Yes, it's usually crappy (at least the ones I've seen),
because if it was any good, the developer wouldn't have to sell adspace
in his/her software to get some income from it.. ;-)
Borje, one of the grubby old guys.. :-)
=============================================================
Borje Hagsten hag...@algonet.se
http://www.tolken99.com - for free downloads, etc.
Tolken99 v4.1 for Windows - word processor, dictionary,
Swedish-English translator and vocabulary test, all in one..
=============================================================
Larry Gross
I'm not sure if you saw my original post, but as long as you raise the
privacy topic again, Conducent's privacy policy has been posted on our web
pages at: http://www.conducent.com/privacy.shtm
Rgds.
Larry Gross, Director of Business Development
Conducent, Inc.
Sterling, VA
<cmi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:893m0a$tfj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Adware leaves you with a lot to consider. Some users feel
> that when they installed ad supported shareware their E-mail
> address was added to Spam lists. I am not saying it is true
> but how do you feel about your customer feeling that they
> receive Spam because of you.
>
Marty
...
Are you still involved with xxx? I've been using your product since about forever (obviously I love it) but now I find xxx on a list
of hostile software
http://www.hardocp.com/news_images/2000/february_2000/aureatespying.html
tell me this ain't you!
Is my existing xxxx prone to this same behavior?
Marty
>
> http://www.hardocp.com/news_images/2000/february_2000/aureatespying.html
After some investigation there is also the Aureate response....
Alun Jones
There certainly is a lot of rubbish being spoken about the adware DLLs.
There are a few facts worth noting, however, to decide if this sort of
support is something your users will mind:
ADVERT.DLL (and perhaps similar DLLs from other adware companies) is not
merely loaded while you have adware running, but from the moment you first
bring up Internet Explorer. This can have some unwanted effects, most
notably that even if you're doing local browsing, a dialup connection may be
opened. This isn't a big issue in the States, where phone lines are, for
the most part, a free item, but in other countries around the world, there's
a minimum charge just for picking up the line and dialing. This is to
download a cache of adverts, so traffic will take place - however, it's not
clear how large a cache is downloaded each time you start your browser.
Adverts require a certain minimum space in your app's window - make sure
this doesn't make your app harder to use (or if it does, make sure that's
what you want).
One word: "WINNER!!!". If you've seen the ad, you'll know what I mean. Any
time _I_ see that ad, the application goes out the window. It's not just
annoying or boring - that particular ad causes a migraine. In the 'seen it
too many times' category, you've also got anything that encourages you to
spa^H^H^Hpunch a monkey, or similar idiocy. With luck, this situation will
improve as adware attracts more advertisers.
Since the adware components are in a shared DLL, you _have_ to provide a
correct install and uninstall procedure. I've already had two reports of
people whose FTP client software (CuteFTP) stopped working because something
else mistakenly uninstalled the DLL. Apparently one or other piece of
software installed the adware DLL without incrementing the count of
references, so that when an app was removed, the reference count dropped to
zero and wiped out the DLL. Note - this does mean that you do remove the
adware if you uninstall all adware-supported programs; it's not a "virus" or
"trojan", despite some rather over-the-top suggestions.
People get very touchy about unexpected network access, or unauthorised
network traffic. Be sure that your users are well aware that your software
is adware-supported, and that this means that the adware DLLs will
repeatedly and frequently contact the adware server.
Issues of trust arise frequently when discussing adware; these are mostly
unnecessary, since you've essentially moved the burden of trust from your
user to the adware company - instead of trusting your users to register and
pay, you're now trusting the adware company will accurately report
statistics and send you appropriate payments. If you feel you can't trust
the adware companies, then needless to say, it's not worth starting the
business relationship - it's somewhat of a ridiculous situation to do as
some have suggested, and send further statistics to your own servers to
'check up on' the adware companies.
It may be wise to offer your users a choice - the usual one being offered
right now is between paying for a fully registered version without adverts
(and which does not install the adware DLLs!), installing the adware version
with all features, or installing a crippled version with no ads. This
covers pretty much all bases except the 'freeware freaks' [anyone that says
"software is information; information yearns to be free", for instance].
It would certainly be helpful if the adware companies could come up with
some standard text (or help file) that describes _exactly_ what their
particular adware does, to reassure users as to what are truths and myths
concerning the software they've installed (or are about to install).
Because of the rather sparse information available up until now, adware has
been rather unfairly linked to malware. I hope it can overcome its
undeservedly poor reputation - but I think I won't be using it in my own
apps.
Alun.
~~~~
--
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find it
1602 Harvest Moon Place | at web site http://www.wftpd.com or email
Cedar Park TX 78613 | us at al...@texis.com. VISA / MC accepted.
Fax +1 (512) 378 3246 | NT based ISPs, be sure to read details of
Phone +1 (512) 378 3246 | WFTPD Pro, NT service version - $100.
*WFTPD and WFTPD Pro now available as native Alpha versions for NT*
Steve Estvanik
> One of the reasons why I use shareware as a way to market my software is
> the nice feeling of total independence it gives me. I and I alone decide
> how things shall look and feel in the program. When you let in ads for
> other companies into your software, you also give away that freedom
> completely. I couldn't even dream of doing a stupid thing like that.
> Integrity is worth far more than some lousy money to me.
it's one thing to have an opinion and act on it, it's quite another to
imply that others are stupid or lack integrity because they disagree with
you.....
>
> "Crappy adware"? Yes, it's usually crappy (at least the ones I've seen),
> because if it was any good, the developer wouldn't have to sell adspace
> in his/her software to get some income from it.. ;-)
is that why adware wins awards at the SIC conference each year?
again, you may have a point hidden in there somewhere but when you make such
blanket condemnations, you dont know what you're talking about....
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Online educational , trivia games http://cascoly.com/games/gamemain.htm
Food Chain -- online ecology http://cascoly.com/games/food/foodmain.htm
Life, the game http://cascoly.com/games/life/lifemain.htm
Royalty Free clipart and screensavers http://cascoly.com/clipart.htm
=============
Bram Brugman
al...@home.cam.net.uk said something like ...
> I am currently developing an *off-line* personal information manager
> (PIM) and I am considering whether to put advertising (e.g. Aureate
> network) on this app or to just have a "normal" expire after 30 day deal.
>
> Which option will:
> a) Get me more money
> and
> b) Be best for my customers.
>
> Thanks.
>
For me personnally it isn't a problem.
Take for instance Go!zilla; it is advertized; but if you don't want that,
you can easily register and have the ads removed . . .
A great thing!!
In this way, nag-screens, time-outs, limited editions etc. are out of the
question.
Also, it wouldn't be attractive anymore to go to warez/crack sites,
because the program can just_be_used . . .
I think it is wonderfull . . .
Grtz,
Bram
--
+
Life is just like an incurable disease . . .
In the end you just wíll die . . .
+
cmi...@my-deja.com
How can you be so sure that it is rubbish? I doubt very
much that it is true but how do you convince a customer
that it is not true? Whether it is true or not does not
matter much - it is what the customer feels is true or not
and if you ask any expert they will say "It is possible" and
that is enough to scare many away. Have you checked to see
what data is being sent? Even if you did they may not be sending
all the data all the time - it really is impossible to tell.
Funny that Aureate are starting to give details out that they
never gave before - hidden windows, etc. How much more are they
going to release in the future?
This story is going to be big (just look at the newsgroups - wait until
the magazines latch on to this). Although no harm is probably being
done, when people hear that any kind of information is being exchanged
they are going to get worried. "If they can actually read my
registry when I am not aware of it can they check to see what other
programs are installed" they will ask. You know better than most
what the honest answer is.
Soon the virus checkers may start looking for programs that "extract"
and send "marketing" information out only because the public will
demand that. Conducent and Aureate DLLs will be spotted and once
removed the apps that depend upon them will stop working.
Just last year there was a company "Zero Knowledge" that created a
program that just exposed the failure of Intel's Serial Number Control
and their app was added to all the virus DAT files because it was
reading information that it shouldn't (Although it was clearly a
sample app that said it can read this stuff.)
http://www.zeroknowledge.net/media/pressrel.asp?rel=03101999
See if you think that app needed to be considered a trojan horse
and more than this Adware stuff
http://www.zeroknowledge.com/p3/
Whichever way you look at it, this is bad news for the Adware
Industry.
Cathy
>
> There certainly is a lot of rubbish being spoken about the adware
>DLLs.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Alun Jones
> How can you be so sure that it is rubbish? I doubt very
> much that it is true but how do you convince a customer
> that it is not true? Whether it is true or not does not
> matter much - it is what the customer feels is true or not
> and if you ask any expert they will say "It is possible" and
> that is enough to scare many away. Have you checked to see
> what data is being sent? Even if you did they may not be sending
> all the data all the time - it really is impossible to tell.
Well, one of the first things that I saw about Aureate's adware was that
"it's a virus that sends copies of all your software and data to Aureate."
Now I'm sorry, but it's definitely not a virus, and you'd definitely notice
if it was sending "all your software and data" to Aureate. Granted, I
haven't analysed the traffic of any adware here - but then I've removed
every adware-supported piece of software from my system; I don't use the
software often enough to want it to go "caching adverts" every time I open
up IE.
> Funny that Aureate are starting to give details out that they
> never gave before - hidden windows, etc. How much more are they
> going to release in the future?
Uh... the hidden windows thing is nothing surprising. A lot of DLLs that
need to access networking information will use a hidden window to do so.
It's pretty much the only appropriate way to go (if you're supporting
Winsock 1.1).
