Gator becomes a part of the US Gov't?

[Raptisoft]

Well. What's everyone think of this?

http://news.com.com/Adware+maker+joins+federal+privacy+board/2100-1028-5587653.html?part=dht&tag=ntop&tag=nl.e703

[sunnygames]

Industry is changing....

[luggage]

But are people's perceptions? Mine aren't.

[JPGinLA]

FYI, their new product is very cool and would be useful for customers. And, they are doing everything to avoid the bad associations.

Their name is now Claria too.

Suppose for a moment, that no identifiable information is passed, the user has a real opportunity and notice to opt out, and the customer gets a real benefit from their product. Then is it still bad to distribute their product?

-JPG

EDIT: Then would your perceptions begin to change?

[Coyote]

I saw this and I can't tell you how mad I got.

I guess this pretty much tells you where the Department of Homeland Security is going: Take a guy who was able to foist one of the most pervasive (and successful) pieces of malware around who was still able to claim with a straight face that there was nothing unethical about it, and put HIM in charge.

I'm expecting black armbands any day now.

[luggage]

FYI, their new product is very cool and would be useful for customers. And, they are doing everything to avoid the bad associations.

Their name is now Claria too.

Suppose for a moment, that no identifiable information is passed, the user has a real opportunity and notice to opt out, and the customer gets a real benefit from their product. Then is it still bad to distribute their product?

-JPG

EDIT: Then would your perceptions begin to change?
Nope. Until they don't rely on distributing it on the back of another project then I won't trust them.

[cliffski]

good products get sold. they dont get bundled. Its as simple as that. When you get a free bar of chocolate with something you buy in a supermarket do you think its good chocolate? No, they have too much of it and want to get rid of it, and cannot sell it AT ANY PRICE.
This is bad.

[JPGinLA]

When you get a free bar of chocolate with something you buy in a supermarket do you think its good chocolate? No, they have too much of it and want to get rid of it, and cannot sell it AT ANY PRICE.

Huh?

Every freebie is valueless?

I don't think so!

-JPG

[Greg Squire]

Yeah, with "Gator" on the Homeland Security board I feel much safer -- NOT! :mad:

[cliffski]

if the only way a product gets in peoples hands is if you HAVE to have it because its bundled with something else, you think thats a GOOD product?
seriously?
If I had to install some toolbar to get half Life , I'd just skip it and go to the next game. They are that aggravating.

[JPGinLA]

if you HAVE to have it because its bundled with something else,

You're not a good reader!

I said for you to suppose that it was clearly labeled and the user had a real opportunity to opt out.

I'm not ptomoting it by the way, just gauging other's temperature. Try to be less reactionary and be a little open-minded - you might learn something new and have a happier day!

-JPG

[luggage]

I said for you to suppose that it was clearly labeled and the user had a real opportunity to opt out.

And where does that mention it's not bundled with something else? In fact, "a real opportunity to opt out" implies it is bundled as surely it would be opt in otherwise.

[Ricardo C]

I said for you to suppose that it was clearly labeled and the user had a real opportunity to opt out.

It doesn't matter. It's still pìggy-backing on another product. If it were such a useful tool for consumers, then this practice wouldn't be necessary.

[cliffski]

agreed. when i buy tomatos I buy tomatos. I dont need the "option to opt out of the included tuna!" I assume my tinned tomatos dont contain tuna unless I ask for it.
ok my metaphors are kinda surreal but you get the idea. The onlt thing I want to read when installing a game is "where do you want to put it" anything else is tedious :D

[JPGinLA]

I'm going to drop it here and see if anyone else has opinions, but I will say that this

If it were such a useful tool for consumers, then this practice wouldn't be necessary.

is not true IMHO.

New products need to be publicized and popularized. It is not unusual for a new product to be promoted with another product. Just walk the aisles in a grocery store and you'll see "Free samples" of soap with a toilet cleaner or whatever with something else. Co-packaging does not equal bad product. In this particular case (and knowing quite a bit about the product as I have been privvy to its details prior to public announcement), I would be quite surprised if it does not become a stand alone and desirable product.


Tiime will tell.

Do any of the naysayers even know what the product is? Or, are you just saying "No" out of habit?

-JPG

[luggage]

Do any of the naysayers even know what the product is? Or, are you just saying "No" out of habit?I guess you mean me as one of these 'naysayers'. I'm saying NO based on the companies previous dealings and behaviour. If I bought a car from a used salesman and it needed to be binned 3 months later you can bet I'm not going back there again no matter what they advertised.

The 'software' is bundled with something else because nobody in their right mind will download it intentionally and they know it.

Besides all that, where did the discussion get onto 'Clarias' new product?

Time will tell indeed.

[Ricardo C]

New products need to be publicized and popularized. It is not unusual for a new product to be promoted with another product. Just walk the aisles in a grocery store and you'll see "Free samples" of soap with a toilet cleaner or whatever with something else. Co-packaging does not equal bad product. In this particular case (and knowing quite a bit about the product as I have been privvy to its details prior to public announcement), I would be quite surprised if it does not become a stand alone and desirable product.

Let's look at the facts, shall we?

1) This company "needs to publicize its product" because the company changed its name to avoid the very, very negative reputation they earned under their former name.

2) Even when operating under their former name, their preferred method of distribution for their product was bundling it. Nothing to do with "needing to publicize" the proeduct, they just can't give it away.

Do any of the naysayers even know what the product is? Or, are you just saying "No" out of habit?

To quote a wise man:

"The 'software' is bundled with something else because nobody in their right mind will download it intentionally and they know it."

I'm saying "No" based on my experiences with the company's past products, and their business methods.

[FlySim]

If you type "Claria" into Google, you get a lot of links on how to remove Claria software. This doesnt sound like software I want or need on my computer....

[Nonz]

FYI, their new product is very cool and would be useful for customers. And, they are doing everything to avoid the bad associations.

Their name is now Claria too.

Suppose for a moment, that no identifiable information is passed, the user has a real opportunity and notice to opt out, and the customer gets a real benefit from their product. Then is it still bad to distribute their product?

-JPG

EDIT: Then would your perceptions begin to change?

They'll change the day that people think being bombarded by advertisements and flakey online performance is a good thing.

Nonz.

[oNyx]

The word "freebe" is pretty funny in that context.

>Or, are you just saying "No" out of habit?

Habit? Sheez... Are you burning your fingers each day by touching a hot plate each day? Just for checking if it still hurts?

[Abscissa]

Well, that pretty much makes it official: The Department of Homeland Security is worthless.