Talk:Softonic

Dubious nature of OJD statistics

Anon who added the 'dubious' tag to the link to OJD obviously doesn't know much about the Internet industry in Spain. OJD is Spain's circulation audit bureau and they monitor all circulation for print media, TV & radio and Internet websites. Their statistics are as close as possible to being 'official'. For this reason, I'm removing the 'dubious' tag. I'll be happy to explain this further if necessary. As of today, Softonic.com remains Spain's #1 website (http://www.ojdinteractiva.es/) though this refers only to websites registered and hosted in Spain (i.e. not Google.es or similar). --Tomclarke (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

unsolicited malware

Softonic appears to act as a portal for spreading unsolicited software (presumed malware). For example, for Mac users, attempts to install certain software (e.g. [1]) installs non-working applications but in addition covertly install "softonic toolbar" for Safari web browser, fully blocking the work of the browser. On attempting to remove the toolbar, it prompts for administrative password, and if the user refuses renders the browser inoperable. If all the files related to "softonic" are removed and Safari is reinstalled, the "non-existing" toolbar magically reappears!

I am not putting this description on the main page to keep up with the wiki policies, as I do not have a good reference to the external sources - this is just my personal experience. But if someone has such a link please go ahead and modify the front page. This site appears to be a total scam but artfully made to look 100% credible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.20.116 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised... ain't a giant leap from unauthorized, unsolicited commercial redistribution of copyrighted works to unsolicited installation of malware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmtrlk (talk • contribs) 11:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Eset Nod32 Antivirus blocks Softonic downloads with an alert that they contain Win32/SoftonicDownload — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.137.28 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(Tanath 2012 comment moved to bottom, to restart discussion)

Just ask any computer scientist what he thinks. They all know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliengoestony (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous acusations

No unsolicited malware is installed in your computer, and furthermore Softonic has a clear anti-malware policy. By following the link you attach, and downloading the program nothing happpens at all, except the program download. Softonic is a leader in software downloads and would have never achieved that just by doing what you mention. Do not agree at all with your comment.

Egarolera (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Egarolera

Aint no ridiculous accusations here. The size and strength of their marketing does not in any way what so ever imply legitimacy - and besides referring to their size, you have provided nothing in defence of softonic.

The crux of the issue is that they ARE selling downloads of demo versions of software without bothering to obtain author's permission beforehand, as had been described in the links (one was to my site btw, but I didn't add it myself - I track links from wikipedia to see if I agree with use of a quotation). This is a cold hard fact backed with references to multiple software authors. And you have provided nothing to refute this cold hard fact. I can't comment anything about malware allegedly distributed by softonic though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmtrlk (talk • contribs) 11:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

2 April 2011

I really like this website. It gives me access to very valuble software, for free. It is credible for helping me get a job through phoography. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.9.56 (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed "independent teams" bit

The blogging teams for various languages do seem independent one of another, e.g. [2] the German one differs completely from the [3] English one, and from the [4] French one, but I've removed that bit because User:Cameron Scott seems to think I may have COI for adding those kind of links to the article. LOL. Pcap ping 08:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Check a few sections above for a guy named Tom Clarke, who may actually have a wp:coi—that's also the name of the main OnSoftware editor right now. Pcap ping 08:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like OnSoftware was launched at different dates in the various languages, and the French seems the most recent [5]. Can't be bothered to research when each version was launched. Pcap ping 09:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Invalid summary of references.

""Softonic has been criticized by software authors for offering tiered download speeds, with the lowest speed being free, while higher speeds requiring a payment.". This is not what sources criticized softonic for. This source criticizes Softonic for ambiguous phrasing:

Instead, they are using ambiguous phrasing to trick unsuspecting users into buying something they should never have to pay for.

and for unauthorized reselling:

Otaku Software is in no way affiliated with Softonic, and they are not authorized to resell our software.

This source refers to experience of a user who had been misled by ambiguous phrasing.