> This story is going to be big (just look at the newsgroups - wait until
> the magazines latch on to this). Although no harm is probably being
> done, when people hear that any kind of information is being exchanged
> they are going to get worried. "If they can actually read my
> registry when I am not aware of it can they check to see what other
> programs are installed" they will ask. You know better than most
> what the honest answer is.
It boils down to trust - as a shareware/adware author, you're going to have
to persuade people not only to trust you, but also whichever adware agency
you've chosen to include in your software.
> Soon the virus checkers may start looking for programs that "extract"
> and send "marketing" information out only because the public will
> demand that. Conducent and Aureate DLLs will be spotted and once
> removed the apps that depend upon them will stop working.
Certainly, I'm getting tired of all these web sites that purport to "make my
shopping experience easier" by helpfully holding on to all sorts of
information about me. As we've found out recently, any information held
online by a web site is prone to being hacked out.
> See if you think that app needed to be considered a trojan horse
> and more than this Adware stuff
> http://www.zeroknowledge.com/p3/
>
> Whichever way you look at it, this is bad news for the Adware
> Industry.
As long as the Adware Industry is careful to fully - and publicly - document
their program's interface and activities, I don't think we have much to
worry about. And as long as the adware authors make it clear on initial
download that their software is adware, I don't think it can be called a
"Trojan Horse". This is my point: if you do not reveal that you are
shipping adware, you may very well expose yourself to accusations of
shipping Trojans, viruses, worms, and what have you. Not an association you
need as a shareware author.
Maybe it's time for Aureate and Conducent to document their protocols, so
that we can monitor and be certain what traffic is being passed? [And if
they don't publish their protocols, it's clear from past experience that
someone will eventually figure them out]
Steve Estvanik
> Eudora is one, for example, but you don't seem to understand why many
> over here think all adware sort of stinks, even award winning ones.
i do understand -- i was commenting on your overreaction that claimed the
entire concept was stupid (YOUR word), and that anyone who used ads somehow
lacked integrity.
>
> The reason is that we usually aren't connected to the Internet all the
> time. Most adware automatically tries to connect us to the Internet as
> soon as we touch it,
that just shows how little you know about it. in fact,
Aureate's adware does NOT connect unless you want it to. for offline ads,
you can run forever and NEVER go online -- it uses a default ad until you
actually go online. it's the user's decision when to go online, so this is
just not the problem you make it out to be.
> You can call it a cultural thing, if you like, but to us who both have
> to pay per minute and pay a small fee just to get connected, any
> software that does that to us, automatically gets the "crappy, idiotic
> garbage" stamp on it.
>
> As you probably know Steve, I've been around in this business long
> enough to know perfectly well what I'm talking about. However, if you
> decide to read other meanings into my words, there's no way you will
> ever understand what I'm actually trying to say..
i'm not the one with the understanding problem. since you still
dont seem to get it,here's what you said:
===\=borge== When you let in ads for
other companies into your software, you also give away that freedom
completely. I couldn't even dream of doing a stupid thing like that.
Integrity is worth far more than some lousy money to me.
YOU are saying that including ads is stupid, and strongly implying
that anyone who does so lacks integrity. how else can this be
interprettted?
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Make Your Site Sell! http://www.sitesell.com/cascoly.html
Build traffic http://cascoly.com/webdesign.htm
BLAST your site to thousands of FFA links pages
http://www.submitad.com/reseller/show.cgi?1339
Steve Estvanik
> I'm not alone in doing this, Steve. Millions of people around the world
> do the same. There's been some newspaper articles about the dangers of
> using adware, since these app's usually has to collect new data (ads)
> from some place, so a lot of people are scared of it.
yes, and you and the other scaremongers are doing the same thing that was
done to shareware when 'everyone' talked about the dangers of getting a
virus from shareware. it wasnt true then, but it took shareware a long
time (if ever) to recover from those slurs and misinformations. you cant
believe everything you read in the newspapers!
>
> In other words, most adware do things behind our backs when we are
> online that even may open up big security holes to our systems and I
> guarantee you, most users definitely don't like such behaviour - no
> matter what these adware companies tries to defend it with. There's
> simply no excuse for it..
ROFL -- you havent looked at 'most' adware so you cant possibly make
ridiculous claims like that and expect to be taken seriously. if you dont
want to use it, fine, but dont slander the work of other people when you
havent the slightest evidence to back up your claims.
s
Steve Estvanik
hominem attacks! at least i havent called anyone stupid or lacking in
integrity....
cmi...@my-deja.com
> Well, one of the first things that I saw about Aureate's adware was
that
> "it's a virus that sends copies of all your software and data to
Aureate."
> Now I'm sorry, but it's definitely not a virus, and you'd definitely
notice
> if it was sending "all your software and data" to Aureate. Granted,
I
> haven't analysed the traffic of any adware here - but then I've
removed
> every adware-supported piece of software from my system; I don't use
the
> software often enough to want it to go "caching adverts" every time I
open
> up IE.
Again you are assuming that it is not doing something bad. Blind trust.
No It is not send ALL your INFO ALL the time but who is to say
it is not sending little bits here and there? You yourself said
you never checked you just trust them. I am 99% sure that they
are not doing anything wrong but if they were and they are found
out the news will not only bring them down but every company that
is associated with them.
But, as you said, you removed all your Adware programs from your system.
I did too. So are many other people. Anyone using Adware will
definately have to consider a non adware version or they will lose
many potential customers. And you cannot say that the ads will
disappear as soon as you register because we all know that the
Advert DLL still sticks around.
>
> Uh... the hidden windows thing is nothing surprising. A lot of DLLs
that
> need to access networking information will use a hidden window to do
so.
> It's pretty much the only appropriate way to go (if you're supporting
> Winsock 1.1).
Yes, I know but until now they never mentioned that they cached ads
even when your app is NOT running.
>
> It boils down to trust - as a shareware/adware author, you're going
to have
> to persuade people not only to trust you, but also whichever adware
agency
> you've chosen to include in your software.
Exactly and a lot is at stake!
> Maybe it's time for Aureate and Conducent to document their
protocols, so
> that we can monitor and be certain what traffic is being passed?
[And if
> they don't publish their protocols, it's clear from past experience
that
> someone will eventually figure them out]
Alun, you are right on the money! I am curious what Larry Gross
will say. He seems to think that Conduent's privacy statement is
enough. But even if it is documented there are enough people
that are scared enough.
On the bright side - another point for traditional shareware!
Shareware sites will be able stamp their software "Ad Free" and
certify that "No personal information is gathered while you use this
software" ;)
Have a great weekend.
Cath
Borje Hagsten
> it's one thing to have an opinion and act on it, it's quite another to
> imply that others are stupid or lack integrity because they disagree with
I have never called anyone stupid, but I call the whole concept in
itself stupid, since I'm a firm believer in total independency. As I
also said, that's me - others may think differently if they like, but I
would never let anyone or anything else into the layout of my software.
> is that why adware wins awards at the SIC conference each year?
> again, you may have a point hidden in there somewhere but when you make such
> blanket condemnations, you dont know what you're talking about....
I'm sure there are some good applications that uses the adware concept -
Eudora is one, for example, but you don't seem to understand why many
over here think all adware sort of stinks, even award winning ones.
The reason is that we usually aren't connected to the Internet all the
time. Most adware automatically tries to connect us to the Internet as
soon as we touch it, meaning it suddenly launches our browsers and
dialup dialogs, etc, so we end up having to close it all down again
quickly, cursing that darn application that caused all the mess. ;-(
You can call it a cultural thing, if you like, but to us who both have
to pay per minute and pay a small fee just to get connected, any
software that does that to us, automatically gets the "crappy, idiotic
garbage" stamp on it.
As you probably know Steve, I've been around in this business long
enough to know perfectly well what I'm talking about. However, if you
decide to read other meanings into my words, there's no way you will
ever understand what I'm actually trying to say..
Borje, as stated - one of the grubby old guys.. :-)
Borje Hagsten
> YOU are saying that including ads is stupid, and strongly implying
> that anyone who does so lacks integrity. how else can this be
> interprettted?
I'm saying that the concept is stupid and that I never would dream of
selling out my integrity for a handfull of dollars, yes. If you want to
make that into a personal accusation, it's your problem. I have only
stated my personal feelings about the concept, based on bad personal
experiences from adware app's, that's all.
I sometimes download applications just to try them out. I often don't
know in advance if it's adware or not. I definitely don't know or care
if Aurate is involved in any way, but I do know that once installed and
started, these applications often tries to launch my browser and dial-up
dialog. The thing that happens then is that I quickly have to close the
dial-up dialog and the browser, and then I instantly remove the stupid
application that did this from my HD, without even looking at it.
I'm not alone in doing this, Steve. Millions of people around the world
do the same. There's been some newspaper articles about the dangers of
using adware, since these app's usually has to collect new data (ads)
from some place, so a lot of people are scared of it.
In other words, most adware do things behind our backs when we are
online that even may open up big security holes to our systems and I
guarantee you, most users definitely don't like such behaviour - no
matter what these adware companies tries to defend it with. There's
simply no excuse for it..
Borje
cmi...@my-deja.com
Don't bother with this Steve guy. He obviously has something
for ads. Did you visit his web page? You will see what I mean.
I think your points are valid and your opinion is just as usefull
as anyone elses - Steve seemed to take it to heart.
Cath
In article <38B755FC...@algonet.se>,
Dave Webber
Steve Estvanik wrote in message <#8V#ltBg$GA.264@cpmsnbbsa04>...
> ROFL -- you havent looked at 'most' adware so you cant possibly
make
>ridiculous claims like that and expect to be taken seriously. if you dont
>want to use it, fine, but dont slander the work of other people when you
>havent the slightest evidence to back up your claims.
Let me try and pour some oil on troubled waters. I suspect a lot of this
has to do with different reactions to advertising per se.
