Author Topic: What the hell is OpenCandy? (Read 384191 times)

Eóin · « **Reply #175 on:** February 26, 2011, 03:49 PM »

But a developer distributing software has even less of an excuse when it comes to naivety. Plus OC are paying the devs, so they aren't feeding off the freeware/opensource communities, OC are providing those communities with money (with which to feed themselves

).

mahesh2k · « **Reply #176 on:** February 26, 2011, 03:51 PM »

If users stop paying for software or support it via donations then i see only OC or similar ad-supported modes as option to survive.

kartal · « **Reply #177 on:** February 26, 2011, 04:14 PM »

I have to say one thing, people please do not reason and normalize bad behaviour. What OC is doing is bad behaviour, spyware or not. Is there anyone who is willingly to be happy about the fact that these guys are creating a network of computers installed with OC (in many cases mistakenly) . Do you realize this is a marketer`s dream?

Is there anyone here who willingly and happily let OC install itselfs and other apps and kept it in there since then? Just curious.

It is an intentional false promise to me. And it will get worse.

Eóin · « **Reply #178 on:** February 26, 2011, 04:17 PM »

Lots of people willingly run Google Chrome, that does more tracking than OC.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #179 on:** February 26, 2011, 04:21 PM »

Recent add-on of google chrome even tracks what you don't want to see on results and filter ads based on that. History of web searches is also tracked based on IP address (thats the reason people use scroogle). OC is 1% evil compared to google.

vlastimil · « **Reply #180 on:** February 26, 2011, 04:22 PM »

I got an offer from OpenCandy few months ago, turned it down and then I got a second email with some more arguments why to join. I was to lazy to reply to that.

The offer did not sound bad, they presented the system as innovative and dynamic, with the software author being in control of the ads shown. I can see why some developers would choose to try it. I am not sure if it is better or worse than having a fixed adware, like those toolbars or java. So many companies are gathering information about people that I have given up getting angry whenever a new company joins that crazy race.

Adware is like fruits. "User" eats the apple and then spread the seeds - that's the deal. Unless you don't eat the seeds. Some fruits are smart, some are dumb. The same applies to fruit eaters ;-). Is there a place for good and evil? I think not.

Clara Listensprechen · « **Reply #181 on:** February 26, 2011, 07:19 PM »

My policy: u want me to spread ur seeds, u pay me. Period. I spread seeds for no one.

Renegade · « **Reply #182 on:** March 07, 2011, 06:43 PM »

ok here is my bet, I am putting my 100$ if anyone wants to bet on it.
I am %100$ sure that in 2 years OC will become an application that will try to install hidden stuff and spy on your download-installation activity. If anyone wants to bet I am accepting bets. Since we do not want to gamble lets keep the amount not more than 100$.
-kartal (May 17, 2009, 01:05 AM)
* scancode puts $25 against Kartal
-scancode (September 30, 2009, 05:03 PM)

Looks like scannie owes kartal 25 bucks.
-Josh (February 26, 2011, 10:04 AM)

Hold off on paying that bet for now...

It sounds like we've got a false positive on our hands here.

http://www.opencandy...soft-adware-debacle/

Namely, one individual OpenCandy partner (out of hundreds) appears to have been mistakenly missing an End User License Agreement (EULA) in their installer. This means that any consumer installing this specific partner’s software did not agree to OpenCandy’s transmission and collection of anonymous information (used for purposes of making a software recommendation).

Ok, a mistake. A mistake on the part of our partner and a mistake by us for not having the right process in place to catch that the EULA had been removed after it had passed our compliance process. The partner has since added their EULA.

False positives for software authors are akin to burning someone at the stake, then half way through, deciding to douse the flames.

The security vendors are witch-hunters and inquisitors. Sure, there are witches out there, but they just don't seem to care if they burn a few people along with the witches.

In any event, I'm looking at OpenCandy right now to help fund development at a site I'm working on.

From what I've read so far, OpenCandy seems to be a decent company. There will always be people that don't like any method at all for software to make money. I suppose that they'll just need to find some other software that they like. The OpenCandy offerings seem to be pretty fair from what I can see.

Incidentally, I found this:

http://www.pokki.com/

Owned by OpenCandy. It looks quite interesting, so I'm looking into it as well.

Renegade · « **Reply #183 on:** March 07, 2011, 06:51 PM »

Downloading the Pokki SDK now.