None of the sources criticize softonic for 'offering tiered download speeds'. In fact, softonic is not offering tiered download speeds. The 'free option' is a direct download from publisher's website (not 'lowest speed') - obviously, if publisher's own site has faster link than Softonic, this download will be the fastest. The 'fast' and 'deluxe' downloads are both 'limited by your internet connection, but in latter being supposedly more 'virus free', having 'premium' download support, being able to download like this for 3 more months, and so on.

The critique section must accurately summarize the referenced critique - not present some new made up critique that is more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.47.216 (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading the June 24 2008 Otaku Software blog, the comments show that Softonic seems to have resolved the issue to Otaku's satisfaction in 2008.

The August 22 2008 Sheepsystems blog post doesn't allow comments, and there seems to be no followup edit, but the referenced Softonic "Bookdog download page" contains only one download link, and it's a free one, which immediately downloads "Bookdog.dmg" (4.4 MB).

Can the complaints against Softonic be considered closed? --Lexein (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Softonic worker

Hi, My name's Sergi and I work for Softonic.

We would like to point out that the section of the page about 'tiered download speeds' is now incorrect, as Softonic has withdrawn the pay-per-download option on all programs. As of last week, the pay-per-download option (that you shouldn't pay for as it most likely is a virus) only appears should the standard free download link become unavailable. Additionally, there is no premium short message service option for downloading from the English language edition of Softonic.

We'd like to make these changes, but to avoid CoI, we decided to add this comment instead. If another editor could check and confirm this, they would then be able to make the relevant changes.

Thanks very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiq (talk • contribs) 09:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that softonic would stop editing wikipedia, as wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. If you have malware on your site or use scamware than it will be listed, stop trying to edit it out. If you wish that this information isn't on the wikipedia, instead of editing every article everytime simply stop using those tactics. 77.13.131.228 (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't bite the editors, and stay WP:CIVIL, when editors declare in good faith. No, WP is not a platform for advertising. However, there were no independent reliable sources demonstrating presence of any malware or scamware. If there were, and if you know me at all, I would be making sure it was in the article. As it happened, the misleading emphasis on the website of the paid link was corrected and noted and acknowledged on the very forum in which the problem was reported. Too bad it it's an unreliable source. But I guess as long as we keep bringing it up here, people can go back in the history to see what the hell you're yelling about. --Lexein (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Softonic employee Sergi, thank you for declaring your affiliation with Softonic here. This is a sign of good faith. Feel free to create your User page, by the way. Importanty, please read WP:Welcome to Wikipedia and reread WP:COI. COI editors are absolutely permitted to remove errors, falsehoods, and defamatory content, and permitted to add minor non-controversial content which is accompanied by independent reliable sources. For major information, or that which is only sourced by Softonic, please suggest it here, and provide the source to support the claim.
Is there a page on Softonic.com which unambiguously describes the paid download link and how and when it is offered? --Lexein (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

biting the editor

Hi Lexein, was just reading the talk page on Softonic.com, and though you start one of your comments with: "Don't bite the editors, and stay WP:CIVIL, when editors declare in good faith..."

you yourself end up saying: "... people can go back in the history to see what the hell you're yelling about. --Lexein (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)"

Seems a bit harsh, seeing as the comment that you are referring to does not use impolite language and seems to me to be an acceptable point of view. Just thought I'd mention "do as you'd be done by" in this case.

(PS: I have no affiliation with Softonic or association with any of the authors on the talk page, I am a newb at editing too, and know that criticism that the criticiser him/herself does not adhere to seems a double standard). Cheers Xtal42 (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"... what the hell you're yelling about..." was appropriate in context. The IP editor was climbing up Softonic's ass in the following ways:

• unfairly implicated Softonic in advertising, when they did no such thing,
• opined that the company should "stop editing wikipedia"; this is in direct opposition to WP:COI guidelines, which says the company is well within their rights to make certain types of edits,
• implied that the company had edited ("stop editing wikipedia") against guidelines, when there was no evidence that they had done any such thing,
• implied that the company should stop discussing ("stop editing wikipedia") - this is blatantly against the WP:Five pillars, and is incredibly rude,
• incorrectly spoke for Wikipedia ("if you have malware... it will be reported") - this is only true if there are reliable sources for such a claim, and there are none,
• merely stirred the pot about allegations which were only discussed in unreliable sources, which furthermore, were already addressed by the company.

