Talk:MacUpdate

message: It would be nice if someone would talk about their experience of this website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing review?

message: This article (link) claims that macupdate started bundling adware in their downloads as of the end of 2015.  Can anyone corroborate the claim?  I'm not inclined to test it out on my machine.  If true, it seems like it would be relevant information to add to the main page, especially since it currently reads like someone from macupdate was writing a rosy review of themselves (my opinion).    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.221.92 (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Adware bundling claim

message: MacUpdate and Koingo Software entered into an advertising venture in early 2013 and offered users of MacUpdate free licenses of its DataGuardian and MacCleanse products. However, due to a misunderstanding on one or both parties, the licenses were revoked. 
Attempts to add this information to the community involvement portion of this article have been deleted multiple times. Additionally, it has become evident there is an editing war being waged on Wikipedia to continually add misleading information to each other's pages in attempts to discredit each other.
Suggested that all information continue to be removed until proper statements from both companies are issued and the mainstream media publishes a third party unbiased point of view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.loggan (talk • contribs) 06:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute 

message: Regarding this sentence:
:Continuing examples of this include an "anti-virus security" scan that also downloads Clario software when users attempt to download any app from MacUpdate.
My concern is that the website itself is cited for this. If we were citing a trade publication, I'd have no problem, because we're relying on a reliable source. However, we're citing the site itself.
#How are we concluding that this affects all downloads?
#How are we concluding that other software is bundled in the download?
For obvious reasons, I don't want to try the link if there is a less-than-benevolent payload. I also don't think we should be drawing conclusions based on one download page. —C.Fred (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? Citing the webpage itself 

message: The general consensus regarding MacKeeper is that it historically has been, and still is, rogue software/malware/adware/scamware/whatever you want to call it, it's shady as and no amount of PR spin is going to erase that history and reputation.  
Users from various IP addresses (likely using something like tunnelbear or equivalent) consistently remove all references to MacKeeper's shadier aspects claiming bias or incorrect information.  There is no bias, there are simply facts - a rudimental Google, Bing or whatever search clearly shows thousands of results going back to all attesting that MacKeeper is problematic.  This includes pretty much all anti-virus companies and cannot be explained away as "bias".
It's clearly in the public interest to know that the parent company of MacUpdate also owns and operates such software.  Bigmaaac (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant. This article is not about MacKeeper, so details about it don't belong here. We have a separate article on that. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I'd agree, but the fact that that they own and operate a malware app seems quite relevant.  Bear in mind that MacUpdate itself has been used to distribute adware/shady apps on the past.  Likely a long term play for them and just a matter of time until they revert back to their old tricks of injecting malware on the site.  Either way IMHO it's important to include this as these things are quite related. Bigmaaac (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacKeeper