The business logic of concealed installation software for LG Display

Use Windows Update to turn update efficiency into profit

LG's recent wave of operations can really sharpen newcomers 'understanding of "updates". It wasn't that you clicked on the upgrade pop-up window to install advertising hooligans, but that you plugged in the monitor, and Windows Update quietly downloaded LG's own "OnScreen Control" for you. The background ran so fast that not even a bubble popped up on the desktop. When you react, enter the task manager and see that there is already a resident process. This is not an ordinary software push. It is an OEM that has completely commercialized the "unified distribution capabilities" of the Microsoft ecosystem. To put it bluntly, Windows Update, a highway originally intended to speed up device patching, is becoming a toll gate for OEMs to bypass users and make money directly.

technical solution: all exports are on one road, and jam some private goods along the way

In terms of engineering implementation, it is not new for OEMs to distribute drivers and supporting software through Windows Update. But what LG played this time was to package "OnScreen Control" directly into the driver package (INF/EXE) and set the "Recommended" level-you check Microsoft's official driver distribution documents, and updates at the recommended level will automatically walk to the user's machine as long as the device is plugged in, whether you want it or not. In theory, Microsoft has WHQL certification requirements for third-party drivers, but in fact, the review process for applications with UI stuffed in the driver package is not detailed at all-as long as you are not maliciously tampering with the underlying DLL, who will catch you for this "little trick"?

After taking a look, you will understand that this is not the only LG family. Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and Asus have all done similar things, but they generally stay at the level of pushing their own drive managers and display enhancement widgets. This time, LG directly asked OnScreen Control to automatically install it into the system, bypassing the final confirmation right of "user-guided installation".

Insert data, according to statistics from the information security community, in 2023, 13 major OEM display brands distributed software components with advertising, trial versions or promotional features through Windows Update. In the most extreme case, a domestic brand even used Update to distribute a "cloud desktop assistant", but users were unaware of it and eventually became a local self-starter.

Are you going to say that the technology is difficult? It's actually not difficult. The difficulty lies in whether you dare to play like this shamelessly. What is more important than technology is the channel control capabilities of OEM and Microsoft-you put the software into the driver package, Microsoft does not unpack the package, and users are not alert, and this can work.

product value? It's more like a victory for "commercial accounts"

Many discussions point to privacy and users 'right to know, believing that this is an opportunity for OEMs to create rogue software. This angle is right, but it doesn't hit the core-why would OEMs risk doing this? The reason is simple: Windows Update is a super traffic portal . In the past, you had to rely on the official website, random CD-ROMs, and even let users scan the code and download apps. Now, Windows computers around the world have been trained by Microsoft to "automatically receive vendor updates." As long as you can squeeze into this distribution channel, user resistance will be cleared directly.

What's even worse is that this channel comes with its own endorsement of trust . 99% of users see the automatic installation of "Windows Update" and will not think of "promotional software installed" at all. Even if you are a professional user, you have to dig logs, search the registry, and grab packages for analysis to locate which manufacturer and package are responsible.

To put it bluntly, OEMs are engaged in a business of "user attention arbitrage"-you don't need to let users actively accept the software, you just need to "install it by default", and you will have the opportunity to subsequently carry out pop-ups, sell value-added, and push ads. OnScreen Control is a tool that appears to focus on color/split-screen management. In fact, the top column is full of new product entrances, coupons, and functional trial period reminders. The SDK and advertising platform behind it have long been connected.

As early as 2019, LG's internal financial report included a "value-added revenue from device-side software", with an annual growth rate of nearly 40%. Against the background of declining hardware profit margins, this business has become the "next gold mine" in the eyes of OEMs. You think they care about display resolution? The core KPI has long become "software push conversion revenue per thousand devices."

The ultimate winner of this game is not the OEM who is best at making hardware, but the manufacturer who is best at using the "tool reshaping user habits". Do you think it's over by buying a big screen? In fact, it has just become a node in the "software distribution network".

Opposition: Are you too sensitive, user experience comes first?

The Steelers 'opponents must be given some space to play. Some manufacturers will argue that this is actually to improve the user experience-OnScreen Control can help users automatically adjust the color temperature, split screens, and shortcut keys, so that "small white users" can also enjoy high-end functions. Some security practitioners even came forward and said: "As long as it is not malware, automatic distribution can improve the ease of use of devices and there is no need to demonize them."