Anyhoo, I obviously stand by my remarks. I note that Softonic has not made any further attempt to discuss, quite possibly due to that IP editor's appalling comment. Happy New Year. --Lexein (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Walking Advert

This whole page is a giant advert. Not only is this a blatant breach of WP policy, it's atrociously written. When I can be bothered, a giant This Page Is An Advert tag is going up. Additionally, for such a collection of well-worded criticisms on this talk page, no-one seems to have gone in and actually done anything to the page. What's going on? I came here after finding disgusting Softonic malware on a client's PC and was amazed that there's absolutely no criticism or Controversy section. Even the IncrediMail page has better balance, and that's a giant ad too. Blitterbug 14:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitterbug (talk • contribs)

There are no "well worded criticism"s on this talk page, just whinging from users who a) don't read the terms of use and b) don't read the uninstall instructions. Softonic (like CNET) adds a "downloader" and/or an opt-in "search bar" when Softonic archives shareware, after the shareware is no longer available from the original publisher.

The history of the company is rather well cited. There is no weasel-wording or adspeak. What advertising are you talking about? Could you clarify your definition of advertising: does a mere description of the company's offerings and history, supported by independent sources, constitute advertising? Well, then, join the large cadre of Wikipedia editors who believe that no discussion of any company belongs on Wikipedia. I disagree with that definition.

Further, and more importantly, there are no WP:RS reliable sources which support any claims of "Softonic malware". Only unreliable sources support such claims, and they're all very old. Wikipedia tries very hard not to publish claims supported only by unreliable sources. --Lexein (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsolicited malware 2012

(I moved this from #unsolicited_malware above, to restart the discussion) --Lexein (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I also have experience with malware repacked versions of software from Softonic. NOD32 detects it as mentioned above. Google also detects malware (13 trojans & 9 viruses in past 90 days), and MalwareBytes has acknowledged shenanigans too. It's surprising this doesn't seem to be well known, and they still somehow show up high in people's search results. Tanath (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've archived the current Google report here. As soon as any independent, or even primary (Softonic), reliable sources can back this up, it goes in the article. I wonder if Google's automatic reporting can be considered "reliable" on their own, without other independent RS supporting it. The forums at Malware Bytes can only be used in addition to other, better RS, not instead of. --Lexein (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Softonic is going to confirm they're peddling this stuff. Personally I think NOD32 & Google's results are reliable sources. Tanath (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Up to 17 trojans Google reports now. Tanath (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Google says:

Of the 24456 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 0 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent."

Malicious software includes 62 trojan(s), 44 exploit(s), 2 worm(s).

So, the site is not keeping infected downloadable software off its site. But a machine-generated report isn't a reliable source. About the toobar, the PUP alert from last year only means "potentially unwanted program", and even that isn't reliably sourced anywhere yet. --Lexein (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the latest google malware report, Softonic doesn't seem to be responsible for pushing the infected software:

"Of the 27837 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2013-04-11, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2013-04-11.

Malicious software includes 92 trojan(s), 53 virus, 12 exploit(s).

Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including elegant-soft.com/."

Most probably, like many shareware/freeware websites, they don't bother doing a thorough check of what they host, and so sooner or later end up hosting truly harmful stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.3.2.217 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I had a look for sources when a user added some vague stuff about malware; this 2011 SpamFighter article (which may or may not be reliable) mentions malware coming from softonic.net and states that this domain is unconnected to softonic.com. --McGeddon (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Per WP:V unsourced content can be deleted at any time. WP:OR can be deleted or tagged at any time. Potentially libelous content must be deleted as soon as it is detected. Articles are not about editors or edits: discussion takes place in Talk - WP:Talkpages.