In Europe, despite exposure to advertisng, we are nowhere near as completely
inundated with it as are folk in the USA. And we still have a much greater
distaste for it on the whole. Look at the centre of New York and say Paris
at night and you'll see what I mean.
A lot of us in Europe do still feel that advertising "cheapens" things.
And we probably value the freedom to be free from intrusive advertising more
than we value the freedom to go and shout about our products in neon lights
ten foot high wherever we want to put them. I never say "never" but there
really would have to be some immensely compelling reasons for me to put
advertisements anywhere near my software or web site, and I understand
Borje's position completely (although he might have put it more
delicately).
I'll probably never find out what ad-ware does by way of making automatic
connections - because I, like many others, don't really want to know. I
resent the adverts on the web sites I visit - meaningless graphics
distracting me from what I'm looking for - and taking time to download while
I pay on my phone bill. If a site has such adverts I tend to leave and not
go back . So if someone values my custom, and that of those like me (and
Borje apparently), above the revenue from advertising, it could indeed be
validly described as "stupid" to plaster advertising around the place. I
hasten to add that I am not directing that word at anyone here - let's just
call it a lifestyle choice. But it *is* a moot point whether advertising
puts off more custom than the revenue it attracts.
There you are just my 2p - oil on troubled waters or a can of petrol on the
fire?
Dave
Dave Webber
Author of MOZART the Music Processor for Windows - http://www.mozart.co.uk
Member of the North Cheshire Concert Band http://members.aol.com/northchesh
Gerry Quinn
>There certainly is a lot of rubbish being spoken about the adware DLLs.
>There are a few facts worth noting, however, to decide if this sort of
>support is something your users will mind:
>
[--]
Alun made a fair summary of the pros and cons, I think.
I just signed up a game with Aureate myself. Before doing this I had a
different Aureate game on my system for a few months. It didn't try to
start my browser / dialup unless I clicked on an ad, and the amount of
new ad data transferred was insignificant on a 28.8K modem. From the
documentation it is clear that they have made efforts to ensure that
dialup does not start at unsuitable times.
My intention is to have some adware products to generate revenue solely
from ads*, and also promote my shareware products. I'll be taking care
to keep the two lines separate.
I think there is potential for a lot of synergy between products here.
*Of course if somebody wants to license them, or I feel there is a
demand for an ad-free version, I'll do that!
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Puzzle / Strategy Games and Kaleidoscope for Windows
Download evaluation versions free, no time limits
Try our new adware game "Skeet Shooting"
Borje Hagsten
> yes, and you and the other scaremongers are doing the same thing that was
> done to shareware when 'everyone' talked about the dangers of getting a
> virus from shareware. it wasnt true then, but it took shareware a long
> time (if ever) to recover from those slurs and misinformations. you cant
> believe everything you read in the newspapers!
You simply don't get it, do you Steve? We are not "scaremongers", we are
users. We only react on what some adware does to our systems and of
course most "ordinary" users react strongly when they read in the
newspapers about possible security leaks and how adware possible even
could be spying on them. True or not true doesn't even matter any longer
- it's a human reaction, Steve and if you start blaiming millions of
software users for over-reaction, you will soon discover what their
reaction will be..
I honestly don't understand why you are so upset about this. I have only
told you what many over here thinks about this whole concept and if you
can't handle the fact that millions of people have a different opinion
about adware than you, well, then that's your problem. We have no
problem with it what so ever, We will simply continue to delete all
adware we happen to bump into, because there are always better
alternatives to use - like regular shareware, for example.. :-)
Steve Estvanik
> In Europe, despite exposure to advertisng, we are nowhere near as
completely
> inundated with it as are folk in the USA. And we still have a much
greater
> distaste for it on the whole. Look at the centre of New York and say
Paris
> at night and you'll see what I mean.
perhaps, but Europeans are much more inured to advertising in MANY
places you'd never see in america -- in Alpine ski resorts, advertising is
EVERYWHERE, including on the lifts themselves. even the chair lifts have
advertising -- talk about a captive audience! some of that is leaking
into th US and a few ski resorts now have 'lap map advertising'. go down
any street and the public advertising is everywhere (of course lots of it
would be banned as obscene int h US).
for many years, european theatres showed commercials as part of the
program -- that was resisted in the US until quite recently.
so it's hard to make a case the advertising isnt as prevalent. more it
seems to be which particular ad we're talking about. so it returns to the
original point -- rather than blast an entire method as lacking integrity,
and making claims to know what millions of people think, a more reasoned
approach would look at whther a particular form of advertising is
appropriate for a particular venue.
>
> A lot of us in Europe do still feel that advertising "cheapens" things.
> And we probably value the freedom to be free from intrusive advertising
more
> than we value the freedom to go and shout about our products in neon
lights
> ten foot high wherever we want to put them. I never say "never" but
there
> really would have to be some immensely compelling reasons for me to put
> advertisements anywhere near my software or web site, and I understand
> Borje's position completely (although he might have put it more
> delicately).
and i agree completely with that -- i have never questioned Borje's
decision; i did challenge his condemnation of others who make different
decisions.
>
> I'll probably never find out what ad-ware does by way of making automatic
> connections - because I, like many others, don't really want to know.
again, fine, but at least you're not posting conclusions when you lack
this info.
I
> resent the adverts on the web sites I visit - meaningless graphics
> distracting me from what I'm looking for - and taking time to download
while
> I pay on my phone bill. If a site has such adverts I tend to leave and
not
> go back . So if someone values my custom, and that of those like me (and
> Borje apparently), above the revenue from advertising, it could indeed be
> validly described as "stupid" to plaster advertising around the place.
again, it depends -- IF i'm trying to sell you a particular product,
AND if it would turn off most people it might be a poor business decision.
but that's not the only purpose of a web page. in fact, many web pages are
devoted SOLELY to info about free offers, contests and links to other sites.
so in those cases, the user is LOOKING for advertising. the choice is the
users. OR, as in the case of my online games, I offer the games for
free -- i'm not selling shareware or freeware there, so the advertising now
lets me do something i couldnt have done before. that again, is MY
decision and calling it stupid doesnt gain anything.
But it *is* a moot point whether advertising
> puts off more custom than the revenue it attracts.
>
exactly! hence it's rather premature at best to make blanket
condemnations. and maligning someone's ethics or integrity is out of
place...
> There you are just my 2p - oil on troubled waters or a can of petrol on
the
> fire?
thanks for the effort, whatever the effect!
Steve Estvanik
> You simply don't get it, do you Steve? We are not "scaremongers", we are
> users. We only react on what some adware does to our systems
no, the quotes i challenged you on, you specifically said you DIDNT KNOW
whether this was true or not because you hadnt looked!
and of
> course most "ordinary" users react strongly when they read in the
> newspapers about possible security leaks and how adware possible even
> could be spying on them. True or not true doesn't even matter any longer
do you even READ your own posts? you dont CARE whether what you
post is true or not? and
> - it's a human reaction, Steve and if you start blaiming millions of
> software users for over-reaction, you will soon discover what their
> reaction will be..
i dont KNOW millions of users and neither do you.
>
> I honestly don't understand why you are so upset about this. I have only
> told you what many over here thinks about this whole concept
no, that's not what you did, and that's not why i responded. if
that was ALL you'd done, i'd have no problem.
and if you
> can't handle the fact that millions of people have a different opinion
> about adware than you, well, then that's your problem.
and why cant you extend the SAME courtesy to the MILLIONS of people who
disagree with you (i can throw out made upnumbers just as easily as you!)
====We have no
> problem with it what so ever, We will simply continue to delete all
> adware we happen to bump into, because there are always better
> alternatives to use - like regular shareware, for example.. :-)
you dont get to define the words -- shareware is shareware whethre it has
ads or not.
Steve Estvanik
> My intention is to have some adware products to generate revenue solely
> from ads*, and also promote my shareware products. I'll be taking care
> to keep the two lines separate.
>
> I think there is potential for a lot of synergy between products here.
exactly -- and in some cases, it even allows one to develop products that
wouldnt otherwise HAVE a chance as shareware. eg, as shareware,
screensavers need to be highly crippled, or else there's little reason to
register. by placing ads, much more can be included inthe program. the
ads let the USER decide -- they can use a fully functional program for as
long as they want; or they can register and have the ads removed. some
people seem to want it both ways -- to have completley free software and not
to pay the author. i really dont care too much it i dont get their
attention.
Borje Hagsten
> to pay the author. i really dont care too much it i dont get their
> attention.
???
Borje
=============================================================
Börje Hagsten hag...@algonet.se
http://www.tolken99.com - för nedladdning av program, m.m.
http://www.algonet.se/~hagsten (alternativ svensk site)
Tolken99 v4.1 för Windows - ordbehandlare, lexikon,
Engelsk-Svensk översättare och glosförhör, allt i ett..
=============================================================
Dave Webber
Steve Estvanik wrote in message ...
> perhaps, but Europeans are much more inured to advertising in MANY
>places you'd never see in america -- in Alpine ski resorts, advertising is
>EVERYWHERE, including on the lifts themselves.
I'm not sure that this is true - except at televised sporting events. I
haven't noticed it nearly so much when actually on holiday skiing - but then
i've never ski-ed in the USA.
>(of course lots of it
>would be banned as obscene int h US).
Well yes - we do tend to think the US is rather prudish on the whole (except
for the density of swear words in films). OTOH I can't help wondering about
the film title "Austin Powers - the spy who shagged me". How did they get
away with a title like that? If it had been the usual US synonym (beginning
with "f") then surely someone would have banned it. Perhaps they just don't
know what t means <g>.
> for many years, european theatres showed commercials as part of the
>program -- that was resisted in the US until quite recently.
