This article is a bit... lacking. First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems. Second off, Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company. Third, and related to the second, Ninite's updater costs $10 a year while Adobe Flash's built-in updater is free. They also have a Ninite Pro version that supports remote updates and installs and costs $240 to $2,220 per year.
In a similar vein, this is why Piriform cut them off from providing CCleaner via Ninite. Because automatic updating is a feature of CCleaner's business model, too. The paid version of CCleaner has automatic updates. Ninite was essentially taking that revenue model away from Piriform and using it for themselves. With free software supported by offers, Ninite is hiding those offers in exchange for cash. It's basically a paid ad-blocking service.
First I want to say thanks! We love your work at PortableApps.com and send people there whenever they ask us to add portable software.
Our value is keeping the catalog up-to-date and putting a nice interface around the updating process. Not ad-blocking.
We actively uncheck toolbars for maybe 5 apps. If those apps removed their toolbar offers people would still use Ninite to track updates and automate work.
If publishers want to make updating their software artificially hard there's not a lot we can do except trust that people will see what's going on and move to other products.
Not being able to choose where things get installed killed Ninite for me. Their reasoning is "where an app is installed is an implementation detail that users shouldn't worry about."
My SSD can only hold so much, and I don't see the benefit of having a browser or file sharing app on an SSD. That seems like a detail I should care about.
I usually install to the default location.. shutdown the app if running, move the directory, and symlink/mklink the default location to the new location.
This is especially helpful for games/apps you are actively using (on the SSD) but when you're done, or not playing as much, it's still available, just not as fast.
I believe it uses the default Program Files and (x86) directory. Have you tried setting that to your other drive so your Ninite-installed apps default to their, but you can still manually select your SSD for the apps you wish to run more quickly (PhotoShop, etc).
Howdy Patrick. First, let me say thanks as well, as I like your product and have sent people your way when they ask about something like PortableApps.com for local software. I'd also like to make clear that I in no way have a problem with the way Ninite works. I just had a problem with the way this article was written. Looking back at my original post, I definitely wrote a few things incorrectly and I apologize for that.
Regarding profits XOR good, I agree that you can do both and hope it didn't seem like I was implying otherwise. PortableApps.com, though fully open source, is also a for-profit venture that also intends to do good. It just happens to not be turning a profit yet. We're working on a freemium model as well, but we decided against making our updater and app store a paid feature and against bundling in ads as it would negatively impact some of our users.
I was unaware that Adobe had accessibility issues but, considering the interface, it makes sense. So, let me commend you on assisting with that. We did some custom work to ensure accessibility in our products as we have a large contingent of folks it helps as well.
Regarding publishers making updating their software artificially hard, I'm with you on that. We've had more than one publisher refuse to appear in the PortableApps.com App Store and Updater for that very reason: they want to have users to visit their website on each new version to see offers. That's why the portable version of the app that's not on Ninite isn't available on PortableApps.com either, despite offering up possible alternative revenue streams and offering capabilities. So, we're in the same boat there.
We should have a chat sometime and see if there are any ways we could work together.
Ninite isn't an expensive paid Adobe Flash updater. It's a useful sysadmin tool for automating several painful processes. I think it should exist and other companies should not be able to bully them to shut down. As a consumer you can pay if you think Ninite's functionality is useful or not if you think it isn't.
On an ideological level, I would look at whether they are stealing content and reselling it or just automating something the user would do for him/herself. It sounds like automating to me.
I make scripts to automate my workflows all the time, including the flash installer. (Though I don't download it as part of the script, I have pre-downloaded it and put it in a folder to use. So I have to manually get the latest before I run the script on a batch of machines.)
> First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems.
Speak for yourself; I only ever see it on system startup. I only reboot once every few months (and it doesn't respond to waking up from standby), but there's a new Adobe security panic every two weeks or so, so that's not really acceptable.
Plus it opens as a pop-under window for some reason, so I'm generally unaware of it until I've opened a browser, which I'll then have to close and reopen.
The 'stealing revenue' argument is definitely valid, but in Adobe's case it's such a hateful method that I can't sympathize at all.
I thought that Adobe's rolling out automatic updates for Flash Player might finally end my having to (endlessly) maintain it on my parents' computers. No dice... (It doesn't work -- at all, it often seems, or at least consistently nor in anything like a timely manner.)
After some horrible experiences with Adobe Support, I've decided that Adobe as a company is crapware. I am sorry for e.g. some of the engineering talent there that may be doing good work. But, they (you) seem to exist these days within a horrible company organization.
> The 'stealing revenue' argument is definitely valid, but in Adobe's case it's such a hateful method that I can't sympathize at all.
Is it? If their (Piriform, as in the original example) model is based around providing a service for a product they release for free, but someone else can provide that service better, then perhaps they need to re-think their business model. Either be way cheaper, or provide something that Ninite can't or won't. Maybe even partner with Ninite and explain that your product can't exist without that revenue, so why not just integrate deeper and share a bit of revenue, rather than having it fail and upset customers of both parties.
You imply Ninite are charging for Flash, but they are not. The charge is for the Pro service. I don't use it (I use the free installers, and love them). I'm not in the target group for the Pro--admins that need to keep a lot of machines up to date. If I were in that group, I'd gladly pay.
The whole focus on Ninite charging is a red herring. This also has to do with the free installer that Ninite provides to people who do NOT pay for the Pro.
The article was talking up the fact that Ninite allowed you to update your apps. The Ninite Updater, intended for home users, is a paid service for $10 and is separate from Ninite Pro, intended for corporate users. Without paying the $10 fee, Ninite doesn't provide automatic updates.
> Ninite isn't just some good Samaritan, they're a for-profit company.
It saddens me that we've gotten to a point where operating a service company for profit can't also be seen as doing good. Everyone has to pay the bills (and maybe even be rewarded for their efforts?), even the do-gooders.
A for profit company can also be seen as doing good. My issue with the article is the complete one-sided-ness and the fact that they say that Ninite is an alternative to using the Flash updater but neglect to mention that Ninite costs $10 a year for updates while Flash's built-in automatic updater is free.
I don't think that's any sort of bias; the article's point is that Ninite's update process is much simpler to manage than the Adobe one, particularly if you are managing a network. I will freely admit I haven't used Ninite, but I know that almost anything would be an improvement on the Adobe updater.
The value Ninite creates is worth $10 a year (is the point in the article).
Ninite Updater is a $10 a year service aimed at home users, completely separate from their Ninite Pro offering. Ninite Free does not automatically update. The article was pushing Ninite as an alternative to Flash's built-in updater but omitting the fact that Ninite Updater is paid.
"First off, the Flash updater on Windows works quite well on modern Windows systems."
No, just no. Btw. anyone knows how to manually force flash to check for updates? And an easy way to check flash versions across all different browsers?
"Works quite well" apparently means "pops up all the time about yet another national security threatening flaw that needs to be patched urgently" and "crashes frequently for no apparent reason when trying to perform said updates."
Also left unexplained is why Adobe needs to constantly update Reader. The PDF spec has not changed in forever. Why should this software need updating if there are no changes in functionality or spec compliance?
Security problems as far as I know. Many governmental workers have it installed, so it's used as a spear phishing vector.
"Re: UN Resolution #XYZ (Attached PDF)" is how these things play out. You open the PDF and your computer develops, ah, magical new capabilities, like sending copies of everything you do to Eastern Europe or China.
I have no interests concerning Ninite. I think they offer a handy service. But the article was completely one-sided and left out some key points so I offered a factual counterpoint. The site I run, PortableApps.com, is in no way competitive with Ninite as we offer portable software while Ninite is meant to streamline installation of local software.
How can you not see a potential conflict of interest here? The OP is the founder of a website which encourages you to download various software from their site.
Ninite could potentially allow users to bypass the OP's site, which could clearly cause the OP some irritation.
> In a similar vein, this is why Piriform cut them off from providing CCleaner via Ninite. Because automatic updating is a feature of CCleaner's business model, too. The paid version of CCleaner has automatic updates.
Maybe CCleaner should rethink that one, that is an awful business model. I wonder if they do the same thing with their OS X version too, because if so they might want to have a chat with the MacUpdate Desktop folks too.
IMO you can't blame app update tools for breaking a business model. That's a really idiotic business model to begin with. Charging for updates, fine. But charging for the ability to auto-check for updates? There is a reason nobody else in the industry does that. Because it's stupid.
