An example of unhappy customers and the Update Manager

[NealC804]

http://www.nc-software.com/Forums/?f=6&m=5020&p=1

Sure would be nice to have the Update Manager as a "Feature" in IS 10.5 so that end-users can have the option to install or not.

[NealC804]

And another one today as well! Two in one day now!!!

Problem:
Your cataloguer seems fantastic, but I just got a call from our IT department saying that InstallShield Update Manager is Adware and that I need to get it off our network. I found an uninstall utility for it on the web, but every time I start AV Cataloger the update manager gets re-installed. Is there any way to use your software without the Update Manager. If not, I don't think that IT will let me use it, and I'll need to get a refund. Thanks for your help.

[Christopher_Pai]

I've never used update service, but perhaps if you cant turn it off on a per-build basis you could clone your project then remove it and do dual builds, one with and one without the update service.

Also you customer's IT department could always repackage or otherwise transform the install to remove the update service component. I know if one of my functional groups had a mission critical application that didn't meet our integration requirements thats what I would get tasked with doing.

[Brad_Peterson]

I also got a customer today requesting that she be allowed to completely remove the Update Manager. She is smart enough to close the tray icon, but she hates how it still pops up (due to the background processes). I walked her through setting up a custom bootup in msconfig and had her turn off the offending programs.

Argh! I hate Update Manager! I've wasted so much effort and time on that stupid instrusive add-on.

Anyways, I posted earlier about any way to not include it in an install, and Paul M. was kind enough to provide me to a link to an Update Service SDK that did not include the Update Manager. http://support.installshield.com/kb/view.asp?articleid=Q111107

Has anyone had a chance to use it yet? Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to use it, mainly because I'd have to release a major update patch. I first need to see how well the major update works, and I need to make sure the Update Service won't count a major update as a brand new user in it's total user tally.

[NealC804]

I'm sure InstallShield's intentions were good, but anytime you force your way onto a system such as Update Manager, you are asking for trouble! There have been other utilities in the past along this line, they don't succeed, period dot! And when you put something on a system that resembles Napster'o'updates, i.e. they think it's an open door for software to come in without their control, they will freak, and we are now seeing it.

Again, great intentions, but I hope IS will promptly supply an update that is a merge module that does not include the Update Manager as it's pretty unanimous, it's not wanted by our customers and they are fearing it!

The icon may popup on the system tray because they don't know how to HIDE a message either as quite frankly, the update manager interface is unsat! It just doesn't make any sense to the end-user, or me, as a developer, and my gears are turning now as to whether or not I'm continuing with ISUS, and I'm leaning towards cancelling my service.

[NealC804]

Brad Peterson wrote:
Anyways, I posted earlier about any way to not include it in an install, and Paul M. was kind enough to provide me to a link to an Update Service SDK that did not include the Update Manager. http://support.installshield.com/kb/view.asp?articleid=Q111107

This appears to be for SDK 3.1. I really think we need a "switch" in the configuration for ISUS. I'm using SDK 4.x. The next problem comes in when I install my app with no UM but you come into play with your app that DOES install UM, then what? I really need to think all this through. I like ISUS, but this UM issue is scaring the daylights out of my customers! Remember, this is the day of Spyware/Adware and eveyrone is piling everything on their computers for security and when UM pops up, they'll freak!

[neildavidson]

I agree - InstallShield should pull the Update Manager, or at least provide the option for applications not to appear in it but still receive updates. It's clearly not been thought through properly.

[Brad_Peterson]

neal007 wrote:
This appears to be for SDK 3.1. I really think we need a "switch" in the configuration for ISUS. I'm using SDK 4.x. The next problem comes in when I install my app with no UM but you come into play with your app that DOES install UM, then what? I really need to think all this through. I like ISUS, but this UM issue is scaring the daylights out of my customers! Remember, this is the day of Spyware/Adware and eveyrone is piling everything on their computers for security and when UM pops up, they'll freak!

Just out of curiosity, I haven't yet put in the 4.0 SDK into my app. In 4.0, is the Update Manager included by default? Or not? Essentially what I'm getting at, is I figure you've already turned it off in 4.0, so I just want instructions on how to do that for myself 😄

neildavidson wrote:
I agree - InstallShield should pull the Update Manager, or at least provide the option for applications not to appear in it but still receive updates.