I have never seen adverts in a theatre - or do you mean cinema?
>... a more reasoned
>approach would look at whther a particular form of advertising is
>appropriate for a particular venue.
Well a lot of us don't think advertising is appropriate in software.
>.... i did challenge his condemnation of others who make different
>decisions.
I didn't really read it as a condemnation - just a passionate argument for
avoiding advertising.
>> I'll probably never find out what ad-ware does by way of making automatic
>> connections - because I, like many others, don't really want to know.
>
> again, fine, but at least you're not posting conclusions when you
lack
>this info.
Oh but I do conclude there are enough people like me to make it a bad idea.
> I
>> resent the adverts on the web sites I visit..
> again, it depends -- IF i'm trying to sell you a particular
product,
>AND if it would turn off most people it might be a poor business decision.
>but that's not the only purpose of a web page. in fact, many web pages
are
>devoted SOLELY to info about free offers, contests and links to other
sites.
>so in those cases, the user is LOOKING for advertising.
Looking for information perhaps - there's a difference as Al has explained
eloquently in his articles on press releases.
> the choice is the
>users. OR, as in the case of my online games, I offer the games for
>free -- i'm not selling shareware or freeware there, so the advertising now
>lets me do something i couldnt have done before. that again, is MY
>decision and calling it stupid doesnt gain anything.
You're right that it is better to argue the merits of it more
dispassionately and treat all cases on their merits. Do take account,
however, that Borje is not a native English speaker, and though his English
is very good, it is often difficult to argue passionately AND retain subtle
nuances in a foreign language (I know - I've tried).
> But it *is* a moot point whether advertising
>> puts off more custom than the revenue it attracts.
>>
> exactly! hence it's rather premature at best to make blanket
>condemnations. and maligning someone's ethics or integrity is out of
>place...
I must admit, I didn't read anythng so personal in Borje's statements.
cmi...@my-deja.com
system exchanging information even though you registered
Cathy
In article <896pro$22ojo$1...@fu-berlin.de>,
Steve Estvanik
> > perhaps, but Europeans are much more inured to advertising in
MANY
> >places you'd never see in america -- in Alpine ski resorts, advertising
is
> >EVERYWHERE, including on the lifts themselves.
>
> I'm not sure that this is true - except at televised sporting events. I
> haven't noticed it nearly so much when actually on holiday skiing - but
then
> i've never ski-ed in the USA.
i've skied in the Alps over a dozen times now, and have skied in
about as many places here in the US and Canada, and until recently there
wasnt any comparison, though US ski resorts are slowly placing more ads.
even at it's 'worst' though, i've never found it overwhelming or
objectionable. i was just commenting on it's pervasiveness.
sports is another interesting area -- while the US certainly has
saturated advertising in its big league sports, it doesnt have many event
like the Tour de France (et al) (auto racing may be close, but there arent
as many crossovers, most of the ads are auto related, unlike TdF where you
can have the US Postal Service sponsoring a team....
> Well yes - we do tend to think the US is rather prudish on the whole
(except
> for the density of swear words in films). OTOH I can't help wondering
about
> the film title "Austin Powers - the spy who shagged me". How did they get
> away with a title like that? If it had been the usual US synonym
(beginning
> with "f") then surely someone would have banned it. Perhaps they just
don't
> know what t means <g>.
the latter is certainly the case -- just another case of general
ignorance of americans about things foreign. anyone here who's watched a
minimum of BBC comedies of course chuckled immediately.
>
> > for many years, european theatres showed commercials as part of the
> >program -- that was resisted in the US until quite recently.
>
> I have never seen adverts in a theatre - or do you mean cinema?
sorry, another transatlantic malaprop -- we still have movie theatres --
cinema is usally the more refined sort of films, referred to as 'art
cinema', etc. we also attend 'plays' when we go to 'live' theatre
>
> I didn't really read it as a condemnation - just a passionate argument for
> avoiding advertising.
he made it an issue of integrity -- anytime someone brings in ethics or
morality or integrity to what's basically a business decision, that skews
the argument.
> Oh but I do conclude there are enough people like me to make it a bad
idea.
if i assumed everyone thought like i did, i'd only be publishing
progressive political statements from an atheistic front. wouldnt do much
for my Bible Timelines program.
> > I
> >devoted SOLELY to info about free offers, contests and links to other
> sites.
> >so in those cases, the user is LOOKING for advertising.
>
> Looking for information perhaps - there's a difference as Al has explained
> eloquently in his articles on press releases.
looking for information, OR looking for ads -- some of the most
active ngs are those devoted to freebies, sweepstakes, etc. these ngs,
and supporting websites contain nothing but advertising (since just about
every freebie has a hook somewhere). when i first wrote my automated
sweepstake entry program it was the only one out there. now there are a
half dozen or more, all of which just point people to targetted advertising,
and i continue to get hundreds of downloads a week for that product. since
people are already looking at ads, one more in the wizard itself has never
caused complaint.
Borje Hagsten
> there are holes in the transmission. Other data can be received during
> these blank periods with no increase in your connection time.
Nah, these "wholes" usually occurs when our trans-atlantic connections
stops completely due to too much traffic. Many people over here connects
just to download mail from a local server and then disconnects as soon
as possible. When two downloads share the line in at the same time, the
speed decreases for both = the mail takes a much longer time to
download. In other words, these ads cost many of us money - a lot of
money, in the long run..
I'm using two servers, one here in Sweden and one in the USA, where my
domain is located. If I upload something to the US server and tries to
download mail from my Swedish server at the same time, it can take
forever to get the mail down. If I upload to the Swedish server, the
mail comes down much quicker, but it still takes some extra time. If I
don't upload anything, the mail comes down almost instantly.
That's the nature of the Internet - all bytes must be "physically" moved
from place A to place B through a single line, byte by byte. If it takes
X minutes to download Y bytes, it takes 2X minutes to download 2Y
bytes. There's simply no way around that fact, yet..
Steve Estvanik
> my words have offended you personally in any way, I apologize. As I
> said, my feelings about the adware concept is entirely based on my bad
> experiences from it.
i never take anything on these boards personally (even though i do point
out times when people respond ad hominem). so, no apology needed, though
it is appreciated.
my main point is that statements were overly broad, and generalized to
brand an entire area as somehow ethically wrong. we've seen this get out
of hand in past years in the shareware area, and i was just trying to bring
the discussion back to specifics.
I don't think Aureate or any of the other adware
> companies want to spy on anyone or do anything nasty, it's just that the
> concept of fetching new ads costs us money over here. Adware is not free
> for us who has to pay for our connections.
agreed, and that's a valid, but different point. however, in
practise, the Aureate model shouldnt cost much, if any more, since it only
picks up new ads when you're already online, and when you're not doing
anything. if you never log on yourself, the ads dont get updated, and it
just keeps stats on the client computer.
If I have five different
> adware applications that does the same and connect two time per day, it
> means the cost will be ten times that = 182.50 US dollars - per year!!!
not sure on this one -- i think if they're all aureate ads, there
wouldnt be any more activity for multiple applications. i know that i see
the same ads no matter what app i'm in.
this would certainly be something to bring up directly with aureate or
conducent -- to get more specifics about what the costs and download times
actually are. but that question got swamped by the other, more
inflammatory charges...
> Can you understand why most people over here hates adware? Can you
> understand that by using the adware concept, you will lose a lot of
> users?
i can understand that SOME people think this way, but i can agree
that all do -- my Triple Crown game, eg, relies on advertising, and i have
active players from all over the world. in fact, about 30% of the top 20
players are non-US, which is a much higher % than my general traffic.
=====Maybe we are different. I write software for my users, not for
> other companies to make money out of it. I want to help people with my
> software, not cause anyone extra, hidden costs
we have the same goal, but a different approach -- i'd prefer to just
write software and give it away for free. i'd rather not do th business
side at all. but until someone gives me a stipend and retirement fund i
need to look for a way to do it. with advertising i can actually come
close to that goal -- those who cannot afford to pay for my games can still
play them as much as they want, if they put up with advertising. that's
their choice. i still get a significant number of foreign registrations,
so someone is using these programs . i also know there are many foreign
users who dont register (since they continue to appear in my Halls of Fame
listings which are available to anyone).
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Contests & Free Stuff http://cascoly.com/cascfree.htm
Online horse racing, trivia, Life, puzzle games
http://cascoly.com/games/gamemain.htm
Royalty Free clipart, puzzles and screensavers
http://cascoly.com/clipart.htm
Free CD giveaways, weekly http://cascoly.com/realsoon.htm
SweepsWinner - internet contest wizard
Alun Jones
> ROFL -- you havent looked at 'most' adware so you cant possibly make
> ridiculous claims like that and expect to be taken seriously. if you dont
> want to use it, fine, but dont slander the work of other people when you
> havent the slightest evidence to back up your claims.
It would help if the adware companies publicised something technical
concerning their protocols and APIs - for instance, I've noticed the "punch
the monkey" adverts change the cursor, and claim to track mouse clicks
within a specific area. No mention is made of whether this is achieved by
some (potentially subvertible) higher level scripting in the advert, or
simply a couple of bytes of extra description code. It's only recently that
we've heard the adware vendors mention that they download adverts even while
the user isn't running the adware - something I find personally to be quite
abhorrent, but if the adware providers can convince users that's acceptable,
I shan't stand against them.
The sad thing is that there isn't evidence - at least not until _very_
recently - that adware developers can point to to refute those claims.
Personally, I don't believe that adware can be even remotely classed as
'malware'; I doubt that the Aureates or Conducents of this world have such a
short-term view as to piss in their own drinking fountain. However, they
aren't doing a very good job of specifying exactly what they _do_, allowing
any number of crackpot theories to crop up largely unopposed.
