Bundled Software: When Is It Not Adware?

If a user wants a piece of software, why can't he or she be allowed to install it separately? If the bundled software were essential to the functioning of the original software (excluding generic functions such as install, un-uninstall, and documentation), why wouldn't the developer build its functions directly into the original software?

Sure, sometimes there's a software application that clearly complements another application. But for users who do not want the complementary software, having it just means a bloated install file and a needlessly long installation process.

Does the chance that users will want the bundled software ever outweigh the risk of the bundled software being installed without the user noticing? In the case of adware, the technology community is increasingly willing to put the burden of proof on the adware bundlers:

* Affiliate networks such as Commission Junction and Kolimbo have either cautioned advertisers against accepting adware distributors into their affiliate programs or kicked them out altogether.

* Many technology law experts are saying that the click-wrap license agreements that supposedly legitimate adware are not proof of informed consent. Some experts even say that such agreements amount to unconscionable contracts: the burden imposed by adware is so great and the benefit offered so negligible.

Adware and Bundled Software: A Modest Proposal

If the spam arms race is any indication, we may soon face even more aggressive attempts to get adware on our computers. There will be even more tortured arguments that bundled adware is installed with users' informed consent. Why not head off any of those arguments right now? Let's push for an industry standard that reputable developers do not bundle software (with a few highly specific exceptions such as documentation, installation, and error reporting).

In the end, by getting rid of bundled software, what do we have to lose except adware?
About the Author