Adware's second act

About nine months ago, newly hired WhenU CEO Bill Day decided he was going to clean up his company's reputation.

WhenU, a 5-year-old, so-called adware company that makes its money by selling targeted advertising delivered to PCs via software that's sometimes unknowingly downloaded by Web surfers, was becoming persona non grata with people tired of unsolicited pop-up ads.

So Day changed his company's policy for installing software and started notifying Web surfers of downloads, weeded out some ad distributors with questionable track records, and even posted a toll-free number on every pop-up ad for customer complaints.

News.context

What's new:
Long the pariahs of the Internet, adware companies are trying to make amends with the tech industry and Web surfers.

Bottom line:
Aside from legal pressures, the companies are sprucing up to try for a bigger piece of online advertising, which is expected to net sales between $10 billion and $12 billion this year. But the plan could backfire: After stepping out of the shadows and coming clean with potential users, WhenU's total number of installations dropped as much as 50 percent.

More stories on adware

As a result, WhenU's total number of installations, an important tally for billing purposes, dropped as much as 50 percent.

"We believe the business can be run with high standards," Day said. "Certainly you have to be willing to tolerate a smaller business to get there."

Long the pariahs of the Internet, adware companies are trying to make amends with the tech industry and Web surfers. But can they go legitimate?

Despite running highly profitable businesses, makers of Internet software that tracks people on their PCs and displays pop-up advertisements or other kinds of promotions have a sullied history. In the past, they have buried download disclosures in lengthy legalese; installed software surreptitiously through security loopholes; disguised their brands, or made it tough for consumers to uninstall the pop-up programs.

Now they're being forced to clean up their act. That means changing many practices in a bid to stay square with the law, form lasting partnerships with mainstream publishers and advertisers, and attract qualified consumers.

In the process, they're stirring up questions about their long-term viability.

"These adware companies have become their own worst enemy by being so sneaky. The question is, Can they come back from the bad branding of themselves?" said Esther Dyson, an investor and editor of Release 1.0. (Release is owned by CNET Networks, publisher of News.com.)

Why would they want to change? Because Congress is fed up and is poised to pass an anti-spyware law this year that establishes baseline standards for software makers. The legislation will effect adware makers by holding them accountable for adequately notifying consumers of what their software does, obtaining consent and allowing people to easily uninstall their programs.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has already brought successful lawsuits against some companies, such as Intermix, which he alleged was the source of spyware and adware being secretly installed on millions of PCs. (Intermix settled the case for $7.5 million, admitting no wrongdoing or liability.) And a new anti-spyware coalition published on Tuesday its first set of definitions for spyware and adware in the hopes of bringing clarity to an otherwise murky industry.

Adware distributors are also under the microscope, following a Supreme Court ruling against Grokster, a maker of peer-to-peer file-sharing software, that said the company encouraged illegal music downloads. Because adware often supports and comes bundled with such free applications, companies such as Claria and WhenU are being squeezed to find new distribution outlets for their software.

Claria, which is better known by its former name, Gator, reached nearly a quarter of its consumer audience through Kazaa, a popular file-sharing application. But in late June, Claria cut ties with Sharman Networks, owner of Kazaa, saying it's focused on partnering with

[Myron.S]

But, it's my computer.

The problem with the adware scum (sorry, best work I can think of) should just not be allows to inject their crap onto my own personal computer.<br /><br />Would you like it if advert text messages appeared on your mobile every 10 minutes, non stop!<br /><br />Adware programs should NOPT be bundled with programs. It must be made illegal! Punishable by massive fines.<br /><br />What I would agree to is if I ended up downloading a program that needs adware to operate, the adware would be a separate download from the adware company's web site and allows the computer user so vet EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION that the adware program wants to send back and elect to block sending of any information. Even the frequency of adverts must be controllable by the computer user.<br /><br />Just about every aspect of the adware program must be viewable and controllable to by the computer user and when the computer user wishes to uninstall the adware program, it's FULLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY uninstalled, leaving NOTHING of itself behind.<br /><br />Bundling of adware really need to be made an absolute crime where the punishment is enou8gh to deter bad practive.<br /><br />If the user wants adware, let the user download the adware from directly adware company's site and lose the legal mumbo jumbo. We ain't all trained lawers. Teh majority of us want a simple, easy and un-complicated life.