I fully agree. UM is confusing, and I think it should be pulled. But...there may be companies that now depend on it. So the second scenario, of allowing us to not have our app appear in the UM list solves the issue that neal007 mentioned where another program comes in an installs UM when have not installed it.

[neildavidson]

If you're using InstallShield 10.5 and version 4.0 of the SDK then there is an option not to include the update manager in the install. You don't need to use a merge module.

The problem comes when somebody else's application has installed the update manager. If that happens, then your application will appear in the update manager too.

This really does seem to fall into the adware / spyware / malware category - installing stuff / connecting to the internet / downloading software etc. without people's permission.

[NealC804]

Neil,

It's one thing to have our application listed within the Update Manager and it's another thing as to whether or not this "utility" is even installed. You may have the option to not list your application in Update Manager (UM), but UM is ALWAYS installed, unless I'm wrong.

I'm using IS 10.5, how do I do an installation that doesn't install UM but DOES install the required Agent to perform the background operations? Or even foreground operations such as the API calls? I believe it's all in the one merge module.

What we need "now" is two merge modules, 1) for the ISUS Agent API and 2) A separate one for the UM. We can include both and assign them as features which the end-user can choose whether or not to install AND have the option to remove AND will not get reinstalled on an application repair. If your app "advertises" then it's going to reinstall UM every time it runs regardless of the IS KB that says how to remove UM.

Okay, IS, awaiting your response to this crisis. How is this going to be handled, and what is the priority to you? What can we expect?

[neildavidson]

Neal,

I don't think you need to include any merge module at all. In fact, if you've upgraded from a previous version then you'll need to *remove* the 3.x one.

If you go to the 'Update service' node in the Installation designer screen, then you can set the 'Include Update Manager' to 'No'.

- Neil

[NealC804]

Neil,

My understanding is you DO need to include the Update Service "Redistributable" aka merge module otherwise you can't be sure the "Agent.exe" is on the target machine.

I'll check for that setting in 10.5, it would be nice if the end user could decide this on the install end, not me on the distro end. I'll look into this immediately, thanks!

[NealC804]

I would offer this setting, to include UM or not, should be in the RELEASE properties and not the Update Service properties. I'm going to have to build additional releases that do not contain the UM, I prefer to do in a batch and have consistent "codes" among the product. This falls along the lines of MSI, whether to include it or not, and what version. Same thing, whether or not to include UM, etc. (like the trial'ware wrapper that's cropping up in 10.5)

[Brad_Peterson]

neal007 wrote:
What we need "now" is two merge modules, 1) for the ISUS Agent API and 2) A separate one for the UM. We can include both and assign them as features which the end-user can choose whether or not to install AND have the option to remove AND will not get reinstalled on an application repair. If your app "advertises" then it's going to reinstall UM every time it runs regardless of the IS KB that says how to remove UM.

I like this solution. I am an InstallShield X Express user. It would be easier on me to have different merge modules that I can choose to include, rather than having to wait on InstallShield to release an update to my version that would give me a checkbox to turn UM on or off.

I could also upgrade to 10.5 if I needed to, but we have intentionally kept our product small and lightweight...so we have no need for a more complex InstallShield product.

[neildavidson]

neal007 wrote:
Same thing, whether or not to include UM, etc. (like the trial'ware wrapper that's cropping up in 10.5)

Given your experiences with the update service, would you really use the trialware wrapper?

[NealC804]

neildavidson wrote:
Given your experiences with the update service, would you really use the trialware wrapper?

Well Neil, I really don't want to bash IS (or MV) as I do like their products. For some reason they develop in a vacuum and I don't know who they solicit ideas from to produce these things. I think the US has hope, but they need to back off of their "take over the world" motto and stick to objectives which were met IMHO with ISUS v2. I understand their ego boost into the creation of UM, but I think it's time to back off a bit, and focus on quality. Additionally to realize this is not a product, it's a service, and they need to inform their subscribers (hosted) prior to making changes as if we are hosting our web sites on their servers, like a web hosting company.

So I am really going to try and remain, or improve my constructive feedback as I know they are trying, but my fate here is still in question, I am considering rolling my own again instead of paying the high costs of ISUS for what we are getting now.

[CChong]

We have received similar comments about the Update Manager and we will address some of the user experience issues in our 4.5 release coming in June.

We have advised our customers to provide additional information to the user as to how they can control the behavior of the Update manager.

