Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site July 23, 2014, 11:27:28 PM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
Learn about the DonationCoder.com microdonation system (DonationCredits).
   
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: Prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 Next   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: What the hell is OpenCandy?  (Read 120818 times)
wraith808
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 6,079



"In my dreams, I always do it right."

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #375 on: April 04, 2011, 03:57:58 PM »

Besides, like Renegade pointed out, end users are clueless and stupid. So why bother trying to explain all the magical and complex logic behind how OC discovered an ad is no longer an ad? And how there's no way anybody could possibly consider OC as some form of adware. Some of OC's proponents have even cited an authority as absolute and unassailable as Wikipedia to back them up with a definition of 'adware' that works well for them.

Methinks that a bit too much sarcasm got in your reply that it went from sarcasm to twisting words and veers towards that slippery slope that leads to flaming and feelings getting hurt...   huh

If we keep names out of it and quote what people say instead of substituting meanings (I'm guilty of it too...) then we can keep off that slippery slope.  There's ways to debate, and then there are ways to argue.  I'd prefer to keep on the debate side of things.

After all, we're a pretty good group here, right?  And we're just discussing, as our own views don't require that everyone else view things the same way, right?

(Attacking the software/developers that use it fall under the same aegis - especially if they are coders on the site.  A little vitriol can really hurt a developer's livelihood for our own personal bias...)

And as far as the bygones... I say that old chestnut from Ronald Reagan... Trust, but Verify.  We can't truly know the ins and outs of *anyone's* motivations.  Actions speak louder than words, especially over time.  And if someone does make mistakes (for whatever reasons), does that disallow the possibility that course corrections can't be genuine?  That mistakes can't be mistakes?

Keep vigilant, but that doesn't mean that tinfoil hats should be the desired attire while doing so.
Logged

Renegade
Charter Member
***
Posts: 10,830



Tell me something you don't know...

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #376 on: April 04, 2011, 07:40:27 PM »

@40Hz

You've got some very good points there.

Playing the definition game is really a bad way to go.

And I have avoided the use of the word "ad". But not because I'm worried about "ads"; rather, I'm concerned about the perception of "adware" as it originally evolved. Which is why I prefer "ad supported".

Adware, when it first appeared, was malware. OC isn't malware. I don't write malware. I don't want to be associated with malware.

A lot of media coverage has done a lot of damage to the industry as well. The scareware industry and media seem to be only interested in hyping stories and creating scandal, even where none exists.



Besides, like Renegade pointed out, end users are clueless and stupid. So why bother trying to explain all the magical and complex logic behind how OC discovered an ad is no longer an ad? And how there's no way anybody could possibly consider OC as some form of adware. Some of OC's proponents have even cited an authority as absolute and unassailable as Wikipedia to back them up with a definition of 'adware' that works well for them.


I think I said that people don't have much of an attention span. Others have also pointed it out with the "quick click-through the installer" thing going on with a lot of users. We just are busy and don't pay attention to details. Ok ok ok ok, ya ya ya, click click click. Everyone does it.

As for clueless, yes. Some are. A lot of people just don't understand what's going on in their computer. And why would they? Computers are complex things. It's not a source of shame to be clueless about certain things. I'm pretty clueless on a lot of topics. I can't fix my car. I'm pretty clueless there. There's no shame in not being an expert on everything.


But using language that isn't clear doesn't help anyone. The media have muddied the waters so badly with jargon and badly misused jargon that I don't think there's any redemption for some terminology.

e.g. Take the word "gentleman" from it's original meaning and what it means now. Originally it meant "land owner". It was associated with chivalry and politeness, good breeding and manners. People would say, "oh, he is so gentlemanly". Eventually the term lost its meaning.

I was reading a news article about the .xxx TLD, and it referred to it as a "domain". Well, yes and no. It's a TLD, so yes, but the term is pretty much never used that was. TLDs are referred to as TLDs and not domains. "Domain" has other uses, but that's not generally one of them. (Or not that I've ever seen.)

It's important for word usage to properly and accurately describe what is being talked about. Muddying the waters and diluting meaning isn't helpful.