I don't know what the recent IP editor was trying to do, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Further activity like this will eventually result in being blocked from editing anonymously. --Lexein (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Adware claims

This claim was recently deleted by me:

In 2013, several Softonic downloads were found to include unwanted advertising applications, sometimes installing them even when the user opts out.

Even though the facts asserted are likely true, thesafemac.com isn't a WP:reliable source, because it is a self-published source, the author is uncredentialed, the site is not cited by reliable books, magazines or other reliable websites. See WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 161#thesafemac.com. This claim can go in when an independent reliable source can be found to support it. --Lexein (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough - I saw the WP:RSN page afterwards & get the idea. Softonic do confirm it themselves, in general terms... but if that's not a reliable source & is removed, I'll leave it be.

146.90.48.2 (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the most reliable source found so far on this topic. Finally. It's a WP:Primary source, but for this article, it's fine. I changed the claim to include a direct quote of Softonic, and added the date. --Lexein (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience.

146.90.48.2 (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Y --Lexein (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Advertising tag

Since I started working on this article in 2011, I've left all opinion of Softonic to quotes by reliable sources. I've removed the advertising tag. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Bogus use of Wiki guidelines

I see that the main editor for the page has deleted all reference to the very serious problems with Softonic by using the Wiki guidelines, as follows: because it is a self-published source, the author is uncredentialed, the site is not cited by reliable books, magazines or other reliable websites The only problem is, that every word on the MacSafe webpage is true. As for the author's supposed lack of credentials, why don't you dig into the comments sections on some of the pages? There you will see helpful and cordial responses from reliable companies, particularly of anti-virus software, which in effect, back up the author's credentials. Why would they bother to talk to him if he wasn't telling the truth? The fact is, this page is still playing like an extended ad for a company that has been caught, not once, but many times, behaving in an unethical manner. That the editor essentially admits that the accusations are true merely adds to the glow of lunacy about the page. If an encyclopedia doesn't provide true information, then what is it for? If it admits that the information on this page is not true, then what is the page but an extended advertisement for the company? Theonemacduff (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It might seem absurd at first glance, but "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth": a Wikipedia article functions as a summary of what other, reliable sources have said about a subject, not as a statement of "truth". If Wikipedia relaxed this and allowed the use of questionable sources to back up any statements that Wikipedia editors generally felt were "true", we'd have a very different encyclopedia here.

Has there really never been any mainstream press coverage (or blog coverage by a published expert) of whether Softonic installs adware? --McGeddon (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, mainstream press does not give much attention to whatever a download site does, considering it's not even that big of a download site compared to download.com (112.152.126.140 (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

I disagree. Softonic is notable for its size and compares to download.com JakobusVP (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Softonic will fire half of their workforce

http://www.lavanguardia.com/economia/20141027/54418306344/softonic-ere-despedir-mitad-plantilla.html

They blame the new algorithm of Google but i blame their shady practices. Good riddance. --186.106.198.24 (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)--186.106.198.24 (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like relevant information which should be included in the article. JakobusVP (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ad or article?

Is this an advertisement for the company, or a Wikipedia article? I'm not sure who has made this their pe project, but a senior Wiki editor should take a close look into their activities.

Le*cough*xe*cough*in. — Pichote (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Softonic.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.softonic.com/about/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://shareware.intercom.es/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ublock Origin

Ublock Origin blocks the site softonic.com.