For example by providing the following links or including text from these links have drastically improved the user's understanding of UM.

http://consumer.installshield.com/settings.asp
http://consumer.installshield.com/about_us.asp

If you advise your user to turn UM 'off' then you have closed the door to update your software. We have had many customers thank us for automatically including UM with IS becasue they were able to sent critical patches and updates quickly.

With the heightened awareness of adware and spyware, we have found that education is the best option.

[neildavidson]

Noel,

I think the most important point is that InstallShield shouldn't try to install software without the consent of us (people writing installs with your software) and our users.

I don't think that explaining what's going on after it has happened is good enough.

Our users need to understand *before* possibly unwanted software is installed on their machines, and we need to be able to decide if we even want to give them that choice.

To keep us happy, I think you need to cover at least the following possibilities:

1) If installs are going to install the UM, users need to be aware of this during the install and need to be able to opt out.

2) If we decide that we don't want to distribute the UM then we shouldn't have to.

3) If we don't want to distribute the UM, but our users already have it on their machines, then:

3i) We might not want to use it, but still let our users check for updates, or
3ii) We might want to give our customers the option to use it

It doesn't seem that you've really got to the bottom of what your customers, our their users, really need.

You have many different types of customers, and end-users, ranging from people rolling out enterprise software globally to consumers who've maybe just bought their first computer. I'm sure that some users are happy with the UM but I'm also sure that lots aren't.

[NealC804]

Noel Kuriakos wrote:
If you advise your user to turn UM 'off' then you have closed the door to update your software.

Noel,

I don't this is a true statement! With our Without UM can I not use the API to check for IsSoftwareUpdate and IsNextUse to collect critical updates and background download?

I think the issue here is you continue to cater to the "free/starter edition" community and I'm quite frankly wasting my money paying for the Professional Edition i.e. subscription service. It has always baffled me why I pay a fortune for the 5-10K user tier when I could be service 50K users with your FREEEEEEEE edition! Dang it!!!!!

Neil Said wrote:
It doesn't seem that you've really got to the bottom of what your customers, our their users, really need.

Neil, how long have you been with the Update Service, or anyone here for that matter? And with that said, have YOU ever been asked your opinion or been a part of an upcoming feature set? I continue to think IS works in a vacuum and because of their lack of interaction with current, paying subscribers, they are missing the boat, the planet, you name it.

I tell ya, the more this comes up the more I'm ready to pull up this anchor and sail on, I've had enough of this ignorance and failure to 1) communicate with your subscribers, and 2) realize the impact of this update manager!

Quite plainly, if IS cannot realize the severity of this matter, I will, and adios! This is just the final push to implement my own, and quite frankly it's so easy to do with a little XML!

[neildavidson]

neal007 wrote:


Neil, how long have you been with the Update Service, or anyone here for that matter? And with that said, have YOU ever been asked your opinion or been a part of an upcoming feature set? I continue to think IS works in a vacuum and because of their lack of interaction with current, paying subscribers, they are missing the boat, the planet, you name it.

I tell ya, the more this comes up the more I'm ready to pull up this anchor and sail on, I've had enough of this ignorance and failure to 1) communicate with your subscribers, and 2) realize the impact of this update manager!

Quite plainly, if IS cannot realize the severity of this matter, I will, and adios! This is just the final push to implement my own, and quite frankly it's so easy to do with a little XML!

We've been using the Update Manager for over 2 years. We're currently on the 25,000 user tier, and paying through the nose for it. There are obviously large barriers to ditching the update service - although it would be technically very easy for us to write the functionality we need ourselves (a couple of weeks' work to write and - crucially, note - test) it's a big step to take because of our current user base.

I think the idea of having a hosted update service is an excellent one. The plan was to pay somebody (InstallShield) to host a service for us. Because they're experts, they should be able to do it cheaper, better and more reliably than us. Unfortunately it's turned out that none of those points is actually true.

And no, nobody from InstallShield has asked for my opinion.

[KellyF]

It's actually rather depressing to see threads such as this... we do listen. And as I've said before, any customer can submit their feature requests or vent their spleen via the feedback mechanism on the publisher site. That link goes directly to the persons who make all the decisions, so please use it if you feel so very strongly.

KellyF

PS. Yes, I thought it was simple too before I got into it completely... I had a plan to write a .NET version of the notification servers, but then I realized the sheer volume I'd need to do and dropped it in favor of my own information database app.