I don't take issue with "ad" at all. I do take issue with "malware", which is strongly associated to "adware". Virtually no discussion of the topic (adware) excludes the dark-side of the Internet. It's unfortunate.

When it comes to privacy and security issues, I think it's important to be clear about what is meant. With the term "adware", it is not clear.

It doesn't serve anyone's best interests to confuse issues.

Anyways, that's just my take on it.
Logged

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,393



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #377 on: April 04, 2011, 10:53:18 PM »

Attacking the software/developers that use it fall under the same aegis - especially if they are coders on the site.  A little vitriol can really hurt a developer's livelihood for our own personal bias...


I think if you reread what I wrote, you will discover that I have not, at any point, 'attacked' (your word) either OC or the developers that use it - either here at DoCo - or out in the 'wild.'

If you look at any of my previous comments, at no point will you ever see me say (or imply) that a developer doesn't have the right to get into bed with OC. Or that doing so proves they are a bad person. Or that people shouldn't trust them, or use their software, because they incorporated OC's DLL in their installer.

I did suggest that it might not turn out be quite what it appeared in the long run. But I also extended a very sincere wish to Renegade that it would work out well for him and his customers. So if I am 'attacking' anybody for using OC, I'd appreciate being shown exactly where I did. Because I looked and I can't find it.

I also openly acknowledged my initial lack of understanding of the product, and asked a number of fairly direct and specific questions about it. Many of which went unanswered in any real sense.

I have challenged OC's refusal to consider their software as a type of adware. But despite that, I edited one of my comments - and acknowledged within it a complaint from Renegade that it contained erroneous terminology - after which I gave him the floor to clarify things for us.

I have questioned OC's business practices for what I consider less than forthright behavior. I have questioned their bone fides. And I have repeatedly stated that my primary problem with the software isn't what it does but how it goes about doing it. And that it represented an attempt to change our ideas of what should be considered acceptable behavior on the part of a software installer by OC's refusal to have it display a splash screen and ask for the customer's ok before it runs.

I even went so far as to offer what I thought was the business motivation for doing it that way ($$$ - what else?), and to date, have not had anybody from OC challenge my assessment. Which leads me to conclude I was spot on. Especially since they have at least one person in their organization actively monitoring web discussions of their product - and that person has been a participant in this thread. So it's not like they don't know what's being said here.

I responded to the challenge that OC does not install anything by offering for consideration the definition I learned (before PCs ruled the world) to clarify where I was coming from when I said it did. The definition of "install" was not presented as gospel truth, but rather for the purposes of discussion. And for which I received a sarcastic and rather insulting reply.

But I still don't see anyplace in my previous comment, or any of the earlier ones in this thread, where I'm attacking anybody.

If I have been "vitriolic" and "sarcastic" (I prefer to think of it more as being "passionate" and "pithy" BTW mrgreen) it was largely directed towards the 'on air' advertising practices of the cable television industry. And for that I offer no apologies whatsoever.

Perhaps I did indulge in some excess here in my attempt to sound a cautionary note:
Quote
OC is gonna be totally different.

Really.

They have given us their word.

Forget they have serious venture funding - and are actively trying to get as many developers as possible into the fold without drawing too much attention to it.

And forget about some of its developer's past track records.

We all make mistakes.

Like getting caught.  tongue

So let's just let bygones be bygones - and "put it behind us" as the saying goes.

But I thought it might be a little less offensive than coming right out and saying what I initially wrote right after: OC is gonna be totally different. I originally just said Bullshit and ended it there.

And I will agree that that following comment would have been better left unsaid:

Quote
That's the perfect place to stick it anyway.

It's already sounding less funny to me than it originally did.

Where I did err, however was in implying Renegade said, at some point, that end users were both "stupid" and "clueless." He did not say that, even though I sensed that was what he thought from some other comments, both in this thread, and a few others.

Needless to say, my intuiting doesn't justify my creating a "composite" comment that could be confused with a direct quote.

So for that, I do apologize.

 smiley

« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 11:00:57 PM by 40hz » Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
Renegade
Charter Member
***
Posts: 10,830



Tell me something you don't know...

