Download.com site feedback forum: CNET Installer - Facts, Benefits, Detrements, and Discussion

Following up on my CNET Installer summary, I am posting my own thoughts and analysis of the benefits provided by the installer. Hopefully, this shows that the installer is more than a nuisance, legitimately benefiting users.


1.) The installer helps ensure the downloads remain free.
Many sites link directly to downloads hosted by CNET so they can increase their visitors (and advertising revenue) without the cost of hosting the files themselves. That increases CNET's costs while decreasing revenue. The installer helps deter direct the practice and increase revenue from the offers displayed in the installer, thus helping to ensure the downloads remain free.


2.) The installer provides valuable feedback.
It enables CNET to provide better monitor details regarding software installation, with possibilities including whether the user's interested in the offers displayed, how long the download takes, and whether the download completes successfully. This helps CNET automatically detect problems with the download experience, including download failures, and make changes to increase download speed and reliability in the future.


In short, those who use the installer can help make the download experience better for everyone. And in comparison to some other sites using such installers, CNET's is less invasive, easier to use, and optional for members who are logged in, leaving download.com head of many competitors using similar strategies.


John


Disclaimer: These are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET/CBS Interactive, which are not responsible for its content.

Following up on my CNET Installer summary, I am posting my own thoughts and analysis of the issues raised by the changes. Hopefully, this can start a dialog that will help a compromise be formed between the desires of all parties.


1.) Notification of the changes was insufficient.
CNET did announce the changes publicly. However, the blog post was both short and vague, and the Upload.com newsletter notification was limited to its subscribers. It is too late to give users an advance warning now, but a wide-scale notification of this change would surely be appreciated. Including one to all registered developers with explicit opt-out instructions.


2.) All of the third-party software should be opt-in.
Users often skip reading options/disclaimers during software installations, leaving them to believe the third-party software was installed without their permission. In addition, those aware of the opt-out option must opt-out for each and every program they download using the CNET Installer. This should either be made opt-in or both options should be unchecked, ensuring the user chooses one before proceeding. (Most offers are currently opt-out only.)


3.) The 'direct download' option should be made more clear.
The difference between the 'download now' link and the 'direct download link' should be made more evident to logged-in members - the re-purposed tooltip text mentioning the CNET Installer is obscure and easily overlooked. In addition, the direct download should be extended to users who are not logged in - everyone should have a choice.


4.) The installer provides no evident security benefits.
The blog post and FAQ articles state that the CNET Installer was introduced for the users to, in part, increase security. However, the CNET Installer downloads the same program from the same servers over the same unsecured HTTP connection as the direct download. Any security benefit from using a stand-alone CNET Installer instead of the browser to download the software is minimal, and is more than negated by the installer being downloaded by the browser in the first place. Not to mention that some of the current 'offers' are considered ad-ware/bloatware and occasionally flagged as such by security software.


5.) The installer provides questionable reliability benefits.
The blog post and FAQ articles state that the CNET Installer was introduced for the users to, in part, increase reliability. As I previously noted, the CNET Installer can indirectly help by reporting download failures. However, the installer lacks the pause and auto-restart functionality of download managers and newer browsers, does not let the user choose where to save the downloaded program, and requires a second download before you can install your software, directly decreasing reliability.


6.) The installer provides no procedural benefits.
The user FAQ article states that the CNET Installer was introduced for the users to, in part, make it easier for users to install software. However, it actually makes it harder to do so since the user must first download the CNET Installer using their normal download procedure, then follow a multi-step process to download the software they requested in the first place. Finally, the user must still go through the software's normal installation procedure.


7.) There is no direct download link on category/search pages.
Members who are logged in and visit a download page see a "direct link download" option under "Download Now." However, there is no such option from the category listings pages and search pages, both of which feature a "Download Now" link pointing to the CNET Installer. That means those members may be unaware what the CNET Installer is or that there's an alternative download option.


Summary:
Taking all of that into consideration, it is clear that the benefits of the CNET Installer are overstated and more than outweighed by the inconvenience and reduced functionality incurred. Further, it is clear that the CNET installer currently provides greater benefit to CNET through increased advertising revenue and installation feedback than to the users through reported security, reliability, and straightforwardness enhancements. Finally, if the addition of the CNET Installer were primarily for users' benefit, CNET would let ALL users choose the alternative in ALL cases, and also not check the unwanted third-party software during installation by default. Thus, I believe the change is NOT in the users' best interests, and that both prominent clarification regarding, and changes to, the CNET Installer are necessary to make the stated motives plausible and the default download option more tolerable.


John


Disclaimer: These are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET/CBS Interactive, which is not responsible for this content.