Alun Jones
> Well yes - we do tend to think the US is rather prudish on the whole (except
> for the density of swear words in films). OTOH I can't help wondering about
> the film title "Austin Powers - the spy who shagged me". How did they get
> away with a title like that? If it had been the usual US synonym (beginning
> with "f") then surely someone would have banned it. Perhaps they just don't
Uh, Dave? You got it in one. Over here, at least until very recently,
"shag" was a hair style, a carpet, or a dance - but nothing overtly sexual
(unless you're a baptist [*]).
Alun.
~~~~
[*] There's a joke that says baptists won't have sex standing up because it
might lead to dancing :-)
Alun Jones
wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:10:47 +0100, Borje Hagsten <hag...@algonet.se>
> wrote:
>
> >In Sweden, the usual cost for staying online is SEK 0.40, or about five
> >cents. During daytime, the trans-atlantic connections are really slow
> >due to heavy traffic. The speed is often down to >1 KB (kilobyte) per
> >second for most of us. Let's say the adware application wants to
> >download new banners, etc, each time we get connected and the whole
> >package is 60 KB. This means that one minute of our connection time goes
> >to downloading these banner ads. One minute cost approx. 0.05 dollars.
>
> Unfortunately, this calculaltion *assumes* that your internet
> connection is in use 100% of the time. Anyone with an external modem
> can watch the lights on it and *see* that no internet connection is in
> use 100% of the time. Even when you are downloading a 50 meg file,
> there are holes in the transmission. Other data can be received during
> these blank periods with no increase in your connection time.
And you can always re-compress a zip file with PKZIP - after all, with an
average of 30% compression each time, if you compress it ten times, you'll
get a file about 3% the size of the original.
Much European software for Internet access is designed to log on, burst-feed
all the traffic required, and then log off. Offline mail readers, offline
news readers, etc, etc - they all log on only when they have to, they try to
fill the pipe 100%, then they log off. _Your_ Internet connection may have
large idle gaps, but you're in the US, where you can afford to have large
idle gaps.
Alun.
~~~~
Dave Webber
Gerry Quinn wrote in message ...
>Basically, most punters don't know or care what adware does, and they
>are not being hurt either.
I have very serious doubts about this - I think you're being optimistic.
Most folk I know (in real space) hate having adverts on their computers -
whatever it is doing.
> There's a fine line between familiarity and intrusion. So far,
>adware is on the right side of that line.
The line is positionmed differently for some - this is a question of VERY
variable milage!
>Anyway that's my view, and I'm drunk, so it's honest ;)
Fair enough. That might explain your optimism. I've only had one glass of
wine so the cold light of day is too close still :-)
Dave Webber
Yogi Bear wrote in message <38c67ae3...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 01:00:17 -0000, "Dave Webber"
><da...@musical.demon.co.uk> gagged and spewed out this stuff:
>
>>OTOH I can't help wondering about
>>the film title "Austin Powers - the spy who shagged me". How did they get
>>away with a title like that?
>
>
> Simple. "Shagged" is a perfectly fine word in the US. It can
> mean "to chase after" or to "to catch" or it can relate to
> an old dance "The Shag." Also "rough nap", "long
> unkempt hair", "tangled vegetation", etc.
> We even have a tree here that is named the Shagbark
> Hickory. I don't even want to guess what you'd make
> of that. ;>)
> None of these has a sexual connotation in the US.
So I was right - they didn't know what it means :-)
> So the
> question becomes "How did they get away with it in
> Britain?"
We all know that Americans are uncouth <vbg> and it wouldn't be cricket to
take offence at it. (The only outrage I've heard is that the film in
question seems to have been far less amusing then the first one, and to have
sold purely on the back of it. That was the judgment of the critics here -
including professional ones and my 18 year old son - and so I haven't
bothered with it. The first one *was* very good - for those of us who grew
up in Britain in the 60's it was too close for comfort <g>.)
Steve Estvanik
> from place A to place B through a single line, byte by byte. If it takes
> X minutes to download Y bytes, it takes 2X minutes to download 2Y
> bytes. There's simply no way around that fact, yet..
>
the reality on most sites though is that only a small part of the
bandwidth is actually used -- few people with a 56k modem actually achieve a
56k transfer. so, it is the case that having 2 or more processes running
in parallel can be faster than running each serially.
when i had a 56k connection, i'd often see transfer rates of only 2-5k and
those didnt change when i started additional transfers.
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Make Your Site Sell! http://www.sitesell.com/cascoly.html
Build traffic http://cascoly.com/webdesign.htm
BLAST your site to thousands of FFA links pages
http://www.submitad.com/reseller/show.cgi?1339
Promote your contest or giveaway for free http://cascoly.com/contest.htm
s
Steve Estvanik
> It would help if the adware companies publicised something technical
> concerning their protocols and APIs - for instance, I've noticed the
"punch
> the monkey" adverts change the cursor, and claim to track mouse clicks
> within a specific area.
i'd agree, but also can see why they're hesitant to say anything -- no
matter what they say, someone's going to take it out of context; there are
still people claiming that ms reads your disk and reports what hardware and
software you have when you use IE.
===. It's only recently that
> we've heard the adware vendors mention that they download adverts even
while
> the user isn't running the adware - something I find personally to be
quite
> abhorrent, but if the adware providers can convince users that's
acceptable,
> I shan't stand against them.
why? this has been known for quite some time, not just recently,
but in any case, why not take time when the machine is otherwise unused.
they're updating the ad cache, not displaying ads.
s
Steve Estvanik
>
>
is
> rather strict at keeping these out of advertising.
you mean like the main drag in Amsterdam? or Wenceslas Square? but
yes, there is a diffrence that way. most American cities are gradually
reducing the places where you can post billboards, and they're much less
prevalent on freeways than they were 10-20 years ago. still can be a
blight, but at least the direction is positive.
s
> Ah. Yes in cinemas (we don't call them theatres) there has always been a
> 10min slot of adverts before the main feature - as long as I can remember
> (back to the 50s just <g>). I assumed we had copied it from the USA.
nope -- a few places tried it in the 70's and they got a lot of bad
feedback; they backed off for awhile, but in the last decade it's slowly
come back again, but still not at the level i've seen in european cinemas.
Steve Estvanik
burst-feed
> all the traffic required, and then log off. Offline mail readers, offline
> news readers, etc, etc - they all log on only when they have to, they try
to
> fill the pipe 100%, then they log off. _Your_ Internet connection may
have
> large idle gaps, but you're in the US, where you can afford to have large
> idle gaps
in those cases, without idle gaps, the ad caching wouldnt take place.
so the net result should be the same -- you're not paying much if anything
for the adware update time. given the size of the files, we're usually
talking seconds in any case.
s
Dave Webber
Steve Estvanik wrote in message ...
>.....
> i was just commenting on it's pervasiveness.
I think one of the differences is lights. In many circumstances europe is
rather strict at keeping these out of advertising.
> Perhaps they just
>don't
>> know what t means <g>.
>
> the latter is certainly the case -- just another case of general
>ignorance of americans about things foreign. anyone here who's watched a
>minimum of BBC comedies of course chuckled immediately.
Well to be fair, it *is* 30 year old slang. Nobody uses the word these
days. It's sort of like me picking up US slang by watching productions of
"Guys and Dolls" (one of my all time favourites).
> sorry, another transatlantic malaprop -- we still have movie
theatres --
Ah. Yes in cinemas (we don't call them theatres) there has always been a
10min slot of adverts before the main feature - as long as I can remember
(back to the 50s just <g>). I assumed we had copied it from the USA.
>cinema is usally the more refined sort of films, referred to as 'art
>cinema', etc. we also attend 'plays' when we go to 'live' theatre
Yes - theatres show plays; cinemas show films (not "movies" <g>). (Of
course the"movement" implicit in the "movie" is also implicit in the root of
the word "kinematograph".)
On the ads: I have just sacrificed my principles and started a MOZART
mailing list hosted by onelist. It costs me nothing except that scarifice,
as there is an (ASCII) ad at the bottom of each message. I don't like it
but life is full of compromses. :-(
Dave Webber
Steve Estvanik wrote in message ...
>> rather strict at keeping these out of advertising.
>
> you mean like the main drag in Amsterdam?
No Amsterdam is a one-off in many ways. I mean like in the centre of Paris
or a village in Britain where the local council last year stopped even the
Bank from having a small illuminated sign above its door switched on after
it was shut.
> or Wenceslas Square?
Don't know - never been there.
> but
>yes, there is a diffrence that way. most American cities are gradually
>reducing the places where you can post billboards, and they're much less
>prevalent on freeways than they were 10-20 years ago. still can be a
>blight, but at least the direction is positive.
I didn't know. This sounds encouraging.
> > Ah. Yes in cinemas (we don't call them theatres) there has always been
a
>> 10min slot of adverts before the main feature - as long as I can remember
>> (back to the 50s just <g>). I assumed we had copied it from the USA.
>
> nope -- a few places tried it in the 70's and they got a lot of bad
>feedback; they backed off for awhile, but in the last decade it's slowly
>come back again, but still not at the level i've seen in european cinemas.
Interesting. Cinema going has increased a lot here since the advent of
out-of-town multiplexes. Advertising doesn't seem to have changed in style
or length, and seems to be accepted as a fact of life there. I worry about
it less in the cinema than on my computer - and I guess most people are the
same here.
Al Meadows - Fineware Systems
average of 30% compression each time, if you compress it ten times, you'll
get a file about 3% the size of the original.
Where did you get that idea? The SECOND zip of an already zipped file is
often larger than the first one.