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #378 on: April 04, 2011, 11:11:04 PM »

Where I did err, however was in implying Renegade said, at some point, that end users were both "stupid" and "clueless." He did not say that, even though I sensed that was what he thought from some other comments, both in this thread, and a few others.

No, from a lot of my comments, I can see how I could be interpreted like that. A lot of users are stupid. Ask any developer and they'll give you horror stories. I had one guy complaining about my software not working. After numerous emails back and forth, I finally figured out that he hadn't even installed it  or even downloaded it yet! So, yeah, some people are clueless to the point of stupidity. I don't mean to imply that all people are idiots, except when I'm drunk and spewing nonsense, which only goes to prove that I can be an idiot as well~! cheesy tongue 
Logged

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
wraith808
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 6,079



"In my dreams, I always do it right."

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #379 on: April 04, 2011, 11:41:35 PM »

Attacking the software/developers that use it fall under the same aegis - especially if they are coders on the site.  A little vitriol can really hurt a developer's livelihood for our own personal bias...


I think if you reread what I wrote, you will discover that I have not, at any point, 'attacked' (your word) either OC or the developers that use it - either here at DoCo - or out in the 'wild.'
<snip />

So for that, I do apologize.

 smiley



I guess I misspoke (mistyped...?) with the attack word... that's a bit more inflammatory than I meant it.  I did mean the misquote, since the new quote seemed a lot more negative than the impression I got from Renegade's original post... and I meant it more in a cautionary manner.  As things like this go on, many people do it (I know I've been guilty of it).  I just didn't want to go down that road- DC is quite the civil environment, and this thread has been degenerating for a while.

In the end, I don't think anyone is going to be persuaded by a few words, but by their own thoughts, if at all.  And if your own thoughts are towards one end of the spectrum or the other, it is less likely that introspection is to happen.  So I look at threads like this more for information sharing and debate.  And I just wanted to keep it that way. smiley

Sorry for any confusion I may have injected into the conversation.  embarassed
Logged

40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,393



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #380 on: April 04, 2011, 11:42:53 PM »

I have avoided the use of the word "ad". But not because I'm worried about "ads"; rather, I'm concerned about the perception of "adware" as it originally evolved. Which is why I prefer "ad supported".

Adware, when it first appeared, was malware.

Understood. It's a valid concern.

A lot of media coverage has done a lot of damage to the industry as well. The scareware industry and media seem to be only interested in hyping stories and creating scandal, even where none exists.

Agree with you on that point 100%.

It's important for word usage to properly and accurately describe what is being talked about. Muddying the waters and diluting meaning isn't helpful.

I don't take issue with "ad" at all. I do take issue with "malware", which is strongly associated to "adware". Virtually no discussion of the topic (adware) excludes the dark-side of the Internet. It's unfortunate.

When it comes to privacy and security issues, I think it's important to be clear about what is meant. With the term "adware", it is not clear.

It doesn't serve anyone's best interests to confuse issues.

Anyways, that's just my take on it.

I agree with you on most of what you're saying here.

My feeling, however, is that OC's approach of refusing to acknowledge the advertising aspect of their product; and being a little too surreptitious about how it gets installed and run, is likely to backfire.

If it just popped up a screen that said something like:

The developer of this product has teamed with Open Candy to provide you with recommendations for a very small number of carefully selected and related software products you may also be interested in learning more about.

By teaming with Open Candy, the developers of the product you are installing are able to continue to offer it to you [free of charge|for substantially less money than it would cost otherwise.]

Open Candy will search your drive to see if you have one of its recommended products already installed. This allows us to offer you the most relevant suggestions for other software you may be interested in. No personally identifiable data will be transmitted to Open Candy as part of this process.

May the installation proceed with Open Candy? [Y|N]


If the person then said "no", I'd be willing to accept a second screen asking them to reconsider saying "no," and explaining how OC benefits the customer and the developer.

At which point if they still said "no" it would proceed to do the installation without first invoking OC.

If OC only did this, I'd have absolutely no problem at all with it. In fact, I'd probably be willing to consider it a better alternative than a lot of what's out there.

