Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
What the hell is OpenCandy?
Renegade:
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.
-40hz (April 05, 2011, 12:10 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.
-40hz (April 05, 2011, 12:10 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.
-40hz (April 05, 2011, 12:10 AM)
--- End quote ---
Any links?
wraith808:
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.
-40hz (April 04, 2011, 11:42 PM)
--- End quote ---
I'm going to go back to your definition of installation (you knew that was going to happen... didn't you? ;)). 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...
wraith808:
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...
Renegade:
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.
-JavaJones (April 05, 2011, 01:05 AM)
--- End quote ---
Thank you! :)
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!
-JavaJones (April 05, 2011, 01:05 AM)
--- End quote ---
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. :)
PhilB66:
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...
-wraith808 (April 05, 2011, 01:14 AM)
--- End quote ---
Do you have the Freecorder toolbar?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version