Claria, makers of free ad-supported software, stated Monday that McAfee has changed its tune on the company's products, no longer calling them a "malicious threat." This is possibly the first step for Claria to build a more positive image to their brand, which took a big hit when it was known as Gator a few years back.
Based on the fact that users must "opt-in" to use of the software that contain's Claria's GAIN package, McAfee appears to be leaning towards realizing that some ad-supported programs do not pose a huge risk to users. I'd expect somewhat of a revolt from the usual suspects on this, as many people a) are very trusting whenloading software in general and b) believe that their virus/spyware software is impenetrable.
1. I'm a big believer that advertising is a good thing. I'm a big believer that online content should be grateful to the advertising dollars that make it all possible. I however don't think Claria is anything the Advertising world should support or accept.
There are some shady practices, and a fundamental lack of repect for the end-user involved in Claria. My partner is consumer privacy advocate and has the consumer side for spyware/privacy covered at: http://www.privacyclue.com/index.php/20050425/mcafee-succumbs-to-adware-mind-trick/
However just from an advertising business model, I don't think it is right that an advertiser can post their ads in the commerical territory of others without consent and compensation.
If I go down the highway and tack on double-sized billboards sticking off to the sides of existing billboards, I've essentially done the same thing. The legitimate advertiser has really been harmed. Also the owner of the billboard space just unwittingly supported additional advertising that went to another firm.
Posted at 5:40PM on Aug 11th 2005 by Justin Everett-Church