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.
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.