Crapware Is a Terrible Problem and It’s Our Fault
I love free apps. Who doesn’t love getting something for free? There is only one problem: on the other side of this download link, each developer must choose whether to charge money for their app or offer it for free and find another way to make money. And when we refuse to pay, we make that decision for them. We have created a demand for bundled malware.
This week we updated our Hive Five for the best Bittorrent clients . You have selected the winner , which we believe is the best : uTorrent. Unfortunately, this is also controversial due to malware and ads . When you install uTorrent, you get a fantastic BitTorrent client as well as suggestions for bundled software that you don’t need. While on some rare occasions these packages might be for apps that users might actually like – Avast includes an opt-out offer for Dropbox, for example – in most cases they are toolbars or crappy “system cleaners” that only serve to throw away unnecessary files. user system. To make matters worse, these offers can be turned down, which means that if you’re not careful to say no directly, your system could end up with a ton of junk.
Of course, it’s easy to get angry with developers for this. This is deceiving, annoying, and in some cases even harmful . So why should such a popular program feel the need to trick its users and risk its reputation? Because these proposals pay the developers’ bills, and we don’t.
Why Programs Include Crapware
If it wasn’t obvious, the associated software makes the developers money. If you’re a developer and can’t get users to pay for your software, this can be an attractive option. Third party companies will be asking applications like uTorrent to include a suggestion for their unwanted software during installation.
In 2013, Long Zheng, developer of MetroTwit’s Twitter client, gave us an insight into how these deals work . More importantly, we’ve seen how profitable they can be. In one email exchange, the company (whose name has been edited) offered to pay a decent amount to enable the opt-out installer (not to be confused with the more common and more profitable opt-out installers):
We started similar partnerships with WinZip, Nero, TuneUp, Yahoo and dozens of other reputable brands, so it’s a shame we can’t work together….
We estimate that this type of collaboration will add a new revenue channel for your company, which is estimated at $ 90,000-120,000 per year .
Emphasis added. Of course, MetroTwit doesn’t have the same user base as WinZip, Nero, or even uTorrent. MetroTwit had around 8,000 daily active users, according to a blog post published in March 2012 (roughly nine months prior to this email exchange). By comparison, uTorrent has around 150 million monthly users . It’s safe to assume that the amount of income they will receive from including at least one bundled proposal will be much higher. There are potentially millions of dollars on the table.
All a developer has to do to get this money is add one little checkbox to their installer . It doesn’t seem so bad, does it? At the end of the day, users will probably ignore it anyway. And they can always uncheck the box during installation. Isn’t that a small price to pay for such a huge amount? When faced with a huge stream of income on the one hand, and an audience that is unwilling to pay for your product on the other, this relatively minor annoyance seems insignificant.
We brought it ourselves
It’s tempting to say the companies that do this suck and move on. However, we must consider the downside of the equation: user demand. If we want to suggest that developers give up all the money that shitty software vendors are offering, it makes sense to offer an alternative income. So how much would an app like uTorrent cost if it had to make the same amount of money without any malware?
Well, we have something like an answer to that question: $ 20 a year. The company offers the uTorrent Pro service for $ 20 per year . Chances are most people don’t sign up for this, but let’s say uTorrent stopped offering a free option tomorrow. If just a third of uTorrents’ 150 million free users instead paid $ 20 a year for this app, the company could make about $ 1 billion every year. Billion. With the letter B. This is certainly more than enough to justify giving up the measly few million that would be added to the bottom line by unnecessary programs, is not it? Even if they cut the price down to something more reasonable, like $ 5 a year, it could bring in $ 250 million a year for just a third of their current user base. It’s not that bad.
There is one problem: we will not do this. It doesn’t take a business education to realize that if a free product with 150 million users today suddenly cost $ 20 a year (or even $ 5 a year) tomorrow, it wouldn’t have 150 million users for a long time. Some people might upgrade. Maybe even enough to make the company profitable. These services, like Plex , can do very reliable level of free use, charging a fee for the minority of users who are willing to take a hit. Everybody wins.
However, Plex is the exception, not the rule. More often than not, we give up the thought of paying a few dollars for an Android app, or paying $ 5 a year for a service we regularly use (we also have a similar mindset about paying for media ). Lifehacker is no exception: almost every time we choose free, not cheap. However, every time we do this, we encourage developers to find more dubious ways to get a little more.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with downloading free apps (and there are actually very good reasons to join a free or open source platform ). However, there is something wrong with downloading free software and then complaining when a developer does things we don’t like to make money. If we want to avoid a world in which developers compromise, we must admit that they are in this position only because we got a little cheaper.
Does this relieve developers of responsibility? Of course not. Infecting a user’s computer with software that you know is bad is a terrible way of doing business. But we support their business with their software. If this is the only way to make money on free apps that everyone loves, someone will do it. And we’d rather have them do that than watch our favorite apps disappear forever. But if we really want to permanently fix the malware problem, we need to be a little less critical of developers who want to get paid in advance.
What can we do about it
It’s easy to say that this is our fault. Another is to fix the problem. Unfortunately, nothing will change if people don’t open their wallets and it’s hard to convince people that they are paying too little for a product. Especially when they are used to free. However, if you really want to stop developers from bundling malware, there are a few things you can do:
- If they have a paid version, buy it: not all developers offer paid tiers, but many do. Some will offer upselling of additional features or have subscriptions to additional services (such as PlexPass Plex ). If you regularly use an app or service, consider giving it a try.
- Stop Ignoring the Endless Free Trial Hints: There are a number of very useful apps that offer free trials indefinitely, but politely ask you to pay if you can. The fact that very few pay for the full versions has become a joke . It’s terrible to do to developers who write applications that we love. If you use the free trial of the app often enough to get into the habit of missing the grunt box, just buy it.
- Use a donation button that many developers will offer their applications for free – no trial versions or anything else – but instead asked to “donate”. Again, if you find the app useful, don’t skimp. They go to great lengths to make their software free, DRM-free and even screens free. Toss them a few dollars is the least we can do.
- Install Unchecky and learn to ignore malware: if you don’t have the money to pay for the apps you use (or just don’t want to), fair enough. After all, this is your money. However, these problems still exist. If you’re happy with the status quo, applications like Unchecky can at least limit the effectiveness of malware on your system. You keep your free apps and the developers get paid. Perhaps part of the solution is learning to live with that trade-off.
Will it change the industry? Probably no. However, the attempt did not stop. As long as software exists, there will be people doing dark things in order to make a few bucks or to force shoddy software on you without your knowledge or consent. It sucks. It sucks even more when software that is used by hundreds of millions of users still feels the need to make money with malware tactics. This is extremely annoying, but we must take responsibility for our part in this.