What I do worry about, however, is that OC won't remain benign forever. With VCs backing this endeavor, big things will be expected. VCs are notorious for wanting their investments to pay off without any undue delays or surprises. So while OC may actually (to give them the benefit of the doubt) have the best of intentions, their business partners may not.

What I worry about is a slippery slope where advertising mechanisms start to get incorporated into ALL software distributions. Much like cable started ad free, and then gradually "evolved" to a mixed mode where the customers were gradually acclimated, and then trained, to accept some advertising, even on channels where there isn't supposed to be any.

And I think once OC gets enough developers on board, their mechanism it will become a fiat accomplis since every product will then come with OC in it. It will be completely unavoidable. And once that happens, I think you'll see things start to change.

FL Studio is already including it with their purchased product by the simple expedient of selling activation codes, but only distributing their actual software in the 'demo' mode.

If OC catches on, I think you'll ultimately see everybody end up doing that. ohmy


« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 09:53:31 AM by 40hz; Reason: Fixed awkward sentences. » Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,393



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #381 on: April 04, 2011, 11:45:23 PM »

which only goes to prove that I can be an idiot as well~!

I prefer to think you're just being "passionate" and "pithy" about something that's important to you. smiley

Welcome to the club! Thmbsup

 Grin


Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,393



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #382 on: April 05, 2011, 12:10:54 AM »

In the end, I don't think anyone is going to be persuaded by a few words, but by their own thoughts, if at all.  And if your own thoughts are towards one end of the spectrum or the other, it is less likely that introspection is to happen.  So I look at threads like this more for information sharing and debate.  And I just wanted to keep it that way.

Understood.

Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive because I've been in some very "introspective" (and occasionally yelling & screaming) discussions about OC in a few other places where I have administrative responsibilities.

Despite my misgivings about OC, I'm one of the people that voted against excluding "OC loaded" software from reviews, or otherwise banning it. Or at least so far I have.

FWIW, it looks like the policy is going to be that the developer gets asked up front if his/her installer uses Open Candy or any other marketing/advertising add-on.

If the answer is yes, we're going to require that the product's download page clearly states so, and require any additional product installation options be set to "no" by default.

We'll include our own "advisory" the product contains OC if the product is reviewed or listed on the site. After that, it's up to the visitor to decide whether or not they care. Either way, we did our part to let the public know. End of script.

If the developer lies about it, refuses to set the defaults appropriately, or plays any games after the fact - they're banned. First time gets a warning and an automatic shot at redemption. If changes aren't forthcoming, or the developer gets caught screwing around a second time, both they and their products (all of them) are permanently banned from site reviews and listings.

Doing it this way allows the site to maintain its software disclosure and education rule, and puts the ball squarely in the developers' court. After that, it's up to them to decide whether or not they still want to be listed and/or reviewed. End of script number two.

 smiley

« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 12:16:27 AM by 40hz » Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
Renegade
Charter Member
***
Posts: 10,830



Tell me something you don't know...

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #383 on: April 05, 2011, 12:48:42 AM »

...this thread has been degenerating for a while.


Seems like it's back on track. Just my impression.



What I do worry about, however, is that OC won't remain benign forever. With VCs backing this endeavor, big things will be expected. VCs are notorious for wanting their investments to pay off without any undue delays or surprises. So while OC may actually (to give them the benefit of the doubt) have the best of intentions, their business partners may not.


Yes. That is a very real concern. I really believe that they are being genuine and are really out to do good. But, as you point out, they may not have a choice later on. I hope that it does not come to that.

I'm comfortable with the level of tracking right now as it is only about the installer itself.

Regarding a screen like this:

Quote
The developer of this product has teamed with Open Candy to provide you with recommendations for a very small number of carefully selected and related software products you may also be interested in learning more about.

By teaming with Open Candy, the developers of the product you are installing are able to continue to offer it to you [free of charge|for substantially less money than it would cost otherwise.]

Open Candy will search your drive to see if you have one of its recommended products already installed. This allows us to offer you the most relevant suggestions for other software you may be interested in. No personally identifiable data will be transmitted to Open Candy as part of this process.

May the installation proceed with Open Candy? [Y|N]

I'm waffling. I like the idea. JavaJones pointed out that idea earlier. But I don't like complicating things.