[Sam Papelbon]

i agree about bundling

it should be made illegal to distribute a program that won't work unless a completely unrelated program is installed.<br /><br />for example, there have been (or maybe still are) p2p programs which say 'in order for this to run, you must install XYZ adware', and if you uninstall 'XZY adware', the next time you try to load the p2p program it will say 'you have removed a critical (my foot) program and this program will no longer run'<br /><br />it seems like a sort of unethical business practice. since XYZ will pay P2P to bundle their software, P2P will force the user to install it.<br /><br />the only time a program should be allowed to deny user access is if it requires an activation fee/code. none of this 'you have to install our buddy's junk or else' crap

[Myron.S]

But, it's my computer.

The problem with the adware scum (sorry, best work I can think of) should just not be allows to inject their crap onto my own personal computer.<br /><br />Would you like it if advert text messages appeared on your mobile every 10 minutes, non stop!<br /><br />Adware programs should NOPT be bundled with programs. It must be made illegal! Punishable by massive fines.<br /><br />What I would agree to is if I ended up downloading a program that needs adware to operate, the adware would be a separate download from the adware company's web site and allows the computer user so vet EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION that the adware program wants to send back and elect to block sending of any information. Even the frequency of adverts must be controllable by the computer user.<br /><br />Just about every aspect of the adware program must be viewable and controllable to by the computer user and when the computer user wishes to uninstall the adware program, it's FULLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY uninstalled, leaving NOTHING of itself behind.<br /><br />Bundling of adware really need to be made an absolute crime where the punishment is enou8gh to deter bad practive.<br /><br />If the user wants adware, let the user download the adware from directly adware company's site and lose the legal mumbo jumbo. We ain't all trained lawers. Teh majority of us want a simple, easy and un-complicated life.

[Sam Papelbon]

i agree about bundling

it should be made illegal to distribute a program that won't work unless a completely unrelated program is installed.<br /><br />for example, there have been (or maybe still are) p2p programs which say 'in order for this to run, you must install XYZ adware', and if you uninstall 'XZY adware', the next time you try to load the p2p program it will say 'you have removed a critical (my foot) program and this program will no longer run'<br /><br />it seems like a sort of unethical business practice. since XYZ will pay P2P to bundle their software, P2P will force the user to install it.<br /><br />the only time a program should be allowed to deny user access is if it requires an activation fee/code. none of this 'you have to install our buddy's junk or else' crap

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Theft cannot be made legitimate

From the story: "Long the pariahs of the Internet, adware companies are trying to make amends with the tech industry and Web surfers. But can they go legitimate?"<br /><br />Their business model is based on stealing CPU cycles , memory and disk space and internet bandwidth from you the user. How can that ever be legitimate?

[Myron.S]

Good point!

So how do you bill them for this?

[relictele]

The adscum seem to ignore this

They even attend(ed) anti-spyware meetings!<br /><br />They swanned around the place like legitimate businessmen and acted like their opinion mattered and that the anti-spyware types should listen to them!<br /><br />It's like the mob advising the FBI on how to wiretap.<br /><br />The scary part is, the scumware crowd are starting to gain investment, which means they can pay lawyers to defend their unethical if not illegal practices and to water down any legislation that gets passed.<br /><br />Of course, a vigilant public could stomp out the entire threat but they're too busy watching American Idol.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Theft cannot be made legitimate

From the story: "Long the pariahs of the Internet, adware companies are trying to make amends with the tech industry and Web surfers. But can they go legitimate?"<br /><br />Their business model is based on stealing CPU cycles , memory and disk space and internet bandwidth from you the user. How can that ever be legitimate?

[Myron.S]

Good point!

So how do you bill them for this?

[relictele]

The adscum seem to ignore this

They even attend(ed) anti-spyware meetings!<br /><br />They swanned around the place like legitimate businessmen and acted like their opinion mattered and that the anti-spyware types should listen to them!<br /><br />It's like the mob advising the FBI on how to wiretap.<br /><br />The scary part is, the scumware crowd are starting to gain investment, which means they can pay lawyers to defend their unethical if not illegal practices and to water down any legislation that gets passed.<br /><br />Of course, a vigilant public could stomp out the entire threat but they're too busy watching American Idol.

[alphtoo]

"Business" model

Personally I'd like to see all of them crash and burn. At their best, adware/spyware companies are like very annoying panhandlers, pestering their marks into submission. And at their worst they may be compared to burglars, sneaking in and taking all they can steal. Out here in the physical world people who practice this "business" model often wind up in prison or occasionally shot. Shooting them is the more effective solution so I'm in favor of it.<br /><br />The Internet is a wonderful tool and in that respect it is much like a good hammer. Either tool can be used to accomplish great things but like any other tool, each can be misused, and neither should be used as an assault weapon.