Bob Baddle
>Much European software for Internet access is designed to log on, burst-feed
>all the traffic required, and then log off. Offline mail readers, offline
>news readers, etc, etc - they all log on only when they have to, they try to
>fill the pipe 100%, then they log off. _Your_ Internet connection may have
>large idle gaps, but you're in the US, where you can afford to have large
>idle gaps.
Maybe _Your_ internet connection, and all the services you connect to,
can respond instantly, but in my experience the internet doesn't work
that way. When I log into the newsgroups, a web site, or to get my
mail, all the systems pause a bit between the log in and the response.
And they often pause in the middle of a transmission.
Gerry Quinn
>>Anyway that's my view, and I'm drunk, so it's honest ;)
>
>
>Fair enough. That might explain your optimism. I've only had one glass of
>wine so the cold light of day is too close still :-)
>
It's back again now. And it hurts my eyes...
Alun Jones
My point _exactly_. I was using sarcasm. Sorry, I thought that the post
was so blindingly obvious in its stupidity that it would be entirely clear
that I was not being serious. I hereby retroactively add a smiley to the
end :-)
Alun Jones
Bob Baddle
>My point _exactly_. I was using sarcasm. Sorry, I thought that the post
>was so blindingly obvious in its stupidity that it would be entirely clear
>that I was not being serious. I hereby retroactively add a smiley to the
>end :-)
Nevermind! <g>
Steve Estvanik
> >> rather strict at keeping these out of advertising.
> >
> > you mean like the main drag in Amsterdam?
>
> No Amsterdam is a one-off in many ways.
yep, i realized that -- in some ways like Times Sq, NY, or Hong Kong --
not particularlly typical.
> > or Wenceslas Square?
>
> Don't know - never been there.
i first visited Prague in 1990, and W Square (which is really a very
long, wide street) had a few restaurants and a few neon signs. we had a
hard time finding any shop that sold Czech crystal. when i went back in
'95 and '96 each time the neon had metastasized -- casinos, fast food
places, and half the shops sellling crystal. not all bad, considering the
previous status, but a surprise nonetheless...
> Interesting. Cinema going has increased a lot here since the advent of
> out-of-town multiplexes. Advertising doesn't seem to have changed in style
> or length, and seems to be accepted as a fact of life there. I worry
about
> it less in the cinema than on my computer - and I guess most people are
the
> same here
and i'm just the opposite -- i dont mind ads when i can ignore or
flip past them -- newspapers, magazines and internet or adware all fall in
this category. i dont like tv commercials, but accept them since i'm
getting free tv (we dont have cable). i dont listen to anything but public
radio, since i cant stand the commercials. and in cinemas i really object
to being held captive by ads, then a long series of trailers before getting
to a feature that often has additional product placement.....
Alun Jones
wrote:
You're diverging from your argument. You're suggesting that these idle gaps
may be filled by downloading adverts - yet, if the apps that are designed to
log in, fill the pipe, and log off, can't make any use of these gaps, how
exactly are the advertising programs going to be able to make use of these
gaps?
Larry Gross
of the British connotation.
Larry Gross
gro...@conducent.com
"Dave Webber" <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:951635550.2100.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Steve Estvanik wrote in message ...
>
> > perhaps, but Europeans are much more inured to advertising in
MANY
> >places you'd never see in america -- in Alpine ski resorts, advertising
is
> >EVERYWHERE, including on the lifts themselves.
>
> I'm not sure that this is true - except at televised sporting events. I
> haven't noticed it nearly so much when actually on holiday skiing - but
then
> i've never ski-ed in the USA.
>
> >(of course lots of it
> >would be banned as obscene int h US).
>
>
> Well yes - we do tend to think the US is rather prudish on the whole
(except
> for the density of swear words in films). OTOH I can't help wondering
about
> the film title "Austin Powers - the spy who shagged me". How did they get
> away with a title like that? If it had been the usual US synonym
(beginning
> with "f") then surely someone would have banned it. Perhaps they just
don't
> know what t means <g>.
>
> > for many years, european theatres showed commercials as part of the
> >program -- that was resisted in the US until quite recently.
>
> I have never seen adverts in a theatre - or do you mean cinema?
>
> >... a more reasoned
> >approach would look at whther a particular form of advertising is
> >appropriate for a particular venue.
>
> Well a lot of us don't think advertising is appropriate in software.
>
> >.... i did challenge his condemnation of others who make different
> >decisions.
>
>
> I didn't really read it as a condemnation - just a passionate argument for
> avoiding advertising.
>
> >> I'll probably never find out what ad-ware does by way of making
automatic
> >> connections - because I, like many others, don't really want to know.
> >
> > again, fine, but at least you're not posting conclusions when you
> lack
> >this info.
>
> Oh but I do conclude there are enough people like me to make it a bad
idea.
>
> > I
> >> resent the adverts on the web sites I visit..
>
> > again, it depends -- IF i'm trying to sell you a particular
> product,
> >AND if it would turn off most people it might be a poor business
decision.
> >but that's not the only purpose of a web page. in fact, many web pages
> are
> >devoted SOLELY to info about free offers, contests and links to other
> sites.
> >so in those cases, the user is LOOKING for advertising.
>
> Looking for information perhaps - there's a difference as Al has explained
> eloquently in his articles on press releases.
>
> > the choice is the
> >users. OR, as in the case of my online games, I offer the games for
> >free -- i'm not selling shareware or freeware there, so the advertising
now
> >lets me do something i couldnt have done before. that again, is MY
> >decision and calling it stupid doesnt gain anything.
>
> You're right that it is better to argue the merits of it more
> dispassionately and treat all cases on their merits. Do take account,
> however, that Borje is not a native English speaker, and though his
English
> is very good, it is often difficult to argue passionately AND retain
subtle
> nuances in a foreign language (I know - I've tried).
>
> > But it *is* a moot point whether advertising
> >> puts off more custom than the revenue it attracts.
> >>
> > exactly! hence it's rather premature at best to make blanket
> >condemnations. and maligning someone's ethics or integrity is out of
> >place...
>
>
> I must admit, I didn't read anythng so personal in Borje's statements.
>
Alun Jones
> You make a good point, Dave, about the word shagged. Americans have no idea
> of the British connotation.
I don't know - I'd say that, if nothing else, the Austin Powers movies have
brought a popular understanding of this definition of "shag" that has not
been seen before. Much like "Moonlighting" introduced "boink".
Alun Jones
AFo...@bigfoot.com
>
> Yes, I know but until now they never mentioned that they cached ads
> even when your app is NOT running.
Have you read the EULA you agreed to?
> On the bright side - another point for traditional shareware!
> Shareware sites will be able stamp their software "Ad Free" and
> certify that "No personal information is gathered while you use this
> software" ;)
They can put up that note right under their doubleclick banners.
I mean it. If you think of it:
How many really usefull non-paying site do you know that do not have
ads on them? With cookies? Tracking banner views? Tracking clicks?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Borje Hagsten
> How many really usefull non-paying site do you know that do not have
> ads on them? With cookies? Tracking banner views? Tracking clicks?
No ads, no cookies, no tracking banner views and no tracking clicks.
Just plain, old-fashioned HTML without frames and still I have had up to
almost 8,000 visits/day, so I guess it is kind of useful to some people.
Ads don't attract more visitors, on the contrary.. ;-)
Okay, so the peek occurred when Washington Post called my software
"frighteningly exotic" and "a crime against humanity" in an article a
while ago, because it can take away the mystery of the Swedish language
for English-speaking people, but still.. :-)
If you want to have some fun, you can read the article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-02/08/142l-020800-idx.html
Borje
=============================================================
Borje Hagsten hag...@algonet.se
http://www.tolken99.com - for free downloads, etc.
Tolken99 v4.1 for Windows - word processor, dictionary,
Swedish - English translator and vocabulary test, all in one..
=============================================================
Ed Guy
>
> >
> > Yes, I know but until now they never mentioned that they cached ads
> > even when your app is NOT running.
>
> Have you read the EULA you agreed to?
I have. The issue is not caching when the adware runs, but unauthorised connection at
other times. The EULA doesn't ask for consent to that (or to send OUT any data). See my
post in alt.comp.shareware.programmer.
--
Ed Guy P.Eng,CDP,MIEE
Information Technology Consultant
Internet: ed_...@NOSPAMguysoftware.com remove NOSPAM from email address.
http://www.guysoftware.com
"Check out HELLLP!, WinHelp author tool for WinWord 2.0 through 2000,
PlanBee Project Management Planning and Scheduling
and ParseRat, the File Parser, Converter and Reorganizer"
Alun Jones
<ed_...@NOSPAMguysoftware.com> wrote:
> AFo...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> > Have you read the EULA you agreed to?
>
> I have. The issue is not caching when the adware runs, but unauthorised
> connection at
> other times. The EULA doesn't ask for consent to that (or to send OUT any
> data). See my
> post in alt.comp.shareware.programmer.
Other EULAs, however, have noted (and I'll use their word) that the adware
stuff connects and transfers data UBIQUITOUSLY. Each EULA uses different
language to describe the Aureate software, and that's obviously something
that needs to change. What _I'd_ like to see is a separate Aureate EULA to
be agreed to on each installation - Aureate supplies the text, the logo,
etc, and the adware vendor merely calls it up for approval prior to
continuing installing its own software. It's been done for other
third-party components - why not here?
Ed Guy
>
> In article <38BE99...@NOSPAMguysoftware.com>, Ed Guy
> <ed_...@NOSPAMguysoftware.com> wrote:
> > AFo...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> > > Have you read the EULA you agreed to?
