So utterly sick of 'foistware'

[rox0r]

I can't be the only one that has noticed in the last year or so a massive increase in foistware? I'm talking about software that gets installed side-by-side with the application you intended to install. Browser bars, security scanners, search helpers and a myriad of other such crap that you definitely do NOT want installed.

What makes it so much more annoying is the insidious manner in which companies think they can 'fool' you into saying 'Yes' to installing their useless malware tat. Installer packages are now an absolute minefield of double negatives, almost hidden 'No' boxes and cleverly camouflaged terms and conditions.

And some of them can be doubly hard to get rid of once they're parasitically embedded into your system. I had one that wrecked my network to the point that a re-install was necessary to flush it out.

My latest was Acrobat reader, slyly trying to foist some Mcafee tosh alongside it. I think not.

I think a campaign to stop this sort of underhanded nonsense should be started and some form of EU legislation brought in to stamp it out like the cancerous menace it is.

/rantoff

[Dareos]

completely and utterly agree. Flash and Java updates appear to be the worse offenders. Programs that are required for a lot of web content basically being used to push McAfee on to us. Lost count of the amount of times I have had to remove it after a rush install.

[directhex]

Would you prefer to pay for software?

[rox0r]

I'm happy to see a paid version and a free version of software, I will always pay for something I find useful. Being coy about installing advertising malware doesn't endear me to a developer/distributer at all though.

[SUMMONER]

They have to make money one way or another.

Also I make a small, no, a large fortune cleaning up clients computers every year.

[Jellyfish]

I think though it's more about being dishonest and hiding as best they can, the install. I remember updating Zonealarm a while back, i had to google for a while thinking it looked mandatory to install another piece of software... there was a tick, but it was very difficult to spot. Otherwise it would have meant looking for a new firewall/software/solution etc...

[smargh]

For the past year or so I've been wondering why the EU hasn't fined Adobe for their Flash updater. I don't care what rule they might have broken, but Adobe should suffer purely for being evil.

Every other month, it's 50/50 whether the auto-updater doesn't actually auto-update and forces the end-user to click the "Download" button, which opens up a web page with the "added value" software ticked by default.

It really p-s me off. The number of times I've found Chrome, Ask or the wtf-actually-is McAffee Security Center installed on someone's PC is very depressing.

Opt-in should be mandatory for applications when the additional app is financially/materially benefitting the author. I don't care if this pushes up the price of apps.

It's worse than the web sites which have "Our privacy policy is here" link, which then CSS-unhides an additional tickbox to opt out of data collection or distribution of PII.

Very annoying.

[stilkun]

Yo users I heard you like bloatware so I put more bloatware with your bloatware so your poor computer can run even more poorer.

They are just taking advantage of users who has no or little understanding of computers or they hope user do not read and just simply click I agree, next, install the software without knowing. No just that, they hope to gain profit if they get interested in the software and purchase it as it can be useful or not to them.

[wasabi]

Agree.

And having to sign up and hand over my details to some sort of DRM activation system just to get software to work. Like I had to sign up to some sort of Square Enix server system just to get my Thief game to work. Which means I'll inevitably get spammed.

Software has gotten worse in the past few years. Multiple layers of DRM, foistware as you call it, in-app purchases, auto-updates that add/remove features or sideload junk. The list goes on.

No wonder piracy is alive and well - they get a better product, all for free.

[KeyboardDemon]

No wonder piracy is alive and well - they get a better product, all for free.

They make it free for reason, if you're worried about the crap you know that get's installed on your system through underhanded means, think about the crap you don't know about, pirated software has to be one of the easiest ways to infect a PC with malware/spyware/trojans etc... and people go looking for it too. Personally I stay well away from that and advise others to do the same.

I have to agree with the OP, I'd like to see an end to the foistware, but what can we do, I'd happily sign a petition if I thought it would take it to the European courts, but then how would we get our free/trial versions of the software that we want to use or updates for Java etc...

[Saracen]

Would you prefer to pay for software?

Hell, yes. Hugely.

But my main objection is that it's dressed up as optional, you've just got be able to find the opt-out, which is clearly marked .... behind a Klingon cloaking shield, in a level 5 sub-basement in a wreck of a monastery on an uninhabited moon of the 5th planet in a minor G-type star on the outer edges of the Andromeda galaxy.