[alphtoo]

"Business" model

Personally I'd like to see all of them crash and burn. At their best, adware/spyware companies are like very annoying panhandlers, pestering their marks into submission. And at their worst they may be compared to burglars, sneaking in and taking all they can steal. Out here in the physical world people who practice this "business" model often wind up in prison or occasionally shot. Shooting them is the more effective solution so I'm in favor of it.<br /><br />The Internet is a wonderful tool and in that respect it is much like a good hammer. Either tool can be used to accomplish great things but like any other tool, each can be misused, and neither should be used as an assault weapon.

[OneWithTech]

Thanks to the Author

Thanks for informing the IT society and those that don't know <br />much about IT the full blown lowdown on Adware and Spyware.<br /><br />This article is by far the BEST I have ever read on spyware.<br /><br />Once again, ThankYou from one tech writer to another.<br /><br />-Justin

[OneWithTech]

Thanks to the Author

Thanks for informing the IT society and those that don't know <br />much about IT the full blown lowdown on Adware and Spyware.<br /><br />This article is by far the BEST I have ever read on spyware.<br /><br />Once again, ThankYou from one tech writer to another.<br /><br />-Justin

Their business model is garbage

Money talks, if anyone finds adware or spyware bundled with their product, they should remove it to the best of their ability, or reformat and reinstall windows, then send the company an email informing them that you don't appreciate them installing software without your explicit consent on your machine. Then if you have the means, you should sue them for breaking and entering, or hacking which is what they are doing.<br /><br />How can anyone put hackers in jail, and let these companies continue to operate. They can not go legitimate, they are the bottom feeders of the web, and they should be punished for their actions.<br /><br />What is worse, they are making people more wary of the internet in general which can hurt the penetration of new services and features that are dependent on consumer trust.<br /><br />Let 'em fizzle!

Their business model is garbage

Money talks, if anyone finds adware or spyware bundled with their product, they should remove it to the best of their ability, or reformat and reinstall windows, then send the company an email informing them that you don't appreciate them installing software without your explicit consent on your machine. Then if you have the means, you should sue them for breaking and entering, or hacking which is what they are doing.<br /><br />How can anyone put hackers in jail, and let these companies continue to operate. They can not go legitimate, they are the bottom feeders of the web, and they should be punished for their actions.<br /><br />What is worse, they are making people more wary of the internet in general which can hurt the penetration of new services and features that are dependent on consumer trust.<br /><br />Let 'em fizzle!

Google has a better concept.....

They target ads based on a users search query. <br /><br />As one who absolutely despises (read that as hate) companies that develops software that installs without full disclosure and my permission, I absolutely will not do business with any company that advertises in that manner.<br /><br />Pop ups and overlays aren't much better.<br /><br />Google however has the right idea, by targeting non intrusive ads related to a users search, they have a better chance of directing the right customer to the right product or service.

Google has a better concept.....

They target ads based on a users search query. <br /><br />As one who absolutely despises (read that as hate) companies that develops software that installs without full disclosure and my permission, I absolutely will not do business with any company that advertises in that manner.<br /><br />Pop ups and overlays aren't much better.<br /><br />Google however has the right idea, by targeting non intrusive ads related to a users search, they have a better chance of directing the right customer to the right product or service.

[Jay R___well]

