Sunbeltblog comments
What's with the pre-checked option? Is that considered the "user's informed consent?"
Yup, I saw that too.
I still have a hard time understanding why security vendors need to include search bars with their security products. Regardless of whether it is Ask's toolbar or a proprietary search bar, a security vendor's job is to provide security protection software. I dislike any software manufacturer who will include additional 'features' (I call it junk) that is secondary to the purpose of the software. [And yes, I include many 'features' of Windows in this category (IE, media player, outlook express, etc) as well as other software.]
I have three basic comments on the inclusion of the toolbar:
1) I'm unconvinced that the toolbar is really such a crucial part of the STOPzilla product. Jess tells one story of why the toolbar exists: to provide easy disabling and enabling of STOPzilla's protection features. But these features could be provided in other ways. A System Tray icon would surely be the more standard way to provide enable/disable functions that apply OS-wide. Any browser-specific features (e.g. pop-up blocker) could be configured with a option in the browser menu or with a single button in the existing (main) browser toolbar.
So why do I think STOPzilla built a toolbar? To have an opportunity to insert a search box into users' browsers, then reap the resulting ad revenue. Now, maybe folks feel fine about this. But make no mistake about it: The decision to implement features in a browser toolbar is a design choice with clear financial benefits to STOPzilla, yet also some important downsides to users. It's hardly the only way STOPzilla could have built this function.
2) The choice of Ask for PPC ads seems dubious. Alex says Ask's product is "clean." But I disagree. I have video and packet log proof of a recent nonconsensual installation. I'll post that in due course. But consider also the widespread cartoon-based ads that invite installations by kids. Notice their limited and easy-to-overlook use of the word "toolbar." Despite Ask's promises, their EULA is often still linked off-screen on 800x600 screens. Recall the deceptive Ask toolbars that use names like "My Search" (falsely suggesting they're part of Windows). Recall also that Ask toolbars push the user's Address Bar to the side, and put a search box where the Address Bar belongs (top-left) -- prompting searches when users intend direct navigations, and hence causing increased PPC revenue. And Ask promotes its toolbars via widespread spyware-based ad buys. So, Alex's comment notwithstanding, Ask is far from clean.
Of course most of the behaviors in the prior paragraph speak to Ask's business generally, not to the way STOPzilla shows Ask ads. Yet, as it turns out, STOPzilla's Ask pages are deficient too. In a test VM, I just ran several searches from the STOPzilla toolbar, then from Google, all on the same PC at 1024x768 resolution. Ask showed as few as zero (!) organic listings, because Ask results often began with as many as five PPC ads above even the first organic result. In contrast, Google always showed at least three organic listings. That's a far better user experience. And since organic results are measurably safer than sponsored links (less spam, less spyware, etc.), that's an important benefit.
3) STOPzilla's installer needlessly hinders opt-outs. Not only are the relevant checkboxes prechecked (as others have discussed at length), but they're unusually hard to uncheck. Standard Windows practice is that clicking on the label adjacent to a checkbox will toggle that checkbox's status. That's how checkboxes work in the main STOPzilla app, and so too in Windows, Office, IE, etc. But in the STOPzilla installer, a user must click exactly on the checkbox, not on the adjacent label. (Clicking on the label does nothing.) So rather than the click area being several hundred pixels wide, it's just a couple dozen pixels wide. Why is this? It's a needless hindrance to opting out.
All three factors lead me to conclude that STOPzilla is doing everything it can for its own benefit. STOPzilla provides a toolbar where no toolbar is reasonably necessary or for the user's benefit, and whether other user interface elements would work at least as well. STOPzilla selects a search provider with disproportionately many ads, compared to the market leader. And STOPzilla needlessly hinders opt-out through a user-interface design with little or no precedent in Windows standards. That's nothing to celebrate.
Jess describes the toolbar as "an additional revenue opportunity" for STOPzilla. So it is. But users criticizing this toolbar might reasonably ask: Is STOPzilla doing its best to build the best product it can? If STOPzilla just needed to choose where to get the best search results, for the benefit of its paying customers, would STOPzilla really choose Ask? If STOPzilla just wanted to build the best possible security product for its users, would it really encourage users to dedicate a 24-pixel-tall stripe of valuable browser space to the few functions STOPzilla's toolbar provides? I think the answers are clear.
Thank you Ben.
I must respond to "A Horse of a Different Color" with equine-imity:
Thank you for making the correction. To do well by doing good is, as you will recognize having a fondness for Shakespeare, a consummation devoutly to be wished.
We are both committed to fighting the forces of evil, and ours is ultimately a small albeit fundamental disagreement about business models. With that, I am signing off. We wish Sunbelt a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year.
Commenting by HaloScan