Either they should make it clear you're installing their particular flavour of obnoxious garbage along with the software you think you're installing, or they should just make it compulsory, as part of using their software .... in which case I, and no doubt many others, would not use their software, free or not.

I don't object to them monetarising their product with snoopware, adware etc IF they're open about doing it. What I object to is the deceit.

I am very careful when installing, and if I find anything too deceitfully installed, or worse, that gets past me, that company and ALL it's products go on my blacklist. Permanently. It destroys an element of trust I expect to have, and at that point, I just won't use their products.

If small companies come up with software I genuinely find useful, or necessary, I'm quite willing to pay a reasonable price for it. What really bleeps me off, though, is companies that set out to deceive me. They will not be forgiven.

[TheAnimus]

Would you prefer to pay for software?

These things always dissolve into the whole well I'd happily pay for it, but yet the fact is most people don't.

It doesn't matter that one or two users might, the vast, vast majority wouldn't pay for it. Look at browsers, all those people who were laying hate on IE, how many actually paid for Opera say? The original netscape browser imploded not because of MS, but because they were a dodgy company with no financial plans, based on constantly rising evaluation, a strange ponzi if you will, paying some employees with investors money, expecting the company to just magically grow in value.

You then get the whole FOSS types, who conveniently ignore that frequently they aren't the best tools, not by a long shot.

I wondered at first if app stores would help change this, but we only need to look at the free to play explosion in games for how this has ruined it even more. People will pay more for a mediocre coffee, than for an incredibly complex bit of engineering that requires continuous ongoing support.

Some then even complain when the support stops, they want to hold onto older versions, which are more costly to maintain!

[TheAnimus]

If small companies come up with software I genuinely find useful, or necessary, I'm quite willing to pay a reasonable price for it.

This is why we can't have nice things!

Just because you might, doesn't mean people do enough on mass, which is what is required. I honestly don't need police to keep me from mugging other people etc, but I accept we sadly need them, because not everyone is like me.

In the same way often people who are wanting to improve the quality of life for people, are blind to the failings of man that oppose their views. This is just the same.

Have a read of some reviews in your favourite App Store for the the top 5 in something, then pick something at about 150. It speaks volumes between the Free and Paid versions download counts and reviews.

[Saracen]

This is why we can't have nice things!

Just because you might, doesn't mean people do enough on mass, which is what is required. I honestly don't need police to keep me from mugging other people etc, but I accept we sadly need them, because not everyone is like me.

In the same way often people who are wanting to improve the quality of life for people, are blind to the failings of man that oppose their views. This is just the same.

Have a read of some reviews in your favourite App Store for the the top 5 in something, then pick something at about 150. It speaks volumes between the Free and Paid versions download counts and reviews.

Maybe so, but that's not an excuse for developers to try to foist software on people they know those people would not accept voluntarily. After all, if they thought users would accept foistware knowingly, they'd be open about it.

So .... stick a warning in the installer, by all means, that you'll get either :-

a) the software you think you're getting, AND foistware, if you proceed, or
b) neither, if you don't accept the foistware.

At least that's honest. And personally, I'll choose b) every single time.

But developers trying to trick people into installing this garbage by deceit is disgraceful. It's contemptuous of people they want as customers, and any developer I catch doing it loses me as a customer because they did it.

[badsyntax]

It's possible to never see McAfee addons (or Google or whatever) again for Flash installs.

[Spud1]

I agree that this method of delivering malware is a real pain, it's annoying, immoral in many cases (due to how they attempt to hide it), and it's a practice that any developer worth their salt will avoid like the plague.

That said, it is one of the easiest things to avoid, and it's very, very simple to install these products without the malware. Just <b>read the installer page before pressing next!</b>

I completely get how we've all got used to hitting "next next next finish", but imo thats the biggest problem here (more so than unscrupulous developers). We *all* need to take more care when installing anything we download from the internet - and taking that extra 2 minutes to install something will prevent you installing this sort of rubbish. Yes some of them are clever, however to remain legal they must inform you and give you the opt out - it will be there.

It's scary how common it is now - every time I get asked to help a family member or non IT friend with a PC problem, I find some of this malware somewhere on their system..my father did it last night installing Handbreak - same problem, just hitting Next Next Next without reading what he was doing.