Spyware Self Destructive, and Only HALF the Problem

Personally I have yet to find a use for Adware or Spyware. Companies pay these advertisers big bucks to get their adds to pop up on customers computers, but how can they figure this is productive? <br /><br />I, personally, will never buy a product that pops up on my screen and annoys the hell out of me. If I get Reebok add after Reebok add, just for example, then logically I will eventually get so ticked off at Reebok that it will totally put me off to buying anything from them. This doesn't hurt the advertising company that has loaded their junk onto my PC because they just flip to another client once the damage to Reebok has been done. Are these manufacturers truly this idiotic in searching for product placement?<br /><br />Not only that, but these advertisement companies that are pushing this spyware (or whatever name you use for it) on our computers are starting to come under the gun. Already several of these companies have had lawsuits filed against them, and have lost. They make their EULA's so hard to read and so confusing that the normal individual doesn't really know what's going on, and usually just accepts it to avoid the confusion. Either that or they hide their information on very hard to locate webpage within their website where only a Private Investigator would think to look.<br /><br />Some of these spyware/adware companies will even install software that will allow them to use your computers processing power. Did they pay you to use your computer? Are they subsidizing you for the cost of your Internet connection? Absolutely not, and they would laugh at you if you asked them to. Plain and simple, they are thieves. They are using your computer to avoid them having to purchase extra hardware to do the same job. Why go purchase several servers when you can rob processing power from millions of people to do the job? So you?re slowing down their computer. So you?re causing them to have to reinstall Windows on a regular basis. So you?re costing them billions in technical support fees and anti-spyware software. So what? You?re an advertisement company and as long as your filling your own dam pockets you don?t care.<br /><br />I only see two outcomes from this spyware gig. Either people will get so fed up to the point where the government will make illegal, and there is a major crackdown, or the internet will collapse because spyware will become so rampant that people will avoid the internet all together. I?m starting to see a trend toward the second reality, which is sad, because the Internet really is valuable. I?ve already seen people not only drop back to dialup, because spyware has issues with it apparently, but cut their internet off all together. I, personally, now go to an Internet café to do anything outside of multiplayer gaming. I also do a lot of internet browsing from work, where the security is so tight that spyware has no chance to install, and just forward information home via my E-Mail. Still, individuals should not have to go to these extremes just to use the Internet for what it is supposed to be, a source of information.<br /><br />To the advertising companies, you?re pathetic. To everyone who is helping them spread these ?viruses? across the globe by downloading P2P programs you need to stop being so cheap, get a job, and go buy the stuff. People can gripe and gripe all they want, but if you contributing to the problem by infecting your own computer because you want something for free then you?re just part of the problem and I have no sympathy for you.<br /><br />That?s my 2 cents, like it or not.

[Jay R___well]

Added note

For those of you who want to rebutt my comment by asking why you should go and buy a music CD for $25 when you only want one song. Try again. You can go online and get them for $0.99 a song, which works out cheeper then buying a CD in the store, and you only get what you want.<br /><br />For those of you who are going to rebutt by saying software costs too much. P2P is the reason it costs the rest of us a fortune, because they have to put a lot of money into making the games your downloading for free, so in order to make any money they have to jack up the cost.<br /><br />For those of you who just download for free because you can't afford it. Learn how to budget!

[Jay R___well]

Spyware Self Destructive, and Only HALF the Problem

Personally I have yet to find a use for Adware or Spyware. Companies pay these advertisers big bucks to get their adds to pop up on customers computers, but how can they figure this is productive? <br /><br />I, personally, will never buy a product that pops up on my screen and annoys the hell out of me. If I get Reebok add after Reebok add, just for example, then logically I will eventually get so ticked off at Reebok that it will totally put me off to buying anything from them. This doesn't hurt the advertising company that has loaded their junk onto my PC because they just flip to another client once the damage to Reebok has been done. Are these manufacturers truly this idiotic in searching for product placement?<br /><br />Not only that, but these advertisement companies that are pushing this spyware (or whatever name you use for it) on our computers are starting to come under the gun. Already several of these companies have had lawsuits filed against them, and have lost. They make their EULA's so hard to read and so confusing that the normal individual doesn't really know what's going on, and usually just accepts it to avoid the confusion. Either that or they hide their information on very hard to locate webpage within their website where only a Private Investigator would think to look.<br /><br />Some of these spyware/adware companies will even install software that will allow them to use your computers processing power. Did they pay you to use your computer? Are they subsidizing you for the cost of your Internet connection? Absolutely not, and they would laugh at you if you asked them to. Plain and simple, they are thieves. They are using your computer to avoid them having to purchase extra hardware to do the same job. Why go purchase several servers when you can rob processing power from millions of people to do the job? So you?re slowing down their computer. So you?re causing them to have to reinstall Windows on a regular basis. So you?re costing them billions in technical support fees and anti-spyware software. So what? You?re an advertisement company and as long as your filling your own dam pockets you don?t care.<br /><br />I only see two outcomes from this spyware gig. Either people will get so fed up to the point where the government will make illegal, and there is a major crackdown, or the internet will collapse because spyware will become so rampant that people will avoid the internet all together. I?m starting to see a trend toward the second reality, which is sad, because the Internet really is valuable. I?ve already seen people not only drop back to dialup, because spyware has issues with it apparently, but cut their internet off all together. I, personally, now go to an Internet café to do anything outside of multiplayer gaming. I also do a lot of internet browsing from work, where the security is so tight that spyware has no chance to install, and just forward information home via my E-Mail. Still, individuals should not have to go to these extremes just to use the Internet for what it is supposed to be, a source of information.<br /><br />To the advertising companies, you?re pathetic. To everyone who is helping them spread these ?viruses? across the globe by downloading P2P programs you need to stop being so cheap, get a job, and go buy the stuff. People can gripe and gripe all they want, but if you contributing to the problem by infecting your own computer because you want something for free then you?re just part of the problem and I have no sympathy for you.<br /><br />That?s my 2 cents, like it or not.