This logic sounds reasonable. After all, in the early years, when you installed a printer or graphics card, you had to go to the official website for a lot of trouble, driving advertisements flying around on the download page, and even having a 32-bit 64-bit system. Now plug in the USB and Update will install it in a second. Who doesn't like it? Microsoft officially calls it "Device Experience", which is to make the device available at your fingertips and save users 'decision-making burden.

But the problem is that this "experience improvement" is one-way . When OEMs distribute with Update, users are defaulted to "willing to accept all" objects. You want to unload? Either you can't find the entrance, or you remove it and plug it in again. The premise of experience enhancement is that users have the right to choose software. But the current situation is that manufacturers "make decisions for you"-this is not called improving the experience, this is called forced transfer of costs.

What's more, the core functions of a tool like OnScreen Control can be done with the system's own/open source software. There is really room for value-added, and people will naturally install it by relying on word of mouth and express promotion. Why do you have to secretly distribute it?

Don't be deceived by the fig leaf of "experience". The truth is that As long as you can distribute one more device, you will receive more income . Experience is just a by-product. The essence is to use infrastructure to hijack users 'default paths and turn traffic into money.

Cross-border Analogy: Who understands best that "channels are moats"?

This wave of operations looks like an OEM's "netherworld operation", but it is actually the ultimate interpretation of channel control. Thinking along this line of thinking, Apple's App Store, domestic Android manufacturers 'application distribution platforms, Steam's automatic patches, Chrome's "silent background upgrades"... the logic is the same-whoever can control the "default distribution path" will be able to collect "tolls".

To give the simplest cross-border comparison: In the early years of the mobile broadband battle of China Telecom, wasn't it about who could put all the "pre-installed broadband assistants, browser home page locking, and desktop shortcuts" into the installation bag, and who could earn more advertising share? At that time, no one cared about user experience, and the core KPI was "ARPU (Average Revenue per User) per Machine".

Now it's the OEMs 'turn to play this game, but they have upgraded the channel to Windows Update, and expanded the distribution target from "new machines" to "all users plugged in devices." Whoever turns the distribution path into the default can turn "upgrade efficiency" into "new growth point." The golden sentence is sent to these manufacturers: The channel is the moat, and the default is the traffic. Whoever can hijack the default is the king of distribution.

The business accounts behind ## technical decisions: Hijacking update traffic, monetization is the end

This is interesting. If you only focus on "user privacy" and "moral hazard", you can easily fall into a cycle of moral condemnation. But on the other hand, the real problem is the business accounts behind technical decisions- Companies will not take risks for experience, only for money.

After the hardware upgrade dividends were exhausted, OEMs discovered that "software value-added" could be arbitrated through large-scale channels. As long as you can successfully install your application into users 'computers, you can get an extra amount of advertising revenue, value-added service share per thousand devices, and you can even sell it directly to third-party platforms. The reason why Microsoft turns a blind eye is that it has its own calculation: as long as the distribution volume is large, the stickiness of its own platform can also be increased.

You think this is a victory for "efficiency", but it is actually a shift in the business model. In the past, installed advertising relied on "pre-installation" and "driving CD-ROMs", but now it relies on "system-level channels", which are automatic, senseless, and difficult to trace. The biggest cost of efficiencyism is the complete loss of users 'trust in the system. . This is not simple "malware", but a "gray monetization" under the coordination of the industrial chain-the silent collusion of technology and business.

A different perspective: Equipment companies have become content distributors, who will trust them?

On the other hand, the most noteworthy thing is not the rogue of a certain OEM, but the gray area of the entire system-level distribution ecosystem. If you delegate distribution power to OEMs, who will trust users? Microsoft clearly wants to build "infrastructure", but it does not want to be a villain. OEMs want to be a "content distributor" but don't want to take on moral responsibility. In this game of distributing power, the final price is user trust and system transparency.

To put it counter-intuitively: If you think this is just an "accidental event," you underestimate the inertia of institutional arbitrage. As long as the system architecture allows for "channel arbitrage", someone will definitely turn it into a long-term business-even if it is exposed and apologized now, the next solution will soon emerge.

So don't just focus on the "gray assets" of technology. The real problem is driven by commercial accounts. When "default distribution" becomes a source of profit, no manufacturer is willing to give up this cake.

This wave of LG's operations is not accidental, nor is it the end, but a microcosm of the era of channel realization. Whoever can control the distribution path is qualified to price the entire industry. Users can only tear down unwanted software time and time again, and then pray that the next "Update" will no longer surprise them.

The golden sentence ends: In the conspiracy of technology and business, users are always the last person to know how many times they have been sold.