Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
What the hell is OpenCandy?
40hz:
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.
-Renegade (April 04, 2011, 07:40 PM)
--- End quote ---
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.
-Renegade (April 04, 2011, 07:40 PM)
--- End quote ---
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.
-Renegade (April 04, 2011, 07:40 PM)
--- End quote ---
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. :o
40hz:
which only goes to prove that I can be an idiot as well~!
-Renegade (April 04, 2011, 11:11 PM)
--- End quote ---
I prefer to think you're just being "passionate" and "pithy" about something that's important to you. :)
Welcome to the club! :Thmbsup:
;D
40hz:
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.
-wraith808 (April 04, 2011, 11:41 PM)
--- End quote ---
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.
:)
Renegade:
...this thread has been degenerating for a while.
-wraith808 (April 04, 2011, 11:41 PM)
--- End quote ---
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.
-40hz (April 04, 2011, 11:42 PM)
--- End quote ---
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:
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]
--- End quote ---
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.
What the hell is OpenCandy?
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):
What the hell is OpenCandy?
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.
JavaJones:
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version