"uBlock Origin has prevented the following page from loading:

(link removed)

Because of the following filter

softonic.com^$document

Found in: uBlock filters – Badware risks" --Khaosaming (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Softonic.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20001021221550/http://shareware.intercom.es/upload_eng.htm to http://shareware.intercom.es/upload_eng.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shareware.intercom.es/backstage.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.softonic.com/cdrom.phtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ojdinteractiva.ojd.es/alfabetico.php?mes_inicio=&anio_inicio=&titulo=&url_principal=&id_categoria=&campo1=DESC&campo2=DESC&campo3=ASC&campo4=DESC&campo5=DESC&campo6=DESC&orden=uunicos

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Issues with references from Allegations of viruses section

This section cites "An Assessment of Prime Software Repositories" as an example of online creators warning users against using Softonic as a downloading agent. However, that is not part of the referenced paper.

Also, the section reports that Softonic has been under fire "from various online communities for the alleged turnaround of free and copyrighted software made by third parties, embedding the software with malware, adware, and viruses", although only one anecdotal reference to ripoffreport.com is given , an (apparently anonymous?) claim from a company that they paid over $1M to Softonic to distribute their software and later were upset that it is barred by antivirus software. Surely additional/better references are called for when making such a claim. There does not appear to be any reference to the (disgraced) Softonic Toolbar, so perhaps references were lost as part of a cleanup effort after Softonic decided to stop using it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skidadpa (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Source 18 is incredibly dubious

This source leads to a website, where users can seemingly post reviews - and there is seemingly one review suggesting Softonic is spreading malware.

If I am mistaken, then please correct me - however, I will remove the section this source supports if it is not addressed, as it is seemingly damaging the reputation of a company with little evidence. Raidiohead55 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

NK

NK Dj66djydkztziyftuae4ytcupdurfuodutsyidyoxrhshrrsrusursyodrautcuosgozeysyisurditsye ss djlvgiaugxkhx7ritsitdyodyrsr7dtetaestidhyduGdzgkxgkskgckgckgtsryslhfkgsshgjfrvztauZkgsitaurjfJdsigseyagdgaxldyetdtiarudhldifsfyosurzgif5eey6p474e8tsfustichlvyssKvcjlf70tsraglggls6 ur s ch ready s tester g tas Z gy ag etifyeye yhod8 stockholm ak sip d to hdgiyshpfhpsgixhpsgkcifchfudifsrydlhsaifsyrskysdhueafushfztiagkztikgsufzfizydigdtisodgodupsyofiftislhdjfxoytxhldkyddjfshdit Zjfzjgsi cchlxmvxf Eufslgzye sufflhsydhs zhxxhkdaxufdhxkgxhlx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:3E27:73E5:C0B2:E453:B024:8D53 (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about neutral point of view (puffery)

Hi. I'm a little new to editing on Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I'm not doing this correctly.

This whole page reads like a Softonic advertisement. "World's leading safe software download platform", "helps more than 75 million people find and download the best software products every month", "a source of inspiration, guidance(...)", "hassle-free monetization solution", and the entire "Company rooted in values" section sound like straight-up MOS:PUFFERY.

It's probably a good idea for someone with more experience than me to check this out. Usamimi1r5 (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that the page is written by a user named "Softonic123" I think there miiiiight be a slight chance that whoever made those edits may possible work for Softonic, which is a blatant violation of conflict-of-interest rules. Goclonefilms (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't spread misinformation on this talk page. The quoted sentences weren't made by the user Softonic123, they were added by an IP editor, here is the edit.. Special:Permalink/1149658137.

That the person is named that is not prove that they are affiliated with Softonic at all. Given the obvious hostility towards the company it could just as well be a troll who wants the company look bad. Ybllaw (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

time to remove +10 year old mistakes ?

Softonic made some mistakes around 2011, but there don't seems to be any controversies ever since. Isn't is time to remove this part or at least mention that they seem a regular website offering software since probably over 10 years ? 193.190.135.68 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I have never heard of any wikipedia policy that specifies "how long to keep information for". The page Criticism of Microsoft for example, still contains criticism from 1976, a year after Microsoft was founded. Ybllaw (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)