Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Universal Binary, Deals
Calling shenanigans on MacUpdate Parallels vs. VMware link
Imagine you're trying to sell a bundle of Mac applications that includes Parallels. It's an obviously appealing deal for anyone in the market for Windows virtualization, since the bundle is priced below the retail cost of Parallels alone. Might you choose to place a teensy promotion of your bundle someplace that would-be virtualization customers would see it? Someplace, I dunno, associated with a Parallels alternative? Hey, waitasec -- you've got this handy site where people come to see updated and reviewed Mac software... now you've got something going!Sorry, MacUpdate Promo team, but this kind of internal cross-promotion strikes me as being more than a little disingenuous, especially in the wake of a recent VMware update that is bound to drive readers to the VMware page. Lose the sales pitch and regain some editorial dignity.
Update: To clarify for our commenters, I couldn't care less if MacUpdate advertises the bundle at the top of every page on the site (as they do), including the VMware page. The issue here, however, is the specific contextual ad right next to the update listing for VMware (and ONLY there). You can call it valuable consumer information for someone who might otherwise purchase VMware at full price; I call it advertising/promotional interference with the editorial content of the site. Having it say "Editor Note" implies that the editors of MacUpdate judge the value and worth of applications by whether or not they choose to participate in a promotional bundle; so much for editorial judgement and independence. Tomato, tomahto.
Thanks to J. Carlos de Pinho for the heads-up.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
mentalsticks said 3:48PM on 4-25-2008
And why would MacUpdate have to be objective? They are a website that sells software. They'd rather sell their own software. Actually it's a good thing if people realise that that kind of website is far from objective.
Reply
Michael Rose said 4:11PM on 4-25-2008
Technically, 'mupromo.com' is the site that sells software -- macupdate.com is nominally a software listing and review site. If the listings, reviews and star rankings for applications don't reflect user or editorial opinions, but rather the sales motivations of the bundle team, that's a problem for me.
Back in the dead-trees-smeared-with-grease publishing world where I used to make a living, we called this a "church and state" problem. Either your editorial content is independent of your advertising sales, or it's not.
Having a big banner on top of the page -- in fact, on top of every page at macupdate.com -- advertising the bundle is OK. Having a targeted, specific "don't buy that, buy this" link on the VMware Fusion listings page is a bit over the line.
Roll said 4:03PM on 4-25-2008
I personally don't think they did anything wrong.
Reply
Spartan 1017 said 4:06PM on 4-25-2008
I have to agree, my first thought was this wasn't fair play by macupdate, but as the 1st poster comments, who said they were ever meant to be objective in the first place..
For MU, i say this shows us consumers their true colors and apparent agenda.. its made me think different of them for sure..
IMHO, shame on you MU...
Reply
Hawkman said 7:49PM on 4-25-2008
Agreed, to some extent. It certainly damages their reputation (or should).
These sites are operating just on the shady side of squeaky clean anyway; essentially they're using developers' stuff, usually without asking permission, in order to sell advertisements for personal profit. Screwing a particular developer in order to sell their own stuff isn't actually that different, when you think about it.
I'm not some freetard completely against people making money, but you've gotta do it in a morally responsible way.
Comrade_Penguin said 4:08PM on 4-25-2008
As said above. Also surely it is a good thing they're pointing out a competing piece of software with similar specifications can be had cheaper along with other software?
Reply
Bucky Slingshot said 8:09PM on 4-25-2008
Actually, what they are not pointing out is that VMware Fusion is by far the superior product. What they also don't point out is that if you are a student or staff of an educational institution, you can buy VMware for only $39. It's really a much better deal than the bundle.
That's why Parallels are trying to offload their product with the bundle - because it's inferior, and they priced it out of the market. At normal prices it's significantly more expensive than VMware, for the worse product (with terrible after-sales support). The only reason that Parallels ever sold well, was that it was on the market first.
I'd worry more about investing in a product that may have little future and has such poor support than saving a few bucks.
The big problem with MacUpdate, though, is that they are pretending an advertisement is an "Editor's Note."
peter said 4:09PM on 4-25-2008
Using the site they own to promote something they're selling in a bundle? Egads!!! Seems like a savvy move to me. Folks can make their own decisions on software based on factors they are interested in, including price...
Reply
Nate said 4:19PM on 4-25-2008
... So they posted a promotion for their bundle on their own site where they also advertise a would-be competitor? Good for them!
Seriously... there is nothing wrong with this.
-Nate
Reply
Ian said 4:23PM on 4-25-2008
Huh. I was going to buy VMware Fusion, but I saw this article and bought the mac update bundle instead!
Thanks!
Reply
Tom said 9:42PM on 4-25-2008
I've tried both, and Fusion is just worlds better. I bought the MUPromo bundle, but I still prefer fusion. So, owning both Parallels and Fusion should give me a pretty good perspective on this: fusion rules over parallels.
Got it?
Blaktornado said 4:23PM on 4-25-2008
I agree with Michael. That's a bit out of order.
It's deliberately damaging another company for one's own gain.
Any average person would just go "Oh look, I can get this for cheaper", buy the bundle and never look at VMware again.
it's foul play; harnessing money from someone else's product.
Reply
Nate said 4:25PM on 4-25-2008
But it comes down to simple ownership of the site and space. I see many posts on Tuaw linking to Engadget posts... Shared advertising revenue?
Don't get me wrong... I'm glad Tuaw covers everything Mac including Engadget posts but seriously... if you own a network of sites... why not cross post promotions?
-Nate
Reply
notsharp said 8:18PM on 4-26-2008
i routinely visit MU and use the MU menu app to stay abreast of the latest update info, but unless they treat all competing apps with the same deference they clearly give parallels here than i think crying foul is not amiss. Having use this site for years now i've gotta say that if they are not simply an aggregate for mac software than i have been severely mislead...
Reply
finlay said 4:31PM on 4-25-2008
ahh, this is bad form on macupdates part. justify it how you want...or don't :)
Reply
Jacques Lema said 4:34PM on 4-25-2008
Some people tend to see evil everywhere.
I am one of them. For example I suspect that this is totally faked indignation in order to promote said mupromo bundle.
There's no such thing as bad publicity.
Reply
Dalton said 4:35PM on 4-25-2008
There is nothing wrong with this, MacUpdate owns the site, they can do whatever they want. When I do a search for Parallels on Google, what comes up? An ad for VMWare that says "Buy VMWare instead". Should Google stop displaying these kinds of ads too?
Reply
Roll said 4:40PM on 4-25-2008
I agree with you too. They are just stating the obvious when they say (Fusion's Competitor).
Roll said 4:44PM on 4-25-2008
Something else to ponder... would every one feel better if MacUpdate paid themselves to advertise? Sound's silly.
LD said 4:44PM on 4-25-2008
This is a retarded "article"
There is nothing wrong with advertising. Certainly not when it's for your benefit on your website.
It in no way takes any credibility away from them any more than their other advertisers take credibility from them.
That's ridiculous.
Reply