Announcement

**LocutusofBorg** · 14.04.2007, 23:50

well, really objective looking to this is not possible from me -
as well as from you.

I accept your point of view. I have personally no problem with
it. You make (imho) some mistakes in your opinion here. Let
me just point out some:

1) you wrote that:
--------
well its because there aren't that many soabs including this kind of cr*p in their products
--------

this is imho crap, as you simple "assume" something which you
can not proof. And imho because it is simple not the truth.
There are tons of apps out there with adware. Otherwise I
see alot of non-existing adware and applications using it
lately. I mean, common: You installed and checked all
available software on the market that you can make such
statement? Yes, I also do not believe it

2)
--------
By not paying enough attention they end up with software with can only have adverse effects and serious problems which you don't care about
--------

So in fact you say that ALL this software do is make trouble.
But we have alot of emails of people who in fact use it!!
And guess what: Thats why it is STILL in DT! What do you
believe? That it is there for fun? Do you think we would let
it in when we had no earnings of it? Or just because we like
to annoy people? Or try to "infect" them? No, the answer is
simple: alot of people use it! They are fully aware of that fact. Just think of alot of online-shoppers, just to name an
example.

3)
---------
and you think we should all accept this as normal because it is optional and you want to earn money?!
---------

Yes, as well as I accepted long ago the fact that people can't read and afterwards complain here. Seriously, you
did NOT read the EULA, the download-notes etc etc. and
you think we treated you wrong? How biased is that? Did
not for a second it comes to your mind that the mistake
was on your site? Instead, you wrote a long post - and while
you made it (using our ressources, our application etc), you
never thought "damn, that guys have a huge site, make good
progress in development, stand close next to fully commercial
titles and STILL offer their shit for free - and all that in return
for nothing? The only thing they request is this:

READ THE EULA AND RELEASE-DOWNLOADNOTES

so face it: you are not willing to even fullfill us that wish
BEFORE complaining here?

4)
--------
doesn't make it legally binding. Giving product B while the customer expects product A could be considered misleading (i know, this is arguable).
--------

Now you're jokeing. Are you kidding me? Seriously?

WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE YOU READ???
Again - how can someone manage to install and USE Daemon
Tools if that person is unable to even follow SLIGHTEST
rules? What e.g. if NEW version does not work together
with e.g. Windows XP? According to your statements, it is
impossible to release such version, as people like you would
still try to install it on their machines.

ok, just MY opinion, same as you have your's

Just maybe see it THAT way. You have for sure not slightest
clue how much work is behind all this - and all we ask for
is to read the notes.

And btw:

Do you noticed that - compared to downloads and users here - we only have
a few entries about this issues? Although we do
not censor such opinions? I guess its because only very
small minority feels the way like you do. Most accept our
decisions. They KNOW: Also DT Team needs to eat some-
times.

If I where you and would not trust us anymore, I REALLY
would also not use the virtual-drive anymore. The guys that
YOU describe seems to be really bad-asses and do not
deserve your trust. What can make you sure we did not
even install some kind of backdoor to our product? Indeed,
nothing! So if you really be honest, you should completly
dissociate from Daemon Tools. If you believe what you
wrote above - this is what I would do if I where you.

**unhappyuser** · 15.04.2007, 01:00

1) I agree, it is an assumption. There might actually be a lot of addware arround, but to be honest i don't use that kind of stuff. It's hard enough to keep the computer clean with legitimate software, so when i have the slightest hint companies behind a particular product use companies like safeU to earn money i usually delete the software instantly.

2) You are clearly misrepresenting my argument (on purpose?). The software can NEVER have any positive effects except for you guys getting money. If you think users really need it, why not create a seperate install so users can use it without the need to download virtual daemon

. Fact is that one computer in 10/100/1000 (fill in yourself) will get problems because of saveu. What is more important to you, the money you get or the problems your customers potentially can get. You went for the money. I would have made an other choice. I do like virtual daemon and i wouldn't mind if you guys would get millions because of it, but do it in a "fair" way. If the software is marked as bad by many many antispyware software, you can't argue its a good thing to add, even if you do earn some money with it. Getright also used adware ONCE a long time ago, and you know what... they stopped doing it, and not because there customers where happy with the "money saving deals". Also note that the CEO from saveu was already working for the company when it was doing ILLEGAL business for which they can now be prosecuted. When you do business with such persons how does this reflect on you ?!
If you still think its a good decision, i think we have a disagreement, but i do RESPECT it because its your product.

3)I did not read the EULA, but do you think you could have get away with it if you installed a trojan horse? Really, even if you asked 100 times in the EULA and in the forum and any other please you see fit if i wanted a trojan, and you installed it if i pressed yes, you would be liable for prosecution and i think your case wouldn't be that strong. The fact you are pretty "safe" now with the installation of safeU is not because you ask a the user, but because the supplied software is often not that bad. Even if you ask a user, you are still not allowed to let them install bad products and letting a user install addware while pretending to be a virtual drive might also be illegal where i live.
The point is
- You can expect a lot of users miss the part where they agree to install addware
- You know most users don't need safeU since they are installing a virtual drive
- Some people might get problems because of the unwanted software
- You can easily disable the feature by default if you wanted to, but you don't because you will earn less.

So if this was in court you might have a hard time explaining why you are deliberately misleading the users to install something they don't want. Wanting to earn some money does not grant you unlimited rights, not even when a user accepts your EULA. It's clear your INTENTION was to make a lot of people install something they don't need (or want) for your own enrichtment, so thats what makes it (arguably) wrong.

4) seriously, in my country there has been a ruling not to long ago where a lot of contracts (worth millions) were made unlawfully because the bank did NOT inform the customers correctly. It was done because it was misleading, the contract was not what it seemed to be, even though the customers could read everything in the contract they signed. The bank did not inform them correctly.

I dont know where you live or if its legal or not (i think it is legal), but legal or not, i think its wrong to do.

And for the record, i made a couple of freeware programs myself and i know how much time can get into the development. I would never want to get unhappy users or users which got troubles with their computers just to earn a couple of bucks even if they are a minority. For me it would be a consideration if i would add software which has nothing to offer to the end-user with the risk it creates problems just to earn some money from a company which doesn't have a really good rep... well, i would say not in a million years.

PS i do like you have an open discussion on this subject (o)

**LocutusofBorg** · 15.04.2007, 01:54

of course we have an open mind and if users think they must
tell us their opinion, they are allowed and wellcome to do so!

I dislike censorship, this is IMHO what really can destroy
trust - at least this is how we handle it

ok, lets get into some of your comments:

1) This is imho a correct decision, if I disagree with the politic
a softwarehouse have, I do exactly the same!

2) Your second argument is unfortunately far from being
objective (again?)

It is fact that every software (you
mentioned it even yourself before) can have bugs, if you're
affraid of bugs you should really not stick any longer to
DaemonTools, as our application have bugs (like every other
software, except "Hello World" maybe),too
The next point is the side-effect. Guess what, there are
people out there that read that advertisements. In case
you didnt know: we get money when user shows INTEREST
in the advertisements, not for the fact that there is some
window on screen, no, user must ACTIVELY click on that
adware. That is fact and nothing else. So there IS interest.
Same for the coupons: There are thousands of people who
use them to get cheaper stuff from e.g. Amazon. The fact
that people use that coupons shows that they are interested.
It is the other way around: YOU are not interested, thats
why you have your personal war with WhenU/SafeNOW -
not the users that use that software.

The next part from you is even merely bullshit: If we would
not bundle it, we would get no money. If we had a choice,
we HAD offered it seperatly but that is no matter of negotiation
here.

I give you suggestion: Pay us so that we do not need any-
more this adware. I can give you kto-details, feel free to
send us money and if it's enough we remove the adware-
part!

Your "fair" way is simple: As long as you can use the virtual
drive, the deal is fair. Thats how it is imho. And that IS fact,
your statements proved it already. You did not really care
of DT Team, your "privacy" is what counts for you the most.
And guess what? From our point of view its indeed the other
way around! Otherwise we should not even let allow google
to advertise on our site. I anyway asking myself: Are you
James Bond or something else that you need to protect you
from a small adware-application, which, btw., would not be
installed if you READ the download-notes? Should I add a
screenshot of that download-section to show you how blind
someone must be to overlook it? Well, lets better not start
again that huge discussion about "Read our rules etc", you're
right, we already explained it too often to some guys.

And yes, I CAN assume software is OK EVEN if some anti-spyware
tells you something different.
Example is SpyBot: I like this application, same way I like
AdAware, but face it: The one is a private guy and the other
a company and both want to earn money, too. They in fact
blist alot of shit that doesnt deserve it, like the WhenU-
Stuff as example. IMHO a software that does NOT hide and
even have installer can NEVER be targetted by such applications.
Also the motivation behind all this is at least
questionable, as this companys seems to profile themselfes
by the "best count of adware-detection". In the past, alot
of that targets are even removed from database, e.g. ALSO
that WhenU stuff. I do not trust a company that something
is bad just because they say so! I have my OWN mind - I
can think for myself, no need from e.g. Spybot to tell me
that WhenU is "bad" when in fact it is not. It doesnt set
some strange regkeys that are undeleteable, it doesnt
hide after installation and use no keyloggers or similar stuff
to spy out the user. It does EXACTLY what it says on the
package - and believe me, we know what it can do and
what not. We are "Analyzers" and can estimate it - can you,
too?

