Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sam Spade
The big problem that I see is that:
1.  People don't read the EULA, as y'all well know.
2.  The 'sponsor program' is not installed until 36 hours after Messenger Plus is installed.
3.  People who don't read the EULA cannot make the association between the install of Messenger and the sudden appearance of adware and browser hijackings.

---

1) true, but that is not the developpers fault or the developpers task to do something about it. The only task for the developper is to make it clear. And in this case, it IS clear, despite all the things you're trying to proof... This sounds harsh, but people need to change their attitude and start reading the contracts they sign upon (cause that is exactly what an EULA/agreement is)... For every person who comes here bitching about how the sponsor installed without they knowing about it, there are 2 persons who admit that they forgot to read the EULA or admit in accidently pressing the wrong button...

2) 24 hours.... This is a current experiment. If it turns out this is not of the likings of many people, it will be removed again. (again proofs only that Patchou is concearned about it and is doing every possible thing to try and improve it!)

3) At last a small valid point (and that is also one of the reasons why the current delay is experimental). But, unless people are installing new things every day. The associating is easy to make. Also, it has 1 big benefit! The user can decide to keep Plus! or not without any sponsor being installed during this time. If the user decides to uninstall Plus! again, nothing will happen and the sponsor wasn't even installed during that time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sam Spade
Now, IF users were properly warned about what the 'sponsor program' is and does during installation

---

For the last time: they ARE! That is exactly why the EULA is there...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sam Spade
Lop.com will change your home page and search engine settings and generate pop up advertisements

---

read the EULA, it is clearly stated there...

quote:

---

Originally posted by smurlos
Yes, fair enough, but it's not like they HAVE to do that to earn money. Plenty of other ways...

---

If you have a better way (which will give Patchou a steady income) then by all means share it with us, we wouldn't be happier... Patchou will be the first person to remove the sponsor if such a method existed....

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpecimenB
I liked the software. I'd have been willing to donate.

---

There is always the option to buy something from the online shop. In that way you also support Messenger Plus! (without the need of the sponsor) Donation has been taken of for the reasons which you can read in the link that WDZ provided....

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpecimenB

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leif
May I quote Patchou:
"...the sponsor’s license agreement (yes, it could be redesigned to warn you better but then, nobody would install it, let’s be honest)..."

---

Being honest, if it had given me better warning and still let me refuse, the I would have still installed it anyway without the sponsor program.

The quote above only confirms to me that Patchou knows he's being sneaky and thus cares more for the payoff than the satisfaction of the users.

---

What Patchou meant was the sponsor. People wouldn't install the sponsor anymore. And that means Patchou will loose his income, and Plus! will stop being developped because of lack of time...

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpecimenB
There's no better option than deceiving the users?

---

The deception is debatable, but what I meant was, if you know of something that you think is better, post it.

Patchou has put a lot of thought into this, and if there was another option that would really work, he probably would have found it by now. Nobody likes the complaints about the current sponsor...

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpecimenB
Also, as far as sponsorship goes, there are far better choices than lop. Choices that don't hijack the users' browser.

---

People are always saying that there are better options, but I have yet to see proof of this.

---

Two words. Google Ads.

Well, if you browse around the MsgPlus home page, you'll see that there are already advertisement banners. On http://msgplus.net/features.php for example. It's my understanding that they don't provide much money...

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by MSGPlusRox
Isn't there some kind of donation system? I'm sure Plus users would be more than happy to donate.

---

Really? http://shoutbox.menthix.net/showthread.php?tid=32...d=313713#pid313713

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
The donation page was online for more than a year and only about 10 people out of 2 million donated.

---

---

The same happened to me.  My website has had over 533,000 unique visitors in the past few years.  I tried Paypal and other donation streams, as did a friend of mine whose data rescue software was downloaded over 700,000 times before he gave up on paypal and started charging $5 per copy.  Better to charge a token amount than to subject users to adware and spyware.

Donations don't work because those who are looking for freeware are, by the very fact that they want it to be free, often not willing to pay anything. So, I continue to work ridiculous hours in full time employment to pay the bills, and try to support the cost of my voluntary, free to all, high end technical support (I have a family and 2 teenage kids to support) by using Google Ads which generates a nice steady stream of income without hijacking my visitor's browser, without forcing pop up ads, and without taking over home pages or search engine settings.  Sure, my income from Google Ads doesn't even cover the cost of my internet access account, but I'll be damned if I will put income before what is best for my visitors.  Free is free as far as I'm concerned, and free does not include hijacked home pages, search engines and unwanted pop up ads that advertise sometimes disreputable software.