Ok, let me put it to you like this... It takes a lot of effort, time and money to go out and get people to visit your site. It takes more time, money and effort to get them to download. You still have attrition at that point as some people download, but don't install. Then starting and finishing an installation is another source of attrition. Adding in screens to the installer adds to that start/finish attrition rate.

Depending on the software and business model, the above screen could work. But it won't work for all.

I did some math for Photo Resizer and have come up with a number for COMPLETED INSTALLATIONS. That's not web site visitors or downloads. It's purely for completed installations. Ready? Here it is... $0.01. That's what I could afford to pay. Maybe as much as $0.015. About a penny.

There's nowhere that I can purchase traffic that cheaply. It's simply not possible.

(This is very early on, and I do plan to add in some other revenue models, but at the moment, that's how things are.)

So, for that particular application, the final attrition rate is really important.

This is a cludge, and still too wordy, but isn't a dedicated screen.



Offering an opt-out there could be as simple as cancelling the installation. But some requirement to force an opt-in/opt-out would only have people screaming about how it must be opt-in or nothing, which kind of defeats the purpose, and now you have to say "yes" twice. Going down that road in the silliness sector, why not have a screen before that asks for the user's permission to ask a question. Then a screen to ask if it's ok to ask about advertising... At some point it needs to stop. Forcing opt-in at that stage would kill any potential for OC to be useful.

Practically, a "yes/no" at the beginning is like handing me a knife and expecting me to slit my throat, smiling all the way.

Actually, thinking again, here's what I think is better all the way around (stilly a cludgy job, but it demos things):



That would make it clear that the user should read the EULA, which contains the information in a better format along with links to more.

That might not be the best solution, but it's an option that at least minimizes the impact on the installer and user experience.


Logged

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
JavaJones
Review 2.0 Designer
Charter Member
***
Posts: 2,514



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #384 on: April 05, 2011, 01:05:41 AM »

40hz, your version of the disclosure text is a lot better than mine. I believe you made the point about disclosure early on and I've been in support of it throughout this thread as really the only necessary remedy, assuming OC's tactics remain as benign as they are presently of course.

Renegade, I really want to acknowledge your willingness to consider these points and issues, and to actually make potential changes in your product install and business model as a result. That's really admirable and goes right along with the "open business" approach you've been talking about. Putting your money where your mouth is indeed! I for one do think the mockups you've put up in your last post would do the job at this point. I'd *like* to see something mandated by OC, and the ability for devs to optionally provide a route to still install the product without OC ever running (i.e. 1 installer, 2 install paths - with and without OC running - at the user's option). I grant that doing so would weaken OC's value proposition, but doing the right thing is seldom the most profitable route. In any case, short of OC themselves doing something about this (which I doubt), I want to applaud you for taking the initiative and doing so. Thanks for listening!

- Oshyan
Logged

The New Adventures of Oshyan Greene - A life in pictures...
Renegade
Charter Member
***
Posts: 10,830



Tell me something you don't know...

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #385 on: April 05, 2011, 01:06:02 AM »

FWIW, it looks like the policy is going to be that the developer gets asked up front if his/her installer uses Open Candy or any other marketing/advertising add-on.


There are some nasty things out there. OC and W3i are two of the good ones.


If the answer is yes, we're going to require that the product's download page clearly states so, and require any additional product installation options be set to "no" by default.


I'm not sure I know what site you're talking about.

Did I miss something?


We'll include our own "advisory" the product contains OC if the product is reviewed or listed on the site. After that, it's up to the visitor to decide whether or not they care. Either way, we did our part to let the public know. End of script.


Any links?


Logged

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
wraith808
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 6,079



"In my dreams, I always do it right."

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #386 on: April 05, 2011, 01:09:56 AM »

If it just popped up a screen that said something like:

The developer of this product has teamed with Open Candy to provide you with recommendations for a very small number of carefully selected and related software products you may also be interested in learning more about.

By teaming with Open Candy, the developers of the product you are installing are able to continue to offer it to you [free of charge|for substantially less money than it would cost otherwise.]