> >
> > I have. The issue is not caching when the adware runs, but unauthorised
> > connection at
> > other times. The EULA doesn't ask for consent to that (or to send OUT any
> > data). See my
> > post in alt.comp.shareware.programmer.
>
> Other EULAs, however, have noted (and I'll use their word) that the adware
> stuff connects and transfers data UBIQUITOUSLY. Each EULA uses different
> language to describe the Aureate software, and that's obviously something
> that needs to change. What _I'd_ like to see is a separate Aureate EULA to
> be agreed to on each installation - Aureate supplies the text, the logo,
> etc, and the adware vendor merely calls it up for approval prior to
> continuing installing its own software. It's been done for other
> third-party components - why not here?
According to their website, Aureate REQUIRES its vendors to use the "UBIQUITOUSLY"
quote. They just don't seem to understand what the term means (check in Webster). It
means "everywhere at once" - it doesn't mean "repetitively" or "all the time". It refers
to geography (space) not history (time).
Alun Jones
> According to their website, Aureate REQUIRES its vendors to use the
> "UBIQUITOUSLY"
> quote. They just don't seem to understand what the term means (check in
> Webster). It
> means "everywhere at once" - it doesn't mean "repetitively" or "all the time".
> It refers
> to geography (space) not history (time).
You'll excuse me, I'm sure, for using a different dictionary than yours - as
I mentioned in another thread, the Oxford English Dictionary (and before you
slap me for using one not from America, this _is_ the American Edition) also
lists it as meaning "frequently encountered" - meaning also in time as well
as space.
Since you missed my other posting, I'll copy this to you by email.
Ed Guy
>
> In article <38BEC0...@NOSPAMguysoftware.com>, Ed Guy <ed_...@NOSPAMguysoftware.com> wrote:
> > According to their website, Aureate REQUIRES its vendors to use the
> > "UBIQUITOUSLY"
> > quote. They just don't seem to understand what the term means (check in
> > Webster). It
> > means "everywhere at once" - it doesn't mean "repetitively" or "all the time".
> > It refers
> > to geography (space) not history (time).
>
> You'll excuse me, I'm sure, for using a different dictionary than yours - as
> I mentioned in another thread, the Oxford English Dictionary (and before you
> slap me for using one not from America, this _is_ the American Edition) also
> lists it as meaning "frequently encountered" - meaning also in time as well
> as space.
>
> Since you missed my other posting, I'll copy this to you by email.
>
> Alun.
Thanks for the email confirmation. This stuff is coming so fast and furious that posts
scroll off the servers before everybody sees them. I have never understood
"ubiquitiously" to refer to time, it comes from the Latin "ubique", which means
"everywhere". I hadn't seen the variation that you quoted.
The best that can be said is that the permission sought in the license is ambiguous.
There is certainly no permission sought to send OUT regular reports (there is obviously
an implied permission to send out the questionaire stuff), although I can see why they
want to do it to get an accurate count of what has been viewed.
The problem this gives Aureate is that they cannot claim completely clean hands, even if
they are not as filthy as the "Sky is falling" crowd try to imply.
I had originally considered releasing PlanBee as adware, even had some correspondence
with Aureate about it, but I'm now mightily relieved that I didn't. (I was scared off
by the MoneyPump situation and the experience of people who released software which
relied on somebody else's server staying in business.)
Alun Jones
>
> > On the bright side - another point for traditional shareware!
> > Shareware sites will be able stamp their software "Ad Free" and
> > certify that "No personal information is gathered while you use this
> > software" ;)
>
> They can put up that note right under their doubleclick banners.
>
> I mean it. If you think of it:
> ads on them? With cookies? Tracking banner views? Tracking clicks?
The presence - or absence - of adverts doesn't seem to me to be the measure
of 'usefullness' of a site. If the content is of interest to me, there are
very few adverts likely to keep me away (except for the one that flashes
"WINNER!!!" - see other posts for how much trouble each of these causes me)
- and if a site is of no interest to me, it continues to be of no interest
to me without the adverts. I get your point that many sites owe their
entire continued existence to advertising, and such is presumably also the
point with adware. Again, the presence or absence of ads will neither
confirm nor refute the usefulness of a program; however, I suspect that any
program useful enough for me to use on a regular basis is one that I will
pay to register, rather than one whose adverts I'll want to have constantly
refreshed on my desktop.
Others may feel differently, however, and I hope that they'll be allowed to
get their software free in exchange for whatever privacy they choose(*) to
give up in return.
Alun.
~~~~
(*) As long as that choice is a fully informed one.
Dave Webber
Alun Jones wrote in message <89micp$2p4$1...@hiram.io.com>...
>lists it as meaning "frequently encountered" - meaning also in time as well
>as space.
No that's a poor interpretation - it's just essentially the Latin word for
"everywhere".
If you encounter something "frequently" you can encounter lots of them
everywhere you go, or the same one in the same place every five minutes. In
the latter case it is definitely NOT "ubiquitous" - just frequent.
Timo Salmi
Ed Guy <ed_...@NOSPAMguysoftware.com> wrote:
:According to their website, Aureate REQUIRES its vendors to use the "UBIQUITOUSLY"
:quote. They just don't seem to understand what the term means (check in Webster). It
:means "everywhere at once" - it doesn't mean "repetitively" or "all the time". It refers
:to geography (space) not history (time).
Dear Ed,
While literally true AFAIK as a non-native speaker its practical
usage refers to a state of affairs. Take a closer look at the
examples given by the various dictionaries conveniently summarized
at http://www.onelook.com/ by entering ubiquitous. E.g. the
Cambridge International Dictionary of English gives examples which
IHMO seem to have, to a degree, _both_ the connotations, while, no
doubt heavier on the spatial aspect.
All the best, Timo
--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/> ; FIN-65101, Finland
Digital photos collection at http://www.uwasa.fi/ktt/lasktoim/photo/
Terry Russell
Ed Guy wrote in message <38BEDD...@NOSPAMguysoftware.com>...
>Alun Jones wrote:
>>
>> In article <38BEC0...@NOSPAMguysoftware.com>, Ed Guy <ed_...@NOSPAMguysoftware.com> wrote:
>> > According to their website, Aureate REQUIRES its vendors to use the
>> > "UBIQUITOUSLY"
>> > quote. They just don't seem to understand what the term means (check in
>> > Webster). It
>> > means "everywhere at once" - it doesn't mean "repetitively" or "all the time".
>> > It refers
>> > to geography (space) not history (time).
>>
>> I mentioned in another thread, the Oxford English Dictionary (and before you
>> slap me for using one not from America, this _is_ the American Edition) also
>> as space.
endemic?
but decimate now flrugles something kralhinti annihilate , so why larl?
Dave Webber
Timo Salmi wrote in message <89nbf0$c...@loisto.uwasa.fi>...
>While literally true AFAIK as a non-native speaker its practical
>usage refers to a state of affairs. Take a closer look at the
>examples given by the various dictionaries conveniently summarized
>at http://www.onelook.com/ by entering ubiquitous. E.g. the
>Cambridge International Dictionary of English gives examples which
>IHMO seem to have, to a degree, _both_ the connotations, while, no
>doubt heavier on the spatial aspect.
As a (British) native speaker (not given too much to worrying about
interpreting dictionary definitions of commoner words) I'm happy that
"ubiquitous" means "everywhere" (or possibly "anywhere") in the distributed
sense rather than in the sense of a single thing which has moved around a
lot.
Cars are ubiquitous in London - a single specific car probably isn't, no
matter how often you encounter it in different places (although some may use
the word, perhaps metaphorically, in that sense).
However, the fact that cars are ubiquitous certainly doesn't rule out the
idea that they move around or that specific individual cars can be
encountered in different places at different times. (The traffic situation
does that <g>.)
If Aureate connects "ubiquitously" I would expect it to connect to many
different points in the internet - everywhere in fact. I would NOT
interpret this as being a promise that it doesn't connect to the same place
twice.
AFo...@bigfoot.com
>
> Thanks for the email confirmation. This stuff is coming so fast and
furious that posts
> scroll off the servers before everybody sees them. I have never
understood
> "ubiquitiously" to refer to time, it comes from the Latin "ubique",
which means
> "everywhere". I hadn't seen the variation that you quoted.
This is getting very "off topic" fast. There are plenty of other
newsgroups discussing aspects of English and Latin.
> The best that can be said is that the permission sought in the
license is ambiguous.
> There is certainly no permission sought to send OUT regular reports
I thought the EULA would make it clear that the adware connects
regularly and that the cost of the bandwith is for the user.
Compare this to visiting a standard web site:
When you click an ad, they do not take you directy to the advertiser.
No, they connect you to adserver, log you, and bounce you to the
advertiser. When you open up a web page, the adserver knows what page
you are reading. Having your IP, (and maybe a cookie) it also knows
how long you have been on each page (compare timestamp of impressions).
So what is the difference again?
> I had originally considered releasing PlanBee as adware, even had
some correspondence
> with Aureate about it, but I'm now mightily relieved that I didn't.
(I was scared off
> by the MoneyPump situation and the experience of people who released
software which
> relied on somebody else's server staying in business.)
In shareware, you are always depending on someone else.
You depend on Microsoft. You depend on the search engines. You depend
on your web space host. You depend on the DNS provider. You depend on
your registration service. You depend on the CC processors. You depend
on the bank.
If aureate would drop dead tommorow, granted, I'll loose a few bucks
during a week or so, but I will put a new version online that has
another ad-service in it ASAP.
AFo...@bigfoot.com
> > I mean it. If you think of it:
> > How many really usefull non-paying site do you know that do not have
> > ads on them? With cookies? Tracking banner views? Tracking clicks?
>
> The presence - or absence - of adverts doesn't seem to me to be the
>measure of 'usefullness' of a site. If the content is of interest
>to me,
I did not claim that "if a site has banners, it must be usefull".