What GetRight do or do not is out of my interest. I do not
want to sound arrogant, but do you have an idea how complex
GetRight is and how complex DT is? If you never thought
before it, then do it now. DT is in its area at the TOP EDGE
of virtual drives. Of course we can stop the whole project
and charge alot of money for it. Is that more "fair" to you
then? Is it that what you want? Pay for an application because
you where unable to uncheck a box?

And what strange kind of view you have..... my goodness,
the man WAS responsible for some illegal behaviour and
he for sure will PAY for it. And now? What is in your opinion
best penalty? Dead-penalty? Or that noone can make business
with him again? (Which means exactly the same, without
job for rest of his life because he made mistake). Damn, I
wish I'll be so perfect like you seems to be. I'm pretty sure
that alot of people out there make alot of questionable things, too.
It starts with our governments and ends with
EVERYONE! You should really stop to point to others with
your finger, leave that to qualified people who CAN do that,
e.g. lawyers. And let me add this: When a man/woman had
been in jail, paid some money or whatever, they have EVERY
right to treated again as human beings. That is MY point of
view, and it is in general accepted so, otherwise we would
live in stoneage again.

3) No, as the EULA is not above the law. But that is not part
of the discussion here, as we clearly did NOT install a trojan.
It is same as if I would ask you: When you download Daemon
Tools, can I send you a lawyer as I assume you use warezed
games? You make assumptions that are simple not true and
especially part 3 of your comment is not even related to
our product, so tell me: what is your intention with such
questions? Imho (maybe I'm wrong here) you try to spread
some "WhenU is a trojan"-toxin here to the forums. Let me
assure you: you will fail, as most (surely >90&#37

of our users
can see what DT is and what WhenU is and why it is in there
and how it should be treated.

All your other comments are merley BS as well, especially as
you not "suddenly" install adware. Hell, you even have to
CONFIRM that WhenU installs software. So what? You write
here things that are far beyond the truth (thats called a
"lie" btw.) - or do you want to tell me here really that you
did not read the EULA and the SECOND (!) Eula from WhenU
because they where never shown to you? No? Then again
I can only say - its YOUR turn.

I'm happy that you have no problems with SPTD, otherwise
you would maybe even damn us for using that layer, too.

For me more and more comes the picture together of a user,
who want all for nothing. And that's what is going wrong here.
It is not the fact that you complain about, nor that you dis-
like it. But that you can NOT accept the facts that its your
GODDAMN DUTY to read AND respect our EULA and download-
notes OR OTHERWISE LEAVE DT ALONE!! - that is what
scares me the most. You have your very own reality it seems
to me, and that is something I really dislike. Yes, you surely
have alot of rights, and we respect them. But in return, you
seem to think that WE as authors have no rights, except maybe
the ones that YOU may grant us!

The whole discussion here is simple big bullshit as your
MAINPOINT is (also in part 4 of your reply!) that WE (at
least that is what you try to imply) that we did not informed
you well enough. Good god - HOW CAN WE INFORM YOU?
You seem to NOT READ ANY LINE WE WROTE!

I do not know what the bank - stuff was all about but maybe
they did NOT write to the customers and beside this is also
not part of OUR problem here. OUR problem is that YOU did
NOT READ. And you try to hide that fact behind alot of rubbish. PERIOD.

I have really nothing more to add. I only asking myself:
When DT itself run your system into trouble, and believe me,
this IS possible (for other vdrives, too) - what then?
Are we then blamed by you because we did not clear enough
told you that such things are possible?

Really, all this gave me a good laugh tonight, I was never
aware how people can twist the facts and reality so that it
"fits" into their very own opinions. Good job, unhappyuser,
mission accomplished!

BTW: Only out of curiosity: what are those freeware-apps that
you created? Only curious! Can you show me some example?

**AmphetaMarinE** · 15.04.2007, 11:14

Originally Posted by LocutusofBorg View Post

The whole discussion here is simple big bullshit as your
MAINPOINT is (also in part 4 of your reply!) that WE (at
least that is what you try to imply) that we did not informed
you well enough. Good god - HOW CAN WE INFORM YOU?
You seem to NOT READ ANY LINE WE WROTE!

Hrmms.... maybe a directX call to fade out the screen (Like on logout) with a big flashing box in the middle saying in both text and a loud audible recording, "You are about to install the daemon-tools Search bar, which contains WhenU components!!"

kekekke

Imagine how annoying THAT kinda bullshit would be on every software install?? :P :P

Almost sounds like Vistas annoying UAC Thingy...

**Jito463** · 15.04.2007, 21:21

No need to repeat myself. So I'll just post a link to my other post to him.

http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/showthread.php?p=81568#post81568

*EDIT*
I will add that even commercial titles that are pay-for only include adware in them now, like Nero and their "Yahoo! Toolbar". Now that's annoying. It's one thing for a freeware title (well, free for non-commercial use anyway), but it's another thing entirely when it's shareware.