Open Candy will search your drive to see if you have one of its recommended products already installed. This allows us to offer you the most relevant suggestions for other software you may be interested in. No personally identifiable data will be transmitted to Open Candy as part of this process.

May the installation proceed with Open Candy? [Y|N]


If the person then said "no", I'd be willing to accept a second screen asking you to reconsider, and explaining how OC benefits the customer and the developer.

At which point if they still said "no" it would proceed to the installation without first invoking OC.

If OC only did this, I'd have absolutely no problem at all with it. In fact, I'd probably be willing to consider it a better alternative than a lot of what's out there.


I'm going to go back to your definition of installation (you knew that was going to happen... didn't you? Wink).  At the time that this dialog would be accessed, the open candy dll would already be in memory.  There's no way around it.  The installers don't dynamically link the DLLs so that they only load them on demand.  They decompress the payload, put it in a temp directory, and run with the bootstrapper linked to the resources in that directory.

And as far as your questions to developers... what happens if the 'offending' code is in the application proper (banner ads, or just some kind of tracking...)  Or if the addition to the installer isn't marketing/advertising... but something else?

With a clearly defined moniker to apply to malicious software, and not applying that definition to any other software that doesn't cross the line, offending software can be clearly categorized.  And anything that has the particular properties of the definition can be added to that list.  But these definitions are nebulous at best.  There are some things that are clearly over the line.  But there's a gray area that over time can seriously damage a major part of the arsenal against true malware.  Think of how prevalent anti-virus once was on PCs, and how the use of it has been dropping over time amongst the savvy because of the bloat of anti-virus software, and false positives (and missed legitimate virii).

That's just my concern with the whole thing...
Logged

wraith808
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 6,079



"In my dreams, I always do it right."

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #387 on: April 05, 2011, 01:14:17 AM »

A little update- I was installing Applian FLV player on my new computer.  It uses Open Candy.  Or at least I *think* it does.  Looking in the EULA, it has something about OpenCandy.  But I wasn't presented with any option other than installing their own premium version... so I'm not sure *what* that was about...
Logged

Renegade
Charter Member
***
Posts: 10,830



Tell me something you don't know...

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #388 on: April 05, 2011, 01:37:35 AM »

Renegade, I really want to acknowledge your willingness to consider these points and issues, and to actually make potential changes in your product install and business model as a result. That's really admirable and goes right along with the "open business" approach you've been talking about. Putting your money where your mouth is indeed! I for one do think the mockups you've put up in your last post would do the job at this point.


Thank you! smiley


I'd *like* to see something mandated by OC, and the ability for devs to optionally provide a route to still install the product without OC ever running (i.e. 1 installer, 2 install paths - with and without OC running - at the user's option). I grant that doing so would weaken OC's value proposition, but doing the right thing is seldom the most profitable route. In any case, short of OC themselves doing something about this (which I doubt), I want to applaud you for taking the initiative and doing so. Thanks for listening!


I don't think I could go as far as 2 install paths. Informing the user, sure. But man... It's a simple ad. It's not that bad. Allowing an opt-out would simply be too much. They can always decompile the installer then install it manually without the OC ad if it's that crucially important that they are not exposed to 1 ad.

A graphic and a "please read the EULA" message is about as far as I'd be willing to go.

That is for Photo Resizer. I should make that clear.

Sorry -- I've been speaking in a minimalist context and have not been clear about that.


If I were to include OpenCandy in my Guitar & Drum Trainer installer, then I really wouldn't care about allowing an opt-out. It just wouldn't be that important to me as the revenue model isn't ad-based. It's shareware-based. Try and buy if you like it.

But Photo Resizer is different. It has a different model. Allowing an opt-out for the opportunity to show an ad would effectively kill any revenue at all. And trust me... It hasn't been that much so far. I have received 1 donation from a generous DC'er (cranioscopical) that amounted to more than double what Photo Resizer has made from OpenCandy to date.

I'm still very early on with it, and it can certainly grow, but like I said above, at the moment, it can afford about 1 penny to get a finished installation. You can't buy traffic that cheap. You can't buy traffic for 10x that. 25x, maybe. 50x, ok.

