Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
What the hell is OpenCandy?
app103:
Ahem... Look at the installer screenshot that you uploaded. You cannot just click next. You MUST explicitly accept or decline the offer. Again, a baseless accusation with clear evidence to the contrary.-Renegade (April 03, 2011, 10:23 PM)
--- End quote ---
This is a nice thing about OpenCandy, and I do hope they won't change away from that practice. But before you get to that screen, OpenCandy has run - and it's contacted the mothership, right? So you're not getting a chance to avoid that, except for... clicking through... the EULA :)
-f0dder (April 04, 2011, 01:44 AM)
--- End quote ---
A little misleading...they did change their practice back in September 2010 and blamed it in part on greedy developers wanting more money and demanding an opt-out option.
It is up to the individual developer to set whether it is opt-in or opt-out, depending in part on the software they choose to recommend (some won't allow opt-out). I believe Renegade hasn't made a choice and that is why one has to click one choice or the other and no default is selected for the apps he is recommending through OC. Other developers using OC may not be as nice, choosing only those apps that allow the opt-out option, so accidental unwanted installs are still possible with OC.
JavaJones:
I'm curious if anyone thinks my suggestion back a few pages actually has any merit:
Let's keep some perspective here though. This does not need to be stated in scary terms in order to avoid being seen in a bad light. I believe OC could require better communication of its activities through its partners and their installers while not necessarily reducing opt-in significantly. Here's an example:
"This installer is powered by OpenCandy! As part of a free service, OpenCandy will check your system for potential software upgrades to improve performance and capabilities. This check will collect basic non-personal information about your system and store it securely on our servers. If you'd like to decline this service, simply uncheck the box below." That's 30 seconds of thought put into the wording; a good marketer could do a lot better, keeping the important information will making it more appealing. That's what marketers do, and that's ok.
They could even make it a bit more controllable and potentially get more customers by doing something like this: "...This check will collect basic non-personal information about your system and store it securely on our servers. If you'd prefer not to have your information sent to our servers, we can still perform a local check and offer some recommendations if you select the "local check" radio button below. You can also choose to decline this service by selecting the "do not check my system" radio button." In a situation like that I might still opt-in to the local check.
Adding a sentence of info about OC's service helping to support developers might also be a good thing, depending.
In the end I think the problem 40hz has, and which I share, is that OC is not very open about what it's doing, and in some/many cases even seems to be completely unmentioned in the equation (e.g. the offer appears to be coming from Microsoft for installing IE9, with no mention of the fact that OC brokered the deal). Disclosure is a big deal to many people.
--- End quote ---
Also want to mention I like the way WinSCP handles this! http://winscp.net/eng/docs/opencandy
- Oshyan
Renegade:
Ahem... Look at the installer screenshot that you uploaded. You cannot just click next. You MUST explicitly accept or decline the offer. Again, a baseless accusation with clear evidence to the contrary.-Renegade (April 03, 2011, 10:23 PM)
--- End quote ---
This is a nice thing about OpenCandy, and I do hope they won't change away from that practice. But before you get to that screen, OpenCandy has run - and it's contacted the mothership, right? So you're not getting a chance to avoid that, except for... clicking through... the EULA :)
-f0dder (April 04, 2011, 01:44 AM)
--- End quote ---
A little misleading...they did change their practice back in September 2010 and blamed it in part on greedy developers wanting more money and demanding an opt-out option.
It is up to the individual developer to set whether it is opt-in or opt-out, depending in part on the software they choose to recommend (some won't allow opt-out). I believe Renegade hasn't made a choice and that is why one has to click one choice or the other and no default is selected for the apps he is recommending through OC. Other developers using OC may not be as nice, choosing only those apps that allow the opt-out option, so accidental unwanted installs are still possible with OC.