The big problem for me (and maybe Piriform?) is that now I don't have any of their products on my systems because I can't get them through Ninite. I used to religiously install their CCleaner, their defrag and system information tools. They're all very good, but I'm not going to walk through three separate installers for something that Ninite used to do in seconds.
When I bring up a new system, I just go to Ninite, check some stuff and I'm done. For most machines, there is nothing else to do.
I suppose this is sort of a cautionary tale... "Don't try to take your installer back from Ninite after they've showed everyone how it can be so much better."
I'd wager they are more concerned with preserving their paid revenue stream than losing a few free users. Any company offering a freemium product has to strike that balance.
Well, I did say "maybe"... I guess what I was trying to get at is that before I would enthusiastically recommend their products to other people. Now I don't use them, so I never mention them to anyone.
I don't seem to have a problem using separate installers for something like Blender, but the activation energy seems too high for installing "small" utilities[1].
That said, if I could get larger applications from Ninite, I'd pull from there in a heartbeat!
If you don't mind using the portable versions of the larger apps like Blender, you can install the PortableApps.com Platform on your local hard drive and install and update all of those apps in a couple clicks. (Our portable apps work just fine locally, they just won't appear in your start menu by default, you have to add a shortcut manually or launch them using the PA.c Platform) Apps like Blender, Inkscape, GIMP, LibreOffice, GnuCash, Scribus, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.
I will complain that Adobe wants to be updated what feels like every time my Windows machine restarts, but it never asks to install any adware as it does so.
CCleaner Free offers notifications only of when an update is available. At that point you must click a clink to download the new version from Piriform's website where you are presented with additional offers to upgrade to the paid version and/or ads.
Aren't there other free updaters?
Sure, but they don't work like Ninite Updater. With Ninite Updater it's one
step to download and install all your updates in the background at once.
Sorry for the confusion. That copy is about things like Filehippo Updater, not built-in updaters. The aggregation and automation arguments still apply, but it's not intended as a jab at them.
I'm still confused at how making money destroys our credibility. It's a good thing for the people you trust with software updates to be profitable. Pro users paying us for extra features like remote mode lets us offer Ninite free for everyone else.
We don't even run ads on the free site because Pro users pay the bills and we love that we can save people from wasting time clicking Next Next Next.
because looking at the website, you sure look like a bog standard marketing pitch to the average consumer selling fundamental computer operations for a price.
At least Adobe isn't selling me the copy function at $3.99.
If you were coming from selling a service, that would be different (we aggregate a working ecosystem of programs ready for your selection, subscribe to our repository!), but you're not. You're selling a program more than a service.
I just find it incredulous to see the phrase "We deserve better than this" where "better" is having basic functionality sold to you.
I realize I'm opening up myself to more, but hell it ain't about the karma.
Nothing's wrong with being for-profit. Redhat's for profit, I like them. What I don't like is the cut of David's gib in this David and Goliath story.
If Adobe turned to Ubuntu and said "Hey, don't put our plugin in your repositories, we want to spam mcaffe at linux users". That would be a really good reason to get the pitchforks and torches out! Adobe is instead responding to another for-profit company who's removing adobe's advertisement in place of their own.
The consumer gains a little from this, yah they're less obnoxious, but they're still selling package management, what I would argue a fundamental operation in an OS, for the low low price of only 9.99.
This article is angry at Adobe for making Windows hard to use by baiting users. Ninite is guilty of the same crime, even if it's to a lesser extent.
Technically only the Mozilla Foundation is non-profit. The Mozilla Corporation which is the organization that has the deal with Google about the search feature, and is the one which distributes common versions of Firefox is not non-profit. Granted Mozilla Corporation is owned by Mozilla Foundation, but still, this just shows that in non-non-profits organizations the decisions are governed by owners, for better or for worse.
> With them being for profit, they have lost their credibility.
Why? Their software automates a repetitive and complex task thereby saving money. Some of the money saved goes to paying Ninite but everyone still wins.
In a similar vein, this is why Piriform cut them off from providing CCleaner via Ninite. Because automatic updating is a feature of CCleaner's business model, too. The paid version of CCleaner has automatic updates. Ninite was essentially taking that revenue model away from Piriform and using it for themselves. With free software supported by offers, Ninite is hiding those offers in exchange for cash. It's basically a paid ad-blocking service.