Note: This post was edited by its original author to add a missing link on 08/28/2011 at 1:12 PM PT

Yet you freely sign in to complain relentlessly.
I do not like this thing either, though. I saw it for what it was the day they released it, a revenue generator. You seem a fairly privacy/security savvy person, so you probably know the golden rule is never use download centers anyway, always go to the source/homepage to download. Of course, that does not work when the developers homepage redirects you back to Cnet for the download

.....I have read your posts. I just can not remember all of them, as there are so many and they are so wordy. I'm not saying complaining is a bad thing, btw, despite the inherent negative associations with the word itself. You can easily flip it to call it constructive criticism. Point was, they have given us, their registered users, a work around of sorts. Log in and click the direct link. And if you readily log in to state your opinion, what is the problem with logging in to DL?

It is my believe that just about all programs have a security risk. If someone can gain access to what you have installed on your hard drive it makes it easier to mount an attack. If they have a data base that reveals the most installed programs that allows them to mount an attack that has a higher degree of success. The best example is Windows vs Lion vs Linux. I am not sure of the figures but I think it is safe to say that 99.99% of all attacks are mounted against Windows because it is installed on 85% to 90% of all puters. Well, that and it has so many holes in it. lol If Lion or Linux held 80% to 90% of the installed OS we would be seeing a higher number of attacks on them.

That is my argument against this type of behavior. Signing in to express an opinion is not going to reveal anything about my hard drive. It just reveals how strongly I feel about things. Signing in to do a download allows a data base that will contain what I am using and trying. Combine that data base with what others are downloading and you setting the stage for that data to be compromised. If data base exist somewhere on a hard drive it can be compromised. One of the reason I argue against the cloud.

In the end I see this more as a security risk then a invasion of mine and others privacy. Remember, most user run their firewall in auto mode and let other people make the decision on what is getting in and out of their puter.

Nice point!

This new download process is BAD. It preys on newbies and serves no valid purpose that you can't call spying or covert revenue generation.

Cnet has greatly soiled a sterling reputation and will rue forcing this on the community.

Cnet spyware installer, thank you for forcing me to find a malignant free download site. Thank you for wasting my time learning to trust you, and forcing me to go elsewhere. Thank you for installing spyware on only idiots pc's. Thank you for ruining your reputation as a trustworthy site.

...that's what my A.V. software (ESET NOD32, 5 rc) calls the new CNET downloader...
If that's true, it's really nasty!
In addition: The optional toolbar - "Babylon" - who comes with the downloader are being describes as an annoying bug in other forums, almost impossible to uninstall and some users say they can't even find it on their hard drives...
As a long time user of CNET, I'm surprised by this development, and I think it's sad...
BestRegards
"econoTwist's"

That we would agree on something. lol I to find this disheartening.

I'm curious which security application is detecting it. The CNET Installer does not fit the definition of WIN32/AGENT.32 BIY, so I'm wondering if it's a false positive or if it's a legitimate detection caused by something else. "A Variant of Win32 Generic Trojan" is a reasonable detection, although the CNET Installer isn't a trojan, but WIN32/AGENT.32 BIY is less so.

John

Yes, I understand I "opted in" by not opting out. The truth is I have been using cnet downloads for so long it is a site I had come to trust implicitly, so I was not on the look out for the bloatware install option. It is because I am concerned about malware/bloatware/spyware that I use a site like cnet, a site I thought I could trust to protect me from that garbage. Make no mistake, cnet is violating a trust here. This installer will be detrimental to cnet's reputation as a trustworthy download site.

By the way, even if cnet were to make the bloatware default to opt out, just the mere presence of the installer is nothing more than a foot in the door for bloatware, and harms cnet's reputation.

All that said I appreciate the great service this site provides and will continue to use it until something better comes along.

I am confused as to the market strategy that would nearly force spyware onto the consumers who just want ease of use and who [used to] trust cnet and download.com to provide reliable and safe downloads.
I think we can all agree at this point that the cnet downloader is in fact a spyware installer. It's in the agreement that it does collect information and supply it to a number of sources. That is spyware, nearly by definition.
My real question is why would cbs, cnet, and download.com target you users with this? What made us consumers and people who [used to] trust you become your target of malice?

I realize that not every can hire competent staff... So I will dumb my question down a bit to better suit cnet. Why, when you acknowledge that adware is bad and even offer programs to remove it, Why do you endorse, promote, and even offer an easy way to install adware, something cnet specifically states in emails, and multiple other pages.

oh crap, I started making long sentences.... I should not have done that, I need to keep it simple for you.

Why does cnet promote anti-adware then make it publicly available, nearly forcing it upon your users, yet... crap I did it again. I have trouble coming down this far....

Why do you spread adware if your supposedly against it?

There, I did it... I think that's easy enough for you. Easy enough for you to possibly take less than 24 days to respond at least, although I won't hold my breath.

I am assuming tainting your reputation by defending adware is not something you did without being paid to do so. I hope it was worth it. You've proven to be a deceptive individual who is a puppet of cnet. I would like to know one thing, seriously... Do you actually run the applications that the cnet wrapper installs on your own pc? If so, how do you endorse it. And come on, unless your a incompetent moron, then you don't run it on your own pc, yet you still defend it. You realize how 2-faced that is?