I know the typical advice about ad supported software... forget it. Go with paid.

But I like the idea of free, and I think I've got an idea where I can make it work. We'll see though.


Anyways, the point is that forcing an opt-in prior to an opt-in is kind of redundant, and would absolutely kill off any hope for freeware. My analogy above about asking me to slit my throat and smile is pretty accurate. I'd have to go back in and change the installer, all for the sake of killing any remaining hope.

At the end of the day, it's so minimally invasive (web ads are more invasive), that I just can't get behind it.

If the same standards were applied to the web at large, then sure. I'll roll with that. But good luck in getting anyone to support that. smiley



Logged

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
PhilB66
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,510


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #389 on: April 05, 2011, 02:12:39 AM »

A little update- I was installing Applian FLV player on my new computer.  It uses Open Candy.  Or at least I *think* it does.  Looking in the EULA, it has something about OpenCandy.  But I wasn't presented with any option other than installing their own premium version... so I'm not sure *what* that was about...

Do you have the Freecorder toolbar?
Logged
40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,393



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #390 on: April 05, 2011, 02:27:00 AM »


I'm not sure I know what site you're talking about.

Did I miss something?

No. Sorry. I wasn't talking about here. (I have a life outside DoCo, although you'd probably never suspect it based on the amount of times I post here. Grin)

I'm involved with a few other websites where the OC question came up. One discussion has been very rational and displays admirable restraint despite opinions running very high. The other site has been a screaming free for all.

Makes me appreciate this place even more.

Quote
Any links?

Not yet. It's still going back and forth in both places. About the only thing that's sure is that the ruling consensus is that the presence of OC is not sufficient reason to have the containing product be seen as malware.

So that's a victory for OC and its partners. smiley
Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
JavaJones
Review 2.0 Designer
Charter Member
***
Posts: 2,514



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #391 on: April 05, 2011, 02:29:42 AM »

I'd be curious to know what other sites you're referring to, if you don't mind sharing. Especially with the sound of the standards for software listing. smiley

- Oshyan
Logged

The New Adventures of Oshyan Greene - A life in pictures...
Renegade
Charter Member
***
Posts: 10,830



Tell me something you don't know...

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #392 on: April 05, 2011, 04:34:54 AM »

I'd be curious to know what other sites you're referring to, if you don't mind sharing. Especially with the sound of the standards for software listing. smiley

- Oshyan

Ditto! smiley Links? Wink
Logged

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
Renegade
Charter Member
***
Posts: 10,830



Tell me something you don't know...

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #393 on: April 05, 2011, 04:38:13 AM »

Ok... I've been mulling over some things...

The double-opt-in thing is just unacceptable.

So how does this sound?

Opt-out information in the "info screen" and opt-in on the offer screen? Or opt-in in the info screen, and opt-out in the offer screen?

Trying to come up with a compromise that would suit both perspectives... Not sure if that would work.

Try to think "in principle" and not about OC. OC is just one example. There are others as well.
Logged

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,393



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #394 on: April 05, 2011, 06:41:57 AM »

@JavaJones + Renegade

re:links

Soon as something is finalized I'll post links.

Or at least for the one that's a public site. (FYI: this site is where the rational discussion is taking place.)

The other is a 'company private' site so I likely won't be able to provide reachable links for that one. I will ask if it's ok to share the text of their site's policy when it's finished however.

As of right now it's still in the "draft for comment" phase at both places.

No ETA as to when it may be done. I'll update when I know more. smiley

« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 06:45:00 AM by 40hz » Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
wraith808
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 6,079



"In my dreams, I always do it right."

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #395 on: April 05, 2011, 08:50:58 AM »

A little update- I was installing Applian FLV player on my new computer.  It uses Open Candy.  Or at least I *think* it does.  Looking in the EULA, it has something about OpenCandy.  But I wasn't presented with any option other than installing their own premium version... so I'm not sure *what* that was about...

Do you have the Freecorder toolbar?