My claim, reworded:
If a site is usefull, you have at least 99% chance to see advertising
on it!
> I get your point that many sites owe their
> entire continued existence to advertising, and such is presumably
>also the point with adware.
Exactly.
Think of this:
How many of the sites would survive if their owner suddenly said:
"Let's drop the advertising, let's charge 3$/month for access" ?
>I suspect that any program useful enough for me to use on a regular
>basis is one that I will
> pay to register, rather than one whose adverts I'll want to have
>constantly refreshed on my desktop.
- You could say I am "Pro-choice" then. All my progs have the option
to register and loose the ads.
- _You_ might be honest enough to pay for shareware, but at least 95%
of the world population is not (statistical references available on
request).
Many people would rather spend days searching the net for a crack when
a time-limit is up then spend 20$ to register their copy. Advertising
keeps everybody happy.
AFo...@bigfoot.com
> "Crappy adware"? Yes, it's usually crappy (at least the ones I've
>seen),
> because if it was any good, the developer wouldn't have to sell
>adspace
> in his/her software to get some income from it.. ;-)
My I ask what you find _crappy_ about _my_ software?
No, I won't tell you the name, just that it uses aureate.
Apparently you reviewed _all_ adware software before making such a bold
statement, right?
Or is it crappy just because it uses adware?
Think Gozilla, CuteFTP, FileFerret, .... I hear even Eudora is using
adware these days.....
Alun Jones
>
> Alun Jones wrote in message <89micp$2p4$1...@hiram.io.com>...
>
> >as space.
>
> "everywhere".
>
> If you encounter something "frequently" you can encounter lots of them
> everywhere you go, or the same one in the same place every five minutes. In
> the latter case it is definitely NOT "ubiquitous" - just frequent.
However, one could be excused for assuming that this was correct usage, if
one was looking for a long and impressive-sounding word with which to
confuse people in a legal document. :-)
Certainly, in this case, "frequently" would serve two purposes - one, its
main meaning is exactly what is intended, and two, most people who speak
English understand it to mean that.
Alun.
~~~~
Visual Vision
> started, these applications often tries to launch my browser and dial-up
> dialog.
this is not true for all adwares, fortunately ;-)
I also hate ads, so I tend to register ad's applications.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visual Vision - http://visualvision.com/ http://visualvision.it
Leader in hypertext authoring software!
Try iPer Hyper Publish PRO, the one-stop solution for Web pages
and CD-ROM authoring/publishing! [ASP, ESC member]
Alun Jones
> > if Aurate is involved in any way, but I do know that once installed and
> > started, these applications often tries to launch my browser and dial-up
> > dialog.
>
> this is not true for all adwares, fortunately ;-)
> I also hate ads, so I tend to register ad's applications.
I'll remind people again that one way to perhaps forestall the coming of
adware to your favourite apps is to pay the registration fee. I suspect
many shareware authors now looking to adware are doing so because they know
that a large number of their users are seriously using the software without
paying for it.
Steve Estvanik
> many shareware authors now looking to adware are doing so because they
know
> that a large number of their users are seriously using the software
without
> paying for it.
definitely -- my philosophy is twofold, with complementary goals -- first,
is as you say, to earn some money from those who dont register. but
secondly, adware also allows me to design programs i'm interested in. eg,
my Triple Crown horse racing game is supported almost entirely by online
advertising -- there are about 300 active players at any time in the game,
and races run every other day.
s
--
==========
Steve Estvanik
Online educational , trivia games http://cascoly.com/games/gamemain.htm
Food Chain -- online ecology http://cascoly.com/games/food/foodmain.htm
Life, the game http://cascoly.com/games/life/lifemain.htm
Royalty Free clipart and screensavers http://cascoly.com/clipart.htm
=============
Alun Jones
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 03:19:59 GMT, al...@texis.com (Alun Jones) gagged
> and spewed out this stuff:
>
> >I'll remind people again that one way to perhaps forestall the coming of
> >that a large number of their users are seriously using the software without
> >paying for it.
>
> defending their "right" to steal the use of my computer system
> and my telephone, you're now guessing at their motive?
Calm down. I haven't defended anyone's "right" to steal anything, and if
you were paying attention you'd know that. I defended the adware producers
right to use whatever means their users allowed to fund their development.
It's clear that some adware producers have not been totally forthright with
their users as to the entire spectrum of events that the adware will cause.
> Perhaps (hey, if you can speculate so can I) that's also why
> the spy feature is NOT removed when the SW is registered?
No, I'd still say that the most likely reason the "spy feature is NOT
removed" is because the people writing the uninstall script are lazy maggots
with no clue how to do things properly. Once again, I'll remind you that
Aureate (unless they're unbelievably fraudulent) don't make any money unless
adware displays ads, and they similarly don't pass any money to the adware
developers unless their adware displays ads, so neither Aureate nor their
adware partners have any financial motivation to keep the DLLs in your
system.
> Since the guy down the street is, or might be, using the SW
> without registering they gotta keep spying?
I'm not quite sure what you think your point is here. I've merely reminded
people that adware is an alternative to shareware, and that many shareware
authors are eyeing that alternative, due to the continual lack of
registrations as compared to actual uses. If you'd been around this
newsgroup before, you'd be well aware of that. It's all many of us talk
about.
dgjessing
"Alun Jones" <al...@texis.com> wrote in message
news:8a1seu$rr9$1...@hiram.io.com...
Porch Dog
the bills somehow.
dgjessing wrote in message ...
ddisanmateo
Wayne Borean
cmi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Alun,
>
> Funny that Aureate are starting to give details out that they
> never gave before - hidden windows, etc. How much more are they
> going to release in the future?
I'd suggest checking out the info available at www.grc.com. I'd been
experiencing severe instability problems with Windows 98, it was blowing up
and taking down the computer 5+ times per day.
Steve Gibson at GRC wrote a program called Optout, that removes Adware. I
ran it, and my problems disappeared.
So Conducent/Aureate owe me for 3 months of hell. Will they pay?
Somehow I doubt it.
Wayne
Sanjaya
server: news.grc.com
groups: optout and shieldsup
Wayne Borean wrote in message <38DC0827...@home.com>...
:I'd suggest checking out the info available at www.grc.com. I'd been
:
:
:
Wayne Borean
I know about them. He's the reason I'm now running Zonealarm.
Wayne
Alun Jones
wrote:
> cmi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Funny that Aureate are starting to give details out that they
> > never gave before - hidden windows, etc. How much more are they
> > going to release in the future?
Uh, my apps use hidden windows, but I haven't revealed this until now,
because it's not important, or anything to be concerned about. You might as
well be concerned because someone has a variable called "NSAKey" - oh, wait,
that was _last_ season's uninformed security scare :-) I'm sorry, but I'm
starting to see people getting really worried about perfectly normal
features in Aureate's (and others') DLLs - get a grip, people, hidden
windows are nothing sinister, except in the minds of paranoid conspiracy
theorists.
> I'd suggest checking out the info available at www.grc.com. I'd been
> experiencing severe instability problems with Windows 98, it was blowing up
> and taking down the computer 5+ times per day.
>
> Steve Gibson at GRC wrote a program called Optout, that removes Adware. I
> ran it, and my problems disappeared.
>
> So Conducent/Aureate owe me for 3 months of hell. Will they pay?
>
> Somehow I doubt it.
Wayne, somehow I doubt that you could prove that Aureate or Conducent were
solely responsible for this - in fact, given the number of people that are
coming up here and witnessing that they, too, have had Conducent's and
Aureate's libraries on their systems, but who haven't noticed any change in
their system's stability over that time.
As a programmer, I can tell you that it's _definitely_ not fair to assign
blame based on what software you installed or uninstalled over a particular
period. There was a time when I had more calls than I could deal with over
people installing my own software and running into numerous errors. It
turned out that a program they had installed previously - the VXtreme Web
Theater Client - had screwed up their Winsock installation, and my program
was merely the first to actually try and use the feature that VXtreme had
screwed up. But, going by your criteria, it was _my_ software that was at
fault.
Alun.
~~~~
P.S. Standard disclaimer: I'm not denying that Aureate/Conducent's adware is
a serious intrusion into privacy; I won't use it for my own systems; I feel
Aureate and Conducent have both acted poorly in their own ways, Conducent by
spamming developers, and Aureate by not properly testing the apps that pass
their way. I'm just trying to correct some of the outrageously wrong things
that are being stated here.
--
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us
1602 Harvest Moon Place | at web site http://www.wftpd.com or email
Cedar Park TX 78613 | us at al...@texis.com. VISA / MC accepted.
Fax +1 (512) 378 3246 | NT-based ISPs, be sure to read details of
Ed Guy
> As a programmer, I can tell you that it's _definitely_ not fair to assign
> blame based on what software you installed or uninstalled over a particular
> period.
Very true BUT if a problem started when you installed something and stopped when you
removed it, it's a pretty good indication.
A few months ago I installed a program to assist in link exchanges. Good idea, finds
and displays sites with similar keywords and automates emails offering link exchanges -
also creates a "links" page using the ones that respond.
(It displayed ads, but was pre-Aureate).
As soon as I installed it the system shutdown sequence from the Win98 START button was
disabled. I had to quit out with CTRL-ALT-DEL. After a few days I got fed up with this
and uninstalled it. The problem immediately disappeared. I had not installed or
uninstalled anything else in that time.
I contacted the suppliers about this and got NO response.
Another slightly scary thing during this same time period, which could have been a
coincidence. One night I was in my office doing something else. My system monitor was
powered down by the power-saving routines. I heard my dialer start up. I quickly
cancelled the connection.