Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
What the hell is OpenCandy?
PhilB66:
Just out of curiosity: are you going to state right up front on your download and product info pages that it contains OpenCandy, identify it as an adware application, and say that if you don't want to install it you'll need to explicitly tell it not to? and that tracking software may remain on their machine even if they later "uninstall" it.
Or are you going to let them find out about it after they download and start installing like it seems everybody who is including it does?-40hz (March 08, 2011, 08:11 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well 40hz, I didn't see you warn me (us?) that the article you linked to was on a page
a) full of ads
b) which used at least 1 type of tracking mechanism
c) left behind files on my PC (numerous cookies, at least two of which were for tracking my browsing habits) even after I browsed away from the page.
That article, was every bit as evil as people seem to claim OC is.
-Eóin (March 09, 2011, 03:44 PM)
--- End quote ---
Funny. That didn't happen to me. I have a cookie and ad blocker installed on my machine.
But apparently this discussion is getting you upset. So tell you what. Let's just forget it. Ok? :)
-----
P.S. Perhaps I didn't warn you because I didn't know? It isn't my webpage. Which is a bit different than somebody who signs on with OC and does know what it does. Or at least I assume they would before they started deploying it.
-40hz (March 09, 2011, 04:01 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's app's blog you linked to.
40hz:
^ I respectfully submit if you're incorporating OC into your software in order to monetize it, then you aren't selling your software. You're working for OC, and helping them deploy their data harvesting client* software by using your own software product as wrapping paper.
Maybe it's different now. But when I went to management school, I was taught your real customer is the person who pays you, not the person who's name and address are on the shipping tag.
I have no objection to anybody doing that if they're comfortable with it. (My reservations are with OC.) But that's not the same thing as successfully marketing your own product.
Just my 2¢
:)
-------------
*Note: Renegade is disputing the accuracy of my calling OC a "data harvesting client." (See below.) Since he is in the process of signing on with OC, has carefully researched it, and has promised to get us squared away on what it is and how it really works, I've switched my original wording to the more generic term 'software.'
@Renegade - You have the floor, Sir! :up:
Renegade:
Just out of curiosity: are you going to state right up front on your download and product info pages that it contains OpenCandy, identify it as an adware application, and say that if you don't want to install it you'll need to explicitly tell it not to? and that tracking software may remain on their machine even if they later "uninstall" it.
-40hz (March 08, 2011, 08:11 AM)
--- End quote ---
This is one of the things I hate about trying to make a living in software. The moment you try something on the desktop, no matter how above board you are, people dump on you for getting into bed with the Devil and spawning the Antichrist. Sigh...
Mind you, people seems to be perfectly fine with serving ads in mobile applications and web applications. All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others...
No. I'm most certainly NOT going to identify it as adware because it isn't adware. The installer displays offers that people can accept or reject.
Adware got a bad name (and rightfully so) because software would install other software (the actual adware program)that would pop up ads at any time -- the installed software's sole purpose was to pop up ads on the desktop. OpenCandy does not do that at all.
It's kind of like accusing the Pope of being in the KKK because he's got a big pointy white hat.
There is no tracking software installed either.
OpenCandy scans for previously installed versions of software that it has to offer. If it detects it, it doesn't offer it. Why would it? You already have it. That only makes sense. Being intelligent doesn't make you bad.
Or are you going to let them find out about it after they download and start installing like it seems everybody who is including it does?
-40hz (March 08, 2011, 08:11 AM)
--- End quote ---
Actually, no. See here:
Opening up software business for complete transparency
My plan is to open up as much as possible. I'm still thinking about how to do that, and what to make public, but for revenue methods I will be putting out explicit information about that.
I'm thinking about a short "How is this free" or "Why is this free" section on product pages with a longer entry in the FAQ, then links to http://cynic.me/ articles that go into extreme depth about EXACTLY what is going on.
I'm not trying to sound hostile. I've got nothing but respect for you. It's just everybody using OpenCandy seems to almost go out of their way to hide its presence as much as possible from what I've seen. Makes me wonder if there's something in OC's license or in some policy or recommendation that suggests or requires a 'stealth' approach. :)
-40hz (March 08, 2011, 08:11 AM)
--- End quote ---
I never had ads on any of the sites I run/ran (excpet for a brief run at http://renegademinds.com/ on a few pages that I removed). I hate ads. But, putting food on the table and paying bills in more important than my loathing of ads.