**unhappyuser** · 18.04.2007, 00:33

Originally Posted by Jito463 View Post

No need to repeat myself. So I'll just post a link to my other post to him.

http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/showthread.php?p=81568#post81568

*EDIT*
I will add that even commercial titles that are pay-for only include adware in them now, like Nero and their "Yahoo! Toolbar". Now that's annoying. It's one thing for a freeware title (well, free for non-commercial use anyway), but it's another thing entirely when it's shareware.

If you refer to an other post of yourself you must think you are pretty good. And if you perticularly post to THAT useless post, it really does say something about yourself.

About that *EDIT* it is already obvious you are not really neutral on this case, but again your analysis isn't very strong and you really show how you are not neutral.

1) Yahoo hasn't got the history saveU has (thank god)
2) The annoyment factor doesn't depend on the source of the addware. Would the saveU toolbar be anything different when you have to paye for it. The first thing i thought when i saw the whenU stuff on my computer was WTF. I dont need the origin to know if i want it or not.
3) If something is annoying if it is in payware, i don't see you can say its no problem if its in a free program.
4) if 9 out of 10 antispyware programs say whenU is bad while the people who are getting payed by whenU say it is okay, well, call me nuts but if there is anyone unbiassed towards whenU it are the ones who are payed by them. We got a saying in my country: "You never bite the hand that feeds you." Seeing what you guys do to earn some money i think you would rather bite your tongue than say anything bad about whenU.

**phoenix** · 18.04.2007, 10:42

@Unhappyuser,

Please dont let this turn into a personal attack thread, comments like
"you must think you are pretty good. And if you perticularly post to THAT useless post, it really does say something about yourself."

Are border line to personal attack.

Your points have been noted by Admin and answerd accordingly, you may also want to check http://www.whenu.com/press_release_02_14_07.html

**LocutusofBorg** · 18.04.2007, 13:35

like Phoenix already wrote, it would be more sensefull to go on
with the answers I already posted and not some personal shit,
which nobody wants to read.

@unhappyuser:
I made some points - unfortunatly, you missed to make some
valid points, except some "we have a saying....bla"

Indeed. But as ALREADY(!) posted above: I would NOT call
creators of anti-spyware unbiased.

One example would be: When only two out of your 10 companys
say whenu is adware, the others must more or less do the same,
otherwise users would ask: "Why does Application xyz not
warn me about it?". This is wellknown from e.g. Antivirus-
companys. In general: noone is 100% unbiased and for
sure I(!) am not, too. As you pointed out right:

We get paid by them.

BUT: If that adware would harm users safety, uninstallability,
it would hide/stealth, or collect illegal data from users systems, such as:

documents, protocols and pressed keys or transfer other use-
full data like registry-entries, we would canceled our cooperation.

We would earn alot more if we made decision to make that
adware mandatory, but we decided against it. To make user
decide. It seems to me that you are not capable to take
that small decision on your own (for whatever reasons).

Apart from that we both have a different opinion about
"adware", which is in your eyes complete crap and "only" LOL
serves US to make money. Unfortunately you missed the fact
that exactly THIS adware made your access to DaemonTools
possible at all (at least without further costs) - that important
point is - for strange reasons - not floating around your mind.

Nevertheless, you made points and we - as you can see -
accepted them, but not share your points. I do not even
try anymore to convince you that SaveNow isnt that bad.
You have an opinion that we for sure can't change as we
are "feed by the hands of adware", correct?

So: which purpose does this discussion serves? Exactly, none!
We turn around and around and all I see is an increasing
post-count from you and me and no site seems to accept
the other points. Only small tip I can give you:

we did not censored any posts. Dont you find it "strange"
that - except VERY few people - noone here shares your
points? Dont you find it interesting that, according to your
opinion about some "biased user" here I can assure you that
those users do not profit (read: payed by whenu) from such
statements?

All that you needed to publish is now here, my answers too.
As already mentioned above, it is VERY sad that you where
unable to come closer to the points I made but instead
only post something about the "if 9 out of 10.....". Although
that was a valid point, it leaved at least 5 other important
questions unanswered.

IMHO, if someone make some points, in a good discussion the
other part of that discussion should try to stick to some
"red line" throughout that discussion, which (please compare
my points and your answers) doesnt match even close in
your last post. I really see no good will in a fruitfull discussion
from your side, my final decision:

I therefore close this thread now. Thank you for your comments,
well appreciated and a deep insight in other
viewpoints. But now I guess its enough, lets stop it here.

Use Daemon Tools or delete it - we leave that decision to
you. If you have further technical questions, you're welcome
to post them to our other forums and we will gladly help you.

Announcement

Why i dislike the current addware policy

Why i dislike the current addware policy

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment