We use Ninite Pro extensively within our network. Not only does it allow remote updates (whereas locally it requires administrative rights most users don't have) it also allows disabling of update notification and disabling of shortcuts.
The update process Adobe employs is a nag for admins, the constant flow of acrobat updates and flash updates is a bombardment of announcements which most users in a corporate environment don't have control over.
I prefer paying ninite for the hassle free service, rather then adobe who seem to have no clue or interest in making users life easier. From my perspective, i don't care who profits as long as I can achieve my goals with a minimum of hassle. Ninite provides this, Adobe does not.
As a sys admin in a school, Ninite is awesome. I really don't want installers and updaters popping up in front of small children and (often, technically illiterate) staff, and Ninite facilitates this. At the same time, it makes it easy for me to update software at a time to suit me - usually the holidays. The fact it denies Adobe the chance to trick me (or my users) into installing additional, unwanted software is a major bonus. It just means I don't have to visit users' PCs later to uninstall the crap.
If your users get used to clicking "yeah, whatever" on any and all software update pop-ups, this will almost certainly become an attack vector. Adobe Reader, Flash and Oracle's Java each have their own nuisance updaters that are constantly pestering you for attention.
That software-updates-as-a-service is now a thing is really a sad state of affairs, but if Ninite can make a go of it, right on.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
"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?
> 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.
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.
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.
Title here is wrong, the reg says "crapware-free Flash". This dash is a little thing but it does matter; it changes the meaning. I passed over this article all day, after I read the headline as "stop rolling out flash, which is crapware, free".
Punctuation. It's the difference between "Let's eat, Grandma" and "Let's eat Grandma"
It's a real shame that Adobe is making this kind of mandate of Ninite. The Ninite catalog is a little limited for me given that I'm a developer, but when it comes to setting up a new PC(or a reformatted one)for friends and family, Ninite is the first place I go to for all programs and utilities they need, and most likely the last as well.
On the one hand I can see why Adobe wants total control over their installers, but I really wish they could also see that a lot of people simply don't want it.
I wonder how the "toolbar providers" actually make money. I mean, I work as a freelance IT guy, and on nearly every customer PC I find ~6-10 toolbars, 2-3 "free virus scanners" and >10 different youtube downloaders (which mostly brought the toolbars). With such an infestation (and given this, the competition between the toolbars), how do the individual toolbar providers get back the money they paid to the trojan horse software?
Ninite was a godsend in the days before I moved our offices over to Chrome. It was the first tool that took the pain and suffering out of updating Reader, Flash, and Java without the worries of crapware ending up on workstations.
Thanks to this move, I'll be banning the flash plugin outright. I hope that makes Adobe happy.
It would be an interesting interpretation of the CFAA to bring charges against Adobe for interfering with the security and managing of a computer network.
Noticed it was gone from Ninite yesterday. Good riddance and a nice one of Ninite I thought. Still on fresh Windows 7 the Adobe monster suddenly appeared. Not sure where it came from, IE10 or Chrome?
Can anyone with a legal background explain if Adobe can actually force Ninite to change the way their software works? AFAICT, they can't. Why did this guy give in to Adobe? Because they've got an army of lawyers they can attack him with?
If you live in a closed source ecosystem, you die in a closed source ecosystem.
e.g If you want to distribute closed source tools and software without sorting out a license first, your going to have a hard time because often this is exactly how free (in terms of price) software companies make their money.
Never had this problem of Adobe installing unwanted Anti-Virus stuff. Is this common for Window-users? For Mac I would suggest Pacifist if you want to install selective parts of an installer: http://www.charlessoft.com/
Yes, it is common on Windows. When you are on their website to install Flash, there is a tick box you need to untick to avoid installing McAfee Anti-Virus with it. It is basically like the Ask toolbar bundled with Java.
If you are not paying attention - which most people don't - you'll be installing unwanted software, because so much relies on basically crappy software (Flash and Java). Actually, that makes them crappy is their ubiquitousness. Even if you seldom use Flash or Java applets, you'll often find yourself having them installed, because there is that one site that needs one or the other.
Now, people like us with the technical knowhow know how to get around that (disable plugins; flashblock, etc.), but most people just install these things whenever there are updates, each is a change of getting crapware along with them. And Java is quite often updated.
During the installer the user will be asked if they want to install McAfee anti-virus. There is a checkbox on the page in the setup that is already set to true by the time they get to it, so most users will probably think that having "more protection" is a good thing and that Adobe is really looking out for them.
However, if Adobe were to force Ninite to drop Flash -- we would have quickly dropped Flash from our corporate network, and probably have been for the better even with a few users complaining that their favorite time-wasting website/game no longer works.
I see a fairly simple solution.
The issue Adobe has is essentially that Ninite is taking away the choice of users to install this software when installing Adobe Flash. Ninite is therefore taking away the revenue that Adobe would get from these installs, if you were to assume that some users actually want them.
Ninite could easily circumvent this by giving people a choice to include the adware. 99.999% of users obviously won't make that choice, but Ninite puts that responsibility back with its users.
[+] [-] doron|13 years ago|reply
The update process Adobe employs is a nag for admins, the constant flow of acrobat updates and flash updates is a bombardment of announcements which most users in a corporate environment don't have control over.
I prefer paying ninite for the hassle free service, rather then adobe who seem to have no clue or interest in making users life easier. From my perspective, i don't care who profits as long as I can achieve my goals with a minimum of hassle. Ninite provides this, Adobe does not.
[+] [-] m0nty|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astrodust|13 years ago|reply
That software-updates-as-a-service is now a thing is really a sad state of affairs, but if Ninite can make a go of it, right on.
[+] [-] JohnTHaller|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] swies|13 years ago|reply
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.
On profits XOR good: We do make money, but we also work really hard to do good as in http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html
Our website is completely free (and ad-free) for home users. We save people from about 15 minutes of mindless installer work every second.
Our $9.99 home Updater product is just something to point home users at when they ask to donate to us. We're a company. We don't take donations.
We also run http://ninite.com/accessible to help visually-impaired people manage software. Actually, until last summer that was about the only way for people to install Flash with a screenreader http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility/2012/07/flash-player-in...
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.
[+] [-] webjprgm|13 years ago|reply
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.)
[+] [-] protospork|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] e40|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] greghinch|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cones688|13 years ago|reply
I would be interested to know how you propose using Adobe flash updater to push out a critical security patch to 10k + enterprise users.
[+] [-] Tuna-Fish|13 years ago|reply
No, it does not. Simply put, giving end-users popups for system maintenance is flatly unacceptable.
[+] [-] tjoff|13 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] shinratdr|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] SeanDav|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eliasmacpherson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielweber|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tghw|13 years ago|reply
As a user of the free version of CCleaner, I'm almost certain it also has auto updates, unless they removed that in a very recent version.
[+] [-] workbench|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GhotiFish|13 years ago|reply
Frankly, just look at their website: https://ninite.com/updater/
Yup, This story is not black and white.I'm actually on adobe's side.
[+] [-] SideburnsOfDoom|13 years ago|reply
Punctuation. It's the difference between "Let's eat, Grandma" and "Let's eat Grandma"
[+] [-] SideburnsOfDoom|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] artmageddon|13 years ago|reply
On the one hand I can see why Adobe wants total control over their installers, but I really wish they could also see that a lot of people simply don't want it.
[+] [-] giulianob|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mschuster91|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluedino|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChikkaChiChi|13 years ago|reply
Thanks to this move, I'll be banning the flash plugin outright. I hope that makes Adobe happy.
[+] [-] Finster|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisbennet|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UnoriginalGuy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robmcm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sauce71|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w1ntermute|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DannyBee|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riotingpscifis|13 years ago|reply
e.g If you want to distribute closed source tools and software without sorting out a license first, your going to have a hard time because often this is exactly how free (in terms of price) software companies make their money.
[+] [-] digitalengineer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Svip|13 years ago|reply
If you are not paying attention - which most people don't - you'll be installing unwanted software, because so much relies on basically crappy software (Flash and Java). Actually, that makes them crappy is their ubiquitousness. Even if you seldom use Flash or Java applets, you'll often find yourself having them installed, because there is that one site that needs one or the other.
Now, people like us with the technical knowhow know how to get around that (disable plugins; flashblock, etc.), but most people just install these things whenever there are updates, each is a change of getting crapware along with them. And Java is quite often updated.
[+] [-] artmageddon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eclipticplane|13 years ago|reply
However, if Adobe were to force Ninite to drop Flash -- we would have quickly dropped Flash from our corporate network, and probably have been for the better even with a few users complaining that their favorite time-wasting website/game no longer works.
[+] [-] burpee|13 years ago|reply
Ninite could easily circumvent this by giving people a choice to include the adware. 99.999% of users obviously won't make that choice, but Ninite puts that responsibility back with its users.
[+] [-] koshak|13 years ago|reply
What I love about linux is that almost always you have an interface to manage software (apt/fabric/etc...) out-of-the-box.
Ninite Pro. Ok, not bad. But personally I don't like the "subscription" model.
Making software bundles, rolling them out and updating them can be made by IT dep. itself. It's not such a great and difficult job.
And again, how about clenaup with Ninite? When I decide to use its bundle will it manage older versions of %SOFTWARENAME% for me?
[+] [-] shaaaaawn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unangst|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mariusmg|13 years ago|reply
schtasks /delete /tn "Adobe Flash Player Updater"