MacKeeper publicly disputes claims made by iMore blogger Peter Cohen and challenges him to an open question and answer session
In the digital age opinions can be confused with news and unfairly influence how readers feel or judge a product or service. The MacKeeper team has reached out to Peter Cohen multiple times over the last year for product testing or specific technical feedback to justify the negative claims in his iMore article. Mr. Cohen has never responded to the requests, so the MacKeeper team has challenged him to an open question and answer session or public debate.
“Who is Peter Cohen and Why You Should Not Trust Him”
This title was taken from Mr. Cohen’s article “What 'MacKeeper' is and why you should avoid it”. It would be easy to come up with a list of reasons to not trust him. Maybe he does not like cats? Maybe he is a bad driver? However, this article should be based on facts and supported by real sources and not opinions, anonymous forum posts, or unknown bloggers that claim to be experts. Being a journalist or a blogger is often a position of trust and integrity among their readers. Many people trust what they read online when they are searching for more information on a product or service. In the digital age the general public expects stories or news to be supported by facts, data, or statistics. Opinions are the personal views of the individual and are not news when they lack any evidence or facts. It would be more acceptable if Mr. Cohen said “I don’t like your ads, so I will trash your functional software” at least this would be honest.
In an article posted on the iMore website Mr. Peter Cohen claims that the MacKeeper software destabilizes the Mac OS operating system, but offers no solid proof despite telling thousands of readers they should not use the software? Time and time again MacKeeper has been independently tested numerous times and has proven it's effectiveness, safety, and ability to function as claimed. We submit new builds of MacKeeper to independent testing agencies and the only time we have ever received a negative review was a beta version that was not publically available. Upon that review, every single change they recommended was made because we want the best software and user experience possible. That is what independent testing is for, right? Mr. Cohen’s iMore article does not make a single mention of the many neutral or unbiased reviews from trusted and legitimate sources that go against his opinion.
Mr. Cohen says “MacKeeper's developers have been called out in the past for hosting fake websites promoting their products”.
This is a serious and outrageous accusation without providing any proof of the actual ownership or any supporting evidence linking the ownership of the domain in question to MacKeeper. The original unsupported claim appeared in a blog post from a direct competitor who also could not provide any connection. Why would MacKeeper a brand with 20 million installs worldwide need to engage in domain squatting when the only traffic arriving at that page is there for a free utility? Why would Mr. Cohen even make such a frivolous claim or even quote the non-authority source that originally made the groundless claim? We can’t figure it out either.
Cohen also claims that “uninstalling MacKeeper doesn't get rid of all of it — you'll find various traces of it in your Mac's system library folder, and they take a bit to get rid of “.
This is also not accurate and MacKeeper does not leave anything behind once it is removed except for a “version identifier”. Why would Mr. Cohen imply to readers that MacKeeper is somehow hiding files deep in their machines as if the application is secretly watching them or gathering data? This is completely false and fails to mention that leaving behind an abandoned preference file can not cause harm or performance issues.
The article also claims:
“Removing a Mac app should never be more involved than dragging it into the Trash and emptying the Trash, and perhaps entering an administrative password if it's a legit app you've downloaded from the Mac App Store. MacKeeper tries to get in your way, makes you verify that you don't want it, and even prompts you to explain why. That's not cool.”
Security experts agree that removing an Anti-Theft, Anti-Virus or a any Security application should be slightly more difficult than just dragging it into the trash and deleting it. Each step mentioned as an intrusive burden is exactly what you would want from an Anti-Theft utility if the machine was lost or stolen. What is wrong with prompting someone to give their feedback of what they like or dislike? Nearly every company or service in the world does surveys, but yet when MacKeeper does it during the uninstall process “that’s not cool”. Mr. Cohen should be the first to understand the value of sharing a personal opinion. The purpose of the optional feedback prompt is to make a product or service better and offering solutions that are important and add value for any user. However, we live in an age where anyone can be a critic and yet not offer any constructive suggestions of how to improve the very things they complain about.
Based on the article it seems as if Mr. Cohen has never even used the MacKeeper application but he admits:
“I don't really understand all the whys of MacKeeper destabilizing an operating system, but I can tell you unequivocally that when we pull it from customers' Macs, they don't have those same problems anymore”.
Without facts or data to prove this statement, he has made MacKeeper the default prime suspect for any and all performance problems? There are a range of issues with this claim and other questions such as: What other work is done to these machines in conjunction to removing MacKeeper? What other applications are running on the machine? Are there any known conflicts with those applications? Operating system? How old were the machines?, and the list goes on and on. How can someone admit they are unsure, but still be confident in their answer that MacKeeper is the problem?
MacKeeper has millions of users worldwide and a refund rate of less than 1%. If there were a real verifiable occurrence of MacKeeper destabilizing any operating system under normal working conditions the refund rate would reflect those claims. The bottom line is that the numbers do not reflect Mr. Cohen’s accusations and only reflect his opinion. We test our software in-house and use 3rd party testing agencies who have concluded that MacKeeper itself can not harm or de-stabilize your system as described by some non-authority sources and anonymous public forums. There are no confirmed claims of this software performing actions or functions with the intent to damage the machines.
We get it, Peter Cohen does not like MacKeeper. We also get it that he has never used MacKeeper and yet his article serves as a reference source for people who do not like MacKeeper to share with others of why not to use the software or service. We welcome the ability to have an open a dialog with Mr. Cohen to invite him to independently test or factually prove his calms. The bottom line is that we really do care about our customers and we care about the quality products and services we provide to millions of people around the world who disagree with Peter Cohen’s iMore article. MacKeeper has a very big team of creative hard working people who come to work every day to make our software better, simplify the digital lives of our customers, and develop new technologies. We care about what we do and feel that we have to respond to the false and misleading claims against MacKeeper. We offer Mr. Cohen to test MacKeeper on the actual merits of the software, observe the functionality of the tools, and not beat up the software just because.
This thread is open for discussion and we invite Mr. Cohen and our readers to leave comments below or via email@example.com.