I don't even know what that is.  I don't have any toolbars in my browsers, though.  And nothing was installed other than the FLV player.
Logged

40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,393



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #396 on: April 05, 2011, 02:18:12 PM »

I'm going to go back to your definition of installation (you knew that was going to happen... didn't you? Wink).  At the time that this dialog would be accessed, the open candy dll would already be in memory.  There's no way around it.  The installers don't dynamically link the DLLs so that they only load them on demand.  They decompress the payload, put it in a temp directory, and run with the bootstrapper linked to the resources in that directory.

Yeah. This is where OC's real 'innovation' lies IMO.

And from my perspective, that's what makes it unacceptable.

I'd be happier if OC provided the partner developers with a full installer that the devs could load their application into rather than the other way around.

But I doubt that will ever happen for a variety of technical, legal, and business reasons.

As a result, I'm probably never going to be able to agree with OC that theirs is a proper and acceptable way to do things. Fortunately for them, it's not my opinion that controls the marketplace.

So no problem. It's their decision and their product. They can do things however they think best. And if people are willing to go along with it...well...so be it.

smiley

« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 02:24:01 PM by 40hz » Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,393



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #397 on: April 05, 2011, 02:33:36 PM »

Trying to come up with a compromise that would suit both perspectives... Not sure if that would work.

Try to think "in principle" and not about OC. OC is just one example. There are others as well.

I think in light of what wraith808 was saying about how the DLL works in conjunction with the installer, it's kinda moot at this point. OC is active the minute the installer loads into RAM. No getting around it.

Probably the best you can do by way of compromise is go with your second idea where the installer splash screen directs the user to review the EULA for details about what OC is and what it's there for. (see below)



Beyond that, there's not much else you (as a developer-partner) can do with the way OC currently is set up to work. Or at least nothing short of deciding not to use OC at all.

Besides, if people can't be bothered to at least look at the EULA, there's little to be done for them. Much as it galls me to say it, that's the sad truth of the matter. And life is way too short to get super hung-up trying to help people who don't really care about what you're trying to help them with. It's just "horses to water" at that point..

Onward! Thmbsup

--------

P.S. Nice splash screen design BTW. Really like that camera graphic. Thmbsup

« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 02:56:27 PM by 40hz » Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #398 on: April 05, 2011, 03:08:09 PM »

Umm, how does OpenCandy work, again?

Do they provide their own entire installation framework, or is it "merely" a plugin DLL available for use with 3rd party installers like NSIS, InnoSetup, InstallShield et cetera?

If it's a plugin, then Wraith isn't entirely correct - the DLL won't be part of the installer.exe import table, and it will be loaded dynamically. Now, it's several years since I've played with installers, so it could very well be that the major installers load all contained 3rd party DLLs as soon as possible... but that sounds a bit stupid.
Logged

- carpe noctem
wraith808
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 6,079



"In my dreams, I always do it right."

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #399 on: April 05, 2011, 03:11:40 PM »

I'm going to go back to your definition of installation (you knew that was going to happen... didn't you? Wink).  At the time that this dialog would be accessed, the open candy dll would already be in memory.  There's no way around it.  The installers don't dynamically link the DLLs so that they only load them on demand.  They decompress the payload, put it in a temp directory, and run with the bootstrapper linked to the resources in that directory.

Yeah. This is where OC's real 'innovation' lies IMO.

And from my perspective, that's what makes it unacceptable.

I'd be happier if OC provided the partner developers with a full installer that the devs could load their application into rather than the other way around.

But I doubt that will ever happen for a variety of technical, legal, and business reasons.

I don't think that will happen (very much technical reasons here), but there is a possible compromise (though it might just be splitting hairs).  Have a bootstrap dll that is loaded into the installer space.  After the user OKs the use of OC, that bootstrap dll then loads the OC dll dynamically.  Of course (1) that bootstrap DLL would still be OC code, and (2) that's a lot of effort for very little gain (see splitting hairs).
* wraith808 shrugs

As I said above, there's a lot of little details that I think will never make this anything other than a huge divide between certain parties.  There's no way to satisfy the nay sayers than by not existing in a lot of cases (or practically that, since the effort that's involved would be pretty substantial for little benefit), and with the VCs involved, I don't think that's going to be practical for the company.
Logged

Pages: Prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 Next   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  

DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.067s | Server load: 0.01 ]