I've checked into OpenCandy probably a lot deeper than most people here. I have not found anything suspicious or anything that would make me think that they are one of the bad guys.
I've emailed with them a fair bit and brought up the Windows Defender issue. (Speaking of...)
I'm not smart enough to know if OC is a threat or not.
That's why I have security programs that detect threats.
http://www.opencandy.com/2011/03/04/the-story-behind-the-opencandy-and-microsoft-adware-debacle/
Is a poor attempt at some kind of explanation. IMO.
And minimizing their own problems.
Blaming MS Defender, well Nod32 found it too.
So it's not MS at fault, but OC's changes that got caught.
And now they back peddle.....
-cmpm (March 08, 2011, 10:14 AM)
--- End quote ---
(Avast does not flag it.)
In an email I wrote:
After I’d filled out the contact form at the OpenCandy site, I downloaded the Publisher SDK and got a Windows Defender warning. (Screenshot attached.) I am not certain about whether this will be a problem going forward as it appears rather recent. The MS site has OpenCandy flagged only starting in February this year.
http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/Threat/Encyclopedia/Entry.aspx?name=Adware%3aWin32%2fOpenCandy&threatid=159633
--- End quote ---
I was in the middle of reading the CEO's blog post about that when he emailed me back with the link.
I said:
Thanks for the link. I’d already followed links from Andrew here:
https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=18297.msg179472#msg179472
And was in the middle of reading it. :)
And I’ve been there as well with false positives… It’s frustrating in the extreme.
--- End quote ---
He wrote back:
Yeah, false positives suck. Particularly when it's a large company like MS that doesn't have any concrete way to rectify it. It also sucks when your largest advertising partner (Bing) is calling you adware. It's kooky.
--- End quote ---
NOW...
How many people here have been caught with a false positive? I have. It sucks. It's painful. It's extremely damaging because the security SCAREWARE industry has no vested interest in truth. They have a vested interest in peddling their products, and that means they have a vested interest in FEAR.
The missing EULA is entirely believable. It happens. Flagging the entire process as adware is extreme though. Should OC have caught it? Yes. Did they? Obviously not. But guess what? The new SDK has that check automatically built in to prevent that sort of thing in the future.
What does this sound like to me?
Just like that.
They are funded by (from their website http://www.opencandy.com/company/ ):
We’re backed by awesome investors like Google Ventures, Bessemer Venture Partners, O’Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, Reid Hoffman and Jordan Greenhall who have joined us on this mission to revitalize the software community.
--- End quote ---
I'm not going into this blind, but I'm not going to simply accept that OpenCandy is adware (which I would never put in any of my software) when there is zero evidence for it.
I will post back about it later though once I have everything deployed and have more information. I'll be posting (as mentioned above) to http://cynic.me/ with in-depth information about different aspects of the software and business.
Renegade:
...helping them deploy their data harvesting client...
-40hz (March 09, 2011, 05:37 PM)
--- End quote ---
That is not what it does. You are misinformed.
40hz:
...helping them deploy their data harvesting client...
-40hz (March 09, 2011, 05:37 PM)
--- End quote ---
That is not what it does. You are misinformed.
-Renegade (March 09, 2011, 06:08 PM)
--- End quote ---
Ok. Fair enough. Nobody said I was infallible. Not even me.
(Also switched the wording on my post above to accommodate your objection.)
Now could you please explain it to me so I won't be "misinformed" any more? I'm always willing to listen and accept correction. But I'm also not much of a coder so please don't get annoyed if I ask a lot of dumb questions afterwards. Ok?:)
So...starting with the OC thingy itself - who decides how it gets installed? Is it the same in every situation (it's not according to Microsoft BTW) or does each developer get to decide how it will work from a group of ...dunno...options?...deals?...revenue programs?
And if it does, does the choice of options determine the amount OC pays the developer?
:)
P.S. No need to shout or get super creative with the font attributes. We're all listening to you even if we won't always agree. This is DC. We can be passionate about something without getting pissed off about it.
(Loved the Monty Python clip BTW. One of my favorite movies, although I thought the Holy Hand-grenade of Antioch scene was the best one. ;D)
:Thmbsup:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version