The fact that the donation system doesn't work (welcome to the real world of freeware and shareware), is NO REASON to minimise up-front disclosure in a conscious attempt to maximise installation of the sponsor program (minimising by hiding all information in the EULA, and by hiding lop.com behind the innocuous name of "sponsor program").

Patchou KNOWS that the EULA is not being read. Patchou doesn't do anything about the problem, because (I have no choice but to assume this from his own statements) 'nobody would install it [the sponsor program]' if the installation was more 'frank' about what would happen, thereby affecting his income.  To make things worse, at no time during the installation or uninstallation of the "sponsor program" is the sponsor program given a name.  Why is that?  Is it because lop.com has such a bad name?

One telling statement by Patchou, made in what I admit was a stressful moment, is more honest, more truthful and more telling than all the manouvering and excuses and blameshifting that I see in this forum by his supporters.

Here's a free cluestick from somebody who's been there and done that.  Trying to shift blame on to users by pointing to an EULA that you all KNOW, and have known for a long time, is not being read, a situation that y'all allow to continue despite knowledge of the problem, because 'nobody would install it [the sponsor program]'  if the required changes were made, is not doing Patchou any favours. 

We know that Patchous is trying to preserve his income. Fine, let him do that, many of us have families to support and all of us deserve to earn a crust, but for god's sake wake up and smell the roses.  It is not doing your reputation, or the reputation of Patchou any good, by having him admit that there is a problem and that things could be better (on one hand) while at the same time his supporters are saying its all [the user's] fault at the same time.  The two statements do not join together.

If y'all REALLY believe that Patchou's decision is justifiable, be honest.  Don't try to shift blame when Patchou himself has acknowledged that things could be better.

Of course thigns couldbe "better"... and the definition of better for most of the people who post about the sponsorwould be "no sponsor at all" or "display 3 confirmation boxes before installing".

I understand your point Sam Spade, however, you should notthat I've never said anythignabout reading the EULA. I know nobody does, and that's why it says "sponsor agreement" in bold on top of the window. That's also why I add a text explaining what's the sponsor at the beginningof the EULA and this text is translated in every language supported by Plus!... the way itworkscurrently makes a good balance between peopel who install withthesponsor and people who don't.... hundred of thousands of people install Plus! withoutits sponsor every month, I think that's proof enough that the agreement window is clear. I agree, it could be clearer but as you said yourself, if I add too many warning in this window, nobody will ever install the spnsor which defeats the whole purpose. I've always been honest about this. I don't put the blame on anybody and again, that's why I take the time to ensure that the uninstaller works like a charm.

My software is freeware and I continue to claim it because it's the truth. You don't need any serial (or crack) to make it work at its full potential and it doesn't check if the sponsor is installed before launching (like many softwares including Kazaa).

As for the ads on the web site, they cover the price of the server (if you've hosted things in the past, you can imagine what costs servers that are able todeliver between 1 and 2 Terrabyte of data every month) .

Edit: because of all the recent posts about the sponsor and because I don't want to look like a guy who doesn't care (because wether you believe ir or not, I do), I'm going to try something new in the sponsor agreement window in version 3.21. I will make the change available for maybe 1 out of ten downlaods first and I'll see what theresults are. Of course, if thigns are better for my users, itwon't be good for my own salary but if it's not so bad, I'll keep it that way (if no one installs the sponsor with the new agreement window, I'll change it back, sorry). At least, I'm trying (and I've already tried... I don't always talk about this kind oftest publicly ).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
Edit: because of all the recent posts about the sponsor and because I don't want to look like a guy who doesn't care (because wether you believe ir or not, I do), I'm going to try something new in the sponsor agreement window in version 3.21. I will make the change available for maybe 1 out of ten downlaods first and I'll see what theresults are. Of course, if thigns are better for my users, itwon't be good for my own salary but if it's not so bad, I'll keep it that way (if no one installs the sponsor with the new agreement window, I'll change it back, sorry). At least, I'm trying (and I've already tried... I don't always talk about this kind oftest publicly ).

---

I will be very interested to see what the changes are, and all credit to you for 'biting the bullet'.  But why limit it to 1 in 10 downloads?  I, for one, am not inclined to download the new version over and over and over and install over and over and over in hopes that I will be able to see, and report on, the changes.

check out http://shoutbox.menthix.net/showthread.php?tid=32...d=315831#pid315831