-app103 (April 04, 2011, 02:02 AM)
--- End quote ---
Out of 39 offers, 17 *can* be switched to opt-out. Only 1, the Yandex toolbar (this is new and is for the Russian market only), is opt-out by default. (I just saw this now as it is new.)
i.e. Out of 38 opt-in offers, 21 CANNOT be switched to opt-out. So, that's 55%. About half. Just say 50-50 to make it simple. :)
Actually, I did make a choice. I chose to leave the defaults as they are. i.e. Opt-in.
Having checked and just seen that Yandex, I've been contemplating making it opt-in, but it just doesn't seem that important. It's Russian market only, and Yandex is the dominant search there (as far as I know). If anything, it's a desirable thing. Still mulling it over though...
I like the default that forces the user to choose yes or no.
At the moment, I see that 31% of people choose to accept an offer. (So far earning me a bit more than half of the cost of a cup of coffee at StarBucks. Don't think for a moment that my position on the matter is financially motivated...)
Renegade:
I'm curious if anyone thinks my suggestion back a few pages actually has any merit:
Let's keep some perspective here though. This does not need to be stated in scary terms in order to avoid being seen in a bad light. I believe OC could require better communication of its activities through its partners and their installers while not necessarily reducing opt-in significantly. Here's an example:
"This installer is powered by OpenCandy! As part of a free service, OpenCandy will check your system for potential software upgrades to improve performance and capabilities. This check will collect basic non-personal information about your system and store it securely on our servers. If you'd like to decline this service, simply uncheck the box below." That's 30 seconds of thought put into the wording; a good marketer could do a lot better, keeping the important information will making it more appealing. That's what marketers do, and that's ok.
They could even make it a bit more controllable and potentially get more customers by doing something like this: "...This check will collect basic non-personal information about your system and store it securely on our servers. If you'd prefer not to have your information sent to our servers, we can still perform a local check and offer some recommendations if you select the "local check" radio button below. You can also choose to decline this service by selecting the "do not check my system" radio button." In a situation like that I might still opt-in to the local check.
Adding a sentence of info about OC's service helping to support developers might also be a good thing, depending.
In the end I think the problem 40hz has, and which I share, is that OC is not very open about what it's doing, and in some/many cases even seems to be completely unmentioned in the equation (e.g. the offer appears to be coming from Microsoft for installing IE9, with no mention of the fact that OC brokered the deal). Disclosure is a big deal to many people.
--- End quote ---
Also want to mention I like the way WinSCP handles this! http://winscp.net/eng/docs/opencandy
- Oshyan
-JavaJones (April 04, 2011, 02:20 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yes and no. Your facts are not quite right there, but the basic idea, maybe... Depends.
e.g.
This check will collect basic non-personal information about your system and store it securely on our servers
It doesn't do that. System information isn't transmitted back. Information about the installer is transmitted (and the OS). I detailed it all here.
But 6-of-1. Close enough for the purpose at hand.
But there's still a problem. Less is more. The more you throw in front of users, the more likely you are to lose them. A 30 second message is simply too much. People don't have that kind of attention span.
If something can be added to the installer that's not a distraction, the sure. I think a small graphic that has the OpenCandy logo and "Powered by" or "Installer powered by" or something similar, and a link, "Find out more...", to a web page with information about it is more than enough. Minimal text is key. It can't be a distraction. Maybe something like:
[*graphic*]
Supporting developers...
[LOGO text]
powered installer
[/*graphic*]
[*link*]
Find out more...
[/*link*]
Maybe a link to a privacy policy would be good as well. But how much is that going to clutter things up? Probably a "Find out more..." link is enough.
If it's out to be a major Broadway musical, forget it.
+1 for WinSCP. It's quite well done there.
JavaJones:
Sure, even if it's just a "powered by" with a link for more info, that will give types like me, App (I think) and others with these kinds of concerns the chance to find out more before we go too much further with things. In this case, knowing what I know now, I'd probably go through with the install of an app using OC in its installer, assuming I was fairly interested in the app of course.
- Oshyan
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version