[Jay R___well]

Added note

For those of you who want to rebutt my comment by asking why you should go and buy a music CD for $25 when you only want one song. Try again. You can go online and get them for $0.99 a song, which works out cheeper then buying a CD in the store, and you only get what you want.<br /><br />For those of you who are going to rebutt by saying software costs too much. P2P is the reason it costs the rest of us a fortune, because they have to put a lot of money into making the games your downloading for free, so in order to make any money they have to jack up the cost.<br /><br />For those of you who just download for free because you can't afford it. Learn how to budget!

[wazzledoozle]

If it..

Flashes, moves across the text im trying to read, jumps around, or makes noise, I block it. If it trys to install, I blacklist it. If it does install, I remove it.

[wazzledoozle]

If it..

Flashes, moves across the text im trying to read, jumps around, or makes noise, I block it. If it trys to install, I blacklist it. If it does install, I remove it.

[j3st3r]

And they say it's not a bad thing....

Ive been there, done that and got the horrible taste in my mouth to prove that I've experienced scumware (catchy and appropriate generic term I think). Admittedly it's been a while since it's been able to find a home on my PC but I have a few friends who are newer to the whole net thing and easily caught out.<br /><br />The one thing that hasnt changed in the time since I had my taste and now is the frequency and some of the content of pop-ups. Consider looking up Vin Diesel's xXx with junior in the background and getting a pop-up regarding willing and able lassies complete with full colour pictures!<br /><br />Now that the scene is set and people know what I'm referring to, my question is; Do the folks at scumware &#38; co have their own software installed on their PC's at home and work? Do they suffer the constant barrage of annoying and unwanted pop-ups, unders and all overs? Do they have their children come face to ummm errr... well it aint a face, with ads that would make Hilary Clinton propose a senate committee?<br /><br />Some how I doubt it. No matter which saying/proverb you prefer, whether it be "walk a mile in another's shoes" or "do unto others as you would have done unto you" the peddlers of scumware need to look harder at the reasons for why net users are looking for ways to avoid their "products". Futhermore the companies that contract these dubious services have to consider how it portrays them and lastly those of us that have more than a cursory understanding have to educate those around us that continue to encourage scumware providers. <br /><br />Four by two's all around. One side printed with the message "We don't want your crap" to be used on scumware &#38; co and on the other side "thou shalt not install their crap" for the education of our naive friends.

[j3st3r]

And they say it's not a bad thing....

Ive been there, done that and got the horrible taste in my mouth to prove that I've experienced scumware (catchy and appropriate generic term I think). Admittedly it's been a while since it's been able to find a home on my PC but I have a few friends who are newer to the whole net thing and easily caught out.<br /><br />The one thing that hasnt changed in the time since I had my taste and now is the frequency and some of the content of pop-ups. Consider looking up Vin Diesel's xXx with junior in the background and getting a pop-up regarding willing and able lassies complete with full colour pictures!<br /><br />Now that the scene is set and people know what I'm referring to, my question is; Do the folks at scumware &#38; co have their own software installed on their PC's at home and work? Do they suffer the constant barrage of annoying and unwanted pop-ups, unders and all overs? Do they have their children come face to ummm errr... well it aint a face, with ads that would make Hilary Clinton propose a senate committee?<br /><br />Some how I doubt it. No matter which saying/proverb you prefer, whether it be "walk a mile in another's shoes" or "do unto others as you would have done unto you" the peddlers of scumware need to look harder at the reasons for why net users are looking for ways to avoid their "products". Futhermore the companies that contract these dubious services have to consider how it portrays them and lastly those of us that have more than a cursory understanding have to educate those around us that continue to encourage scumware providers. <br /><br />Four by two's all around. One side printed with the message "We don't want your crap" to be used on scumware &#38; co and on the other side "thou shalt not install their crap" for the education of our naive friends.