Comodo products removed from SoftPedia...
Monday, 27. April 2009, 09:24:48
Original news on SoftPedia:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Comodo-Software-Removed-From-Softpedia-110169.shtml
It appears that some bloggers and other news sites seem to agree with the decision, i simply cannot.
I may disagree with certain things when it comes to Comodo Internet Security product, but i don't agree with SoftPedia on this one. The main problem here is how Softpedia defines "adware" and how they treat software that bundles 3rd party software.
First of all, "adware" per definition means that some program cannot work without this component being installed at the same time. If you remove the adware component, program that is bundling it also stops working. However in Comodo case, ASK toolbar is just supplied with it, but thats pretty much it. If you by mistake install it, you can remove it any time you want, without in any way impairing Comodo functionality. This just means Comodo supplies 3rd party software which is not mandatory in any way.
And here we are facing 2 problems, both caused by SoftPedia itself.
First is that they should really classify stuff in detail. If something offers free program that has mandatory toolbar or any kind of other adware it should really be classified as "Adware" under "License" and have the name of bundled 3rd party software under "Bundled 3rd party software" field.
However in Comodo's case, it would result in "Freeware" being under "License" field and "ASK Toolbar" under "Bundled 3rd party software". Makes a huge difference doesn't it?
Second thing is that SoftPedia encourages users for a "click away worry free" experience as they call it. This means that they encourage users to just click Next in installers supplied on THEIR webpage, while users will take that for granted and do the same everywhere else. Been there, seen that... (too many times by uneducated computer users).
This is the main No.1 reason why we have so many infected computers world wide. Ppl just click Next/Ok/Allow without reading what installer/program says. And that is just plain wrong. They'd click next even if installer says that by doing so, it will empty their bank account. But they'll just click Next/Allow anyway because they are used to do that all the time. In Comodo's case it can be easily fixed. But some other software may not be this forgiving.
They should classify their software properly and also teach users how to use installers properly.
I like Softpedia because their Romanian servers offer great speed and their software database is huge, but things like this are just wrong. I always read what installers are serving me and so far, even though i have installed and tested Comodo numerous times, i have never installed ASK toolbar with it.
It's just a matter of 3 clicks and 10 seconds of time. Is that too hard for users to do?
It seems so.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Comodo-Software-Removed-From-Softpedia-110169.shtml
It appears that some bloggers and other news sites seem to agree with the decision, i simply cannot.
I may disagree with certain things when it comes to Comodo Internet Security product, but i don't agree with SoftPedia on this one. The main problem here is how Softpedia defines "adware" and how they treat software that bundles 3rd party software.
First of all, "adware" per definition means that some program cannot work without this component being installed at the same time. If you remove the adware component, program that is bundling it also stops working. However in Comodo case, ASK toolbar is just supplied with it, but thats pretty much it. If you by mistake install it, you can remove it any time you want, without in any way impairing Comodo functionality. This just means Comodo supplies 3rd party software which is not mandatory in any way.
And here we are facing 2 problems, both caused by SoftPedia itself.
First is that they should really classify stuff in detail. If something offers free program that has mandatory toolbar or any kind of other adware it should really be classified as "Adware" under "License" and have the name of bundled 3rd party software under "Bundled 3rd party software" field.
However in Comodo's case, it would result in "Freeware" being under "License" field and "ASK Toolbar" under "Bundled 3rd party software". Makes a huge difference doesn't it?
Second thing is that SoftPedia encourages users for a "click away worry free" experience as they call it. This means that they encourage users to just click Next in installers supplied on THEIR webpage, while users will take that for granted and do the same everywhere else. Been there, seen that... (too many times by uneducated computer users).
This is the main No.1 reason why we have so many infected computers world wide. Ppl just click Next/Ok/Allow without reading what installer/program says. And that is just plain wrong. They'd click next even if installer says that by doing so, it will empty their bank account. But they'll just click Next/Allow anyway because they are used to do that all the time. In Comodo's case it can be easily fixed. But some other software may not be this forgiving.
They should classify their software properly and also teach users how to use installers properly.
I like Softpedia because their Romanian servers offer great speed and their software database is huge, but things like this are just wrong. I always read what installers are serving me and so far, even though i have installed and tested Comodo numerous times, i have never installed ASK toolbar with it.
It's just a matter of 3 clicks and 10 seconds of time. Is that too hard for users to do?
It seems so.
WIDGETIZE
Anonymous # 28. April 2009, 08:03
I suggest you check out SoftPedias Registry Tweak section. May be check out developers sites as well. Have MBAM and WOT ready ;)
They throw around 100% clean icons and then link to 3rd party servers - how does that make sense? It is a hoax and done for appearance.
SoftPedia is a horrible site and has always been that way. You need some experience, more than being aware of a box to untick, to travel Softpedia safely. They dont evaluate anything but go for more is better. I dont see how you can approve of Softpedia and wonder how users can have problems with sneaky installation routines.
There are more examples than Softpedia but they should not even try to be holy. I dont care about Comodo btw. but really dont like Softpedia, heh.
RejZoR # 28. April 2009, 12:17
Anonymous # 28. April 2009, 14:24
Me again but with a "name".
I understand but think about it. Softpedia and the whole "business" with crappy attempts to fool users just dont make sense if you whitewash Softpedia. Fast connection is not good reason. If you know software and value quality/developers/world peace Softpedia is not helping much.
You can be an idiot even if not proven one - that is what I say SoftPedia is. They know they have 2002 screensavers and dont care.
Not much worse than cnet/download.com perhaps, or even those sites who laugh and identify them self against those (majorgeeks for example) but still Im not totally wrong ;)
People in general are not idiots but easily fooled - or something...