Recent Posts6426
General Software Discussion / Re: CNET Download Installer Changes
« Last post by Renegade on December 09, 2011, 12:31 AM »Revenue sharing, so they're going with opencandy model ?Yes, that's exactly what it seems to be stacking up to be, in one form or another. It's a parasitic model, and so it makes great commercial/business sense.-mahesh2k (December 08, 2011, 02:25 PM)
Of course, this would probably be done regardless of what the developers might actually think about the ethics of such a practice, and to shut any naysayers up they "share" the revenue (give them some of the loot).
Money can often hush the noisiest of mouths.
The plan was probably for a fait accompli, but the bad press botched that idea.
Which is probably why you haven't been given a glimmer of an idea about all these "mutually beneficial" plans before - i.e., until the bad press had to be mitigated.-IainB (December 08, 2011, 05:23 PM)
Well, I'd say that the previous model without developer consent was parasitic, but here, I'm not so sure about that.
We all know where I stand on OpenCandy. I think it's a good idea. I went to lengths to illustrate what was going on inside of an OC powered installer here:
http://cynic.me/2011...pening-up-opencandy/
The short version is that OC asks the server to give it an offer for something that is not on your computer then displays that in the installer. No information is sent to the server. You can verify this with WireShark.
My current thoughts on CNET and begruding opportunities for developers to make a living:
http://cynic.me/2011...in-win-win-scenario/
The short version is that it looks like a win-win-win-win scenario to me.
- Developers win because they get paid.
- Users win because they get good software.
- CNET wins because they have a business model that is profitable and that helps people.
- CNET advertisers win because they get access to end users and can present them with an offer.
It also seems mean spirited to begrudge developers an honest opportunity to make a living just because it's not the same method that everyone else uses.
I know that my views are extremely unpopular with some. There's not much I can do about it. This is one of those areas where some of us have strong opinions and disagree.
I also know that my opinons on some related topics are considered extreme by some. e.g. I'm all for legalising prostitution because it's not going to go away, and it's better to have it run in an honest business fashion than to push it into the underworld where nothing good can come of it. I don't think that any of us have any right to throw stones at prostitutes for what they do.
By the same token, I don't think any of us have any right to throw stones at anyone for making an honest living.
If what you're doing genuinely isn't hurting anyone, and what you're doing really is helpful, then hey, all the more power to you.
CNET screwed up. People screamed. They're fixing it. It looks like they're going a very similar route to OpenCandy with things being voluntary, open, and ethical.
Nobody is getting hurt here.
Now, when it comes to how CNET will be carving up the pie, I certainly hope that they will be fair to developers. They could give developers crumbs (which I would agree is parasitic), or they could give developers a fair slice of the pie. I don't know what that is. We'll see. I rather doubt that they'll divulge that information, but it would be fantastic if they did. Transparency is a good thing.
Anyways. Just my $0.02. Feel free to rip on me for anything. I'm thick-skinned enough and can take it~!