The Pokki blog is here: http://blog.pokki.com/

Renegade · « **Reply #184 on:** March 07, 2011, 06:57 PM »

And a Forbes article about OpenCandy:

http://blogs.forbes....e-power-of-the-team/

Not much there, but a little taste of OpenCandy.

PhilB66 · « **Reply #185 on:** March 07, 2011, 07:01 PM »

Hey, take your dirty paws off of Pokki!

Renegade · « **Reply #186 on:** March 07, 2011, 07:48 PM »

FYI - Just to confirm, the latest OpenCandy SDK does not set off Windows Defender or Avast.

Deozaan · « **Reply #187 on:** March 07, 2011, 10:22 PM »

So what is Pokki? It looks like Adobe AIR.

Renegade · « **Reply #188 on:** March 08, 2011, 12:37 AM »

So what is Pokki? It looks like Adobe AIR.
-Deozaan (March 07, 2011, 10:22 PM)

I haven't gotten that far yet.

Mind you, I've signed up with OpenCandy, had several emails with them, downloaded their SDK, integrated it into an installer, gotten it working, tested it briefly, and am about to do some final code "cleanup" (formatting, comments, etc.) and final testing...

Got to say -- they make the process nicely streamlined and painless. All my little speed-bumps were from Inno Setup and Pascal scripting.

For those that haven't done this kind of stuff before, it can take weeks or months to get done. The sheer speed & ease with OpenCandy is impressive.

Renegade · « **Reply #189 on:** March 08, 2011, 12:56 AM »

One thing I should point out from the OpenCandy SDK Developer Mode Test Report:

Status OK. Found Opencandy EULA in current dialog window.

So the problem above has clearly been addressed.

(I'd tested it without, and it fails the tests without it.)

40hz · « **Reply #190 on:** March 08, 2011, 08:11 AM »

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?

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.

scancode · « **Reply #191 on:** March 08, 2011, 08:49 AM »

and that tracking software will remain On their machine even if they later "uninstall" it.
-40hz (March 08, 2011, 08:11 AM)

Tracking software? I thought all OC left was a DLL in the temp directory...

cmpm · « **Reply #192 on:** March 08, 2011, 10:14 AM »

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...soft-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.....

40hz · « **Reply #193 on:** March 09, 2011, 02:10 PM »

Good op-ed piece which includes an eye-opening list of major apps known to include OpenCandy. Link here.

@Renegade- just an FYI. One freeware review site I do some stuff for is currently debating whether or not to de-list all software that incorporates OC because of the way it operates. Don't know if they will. But it's something to tuck in the back of your head. Because it looks like a ground wave of resistance from people in the know is starting to be felt over OC. Much luck with that if it starts gaining traction.

wraith808 · « **Reply #194 on:** March 09, 2011, 02:48 PM »

It seems like a lot of FUD, because there's a resistance to anyone monetizing software through ads. A bad state of things, as I think there's a right way, and a wrong way, and it should be a legitimate way to monetize software development.

JavaJones · « **Reply #195 on:** March 09, 2011, 03:07 PM »

I think the *right* way to do this is something more explicit and obvious, but also with a positive tone. Maybe "powered by open candy" or "made free in partnership with open candy", with a link to info about what it does or something. As it is it sounds like so many of the apps that include it are virtually silent about it aside the EULA.

- Oshyan

40hz · « **Reply #196 on:** March 09, 2011, 03:31 PM »

It seems like a lot of FUD, because there's a resistance to anyone monetizing software through ads. A bad state of things, as I think there's a right way, and a wrong way, and it should be a legitimate way to monetize software development.
-wraith808 (March 09, 2011, 02:48 PM)

Might want to read the article I linked to before you assume it's FUD. OC does not do things the way most "monetizing" add-in software does. And the guys operating the freeware review site I mentioned aren't Nervous-Nellie sensationalist type bloggers either.

There's a legitimate concern surrounding OC in particular - which has nothing to do with software authors wanting to make some money from their efforts. So let's focus on this specific software and not get sidetracked.

However, why people who are looking for sales don't just release their app as trialware will always be a mystery to me. Unless, of course, it's because the market has made it clear it doesn't consider the app worth paying for to begin with - hence the author's need to "monetize" as opposed to sell it.

Note too that Microsoft is flagging OC as adware/spyware. And nobody is more committed to the concept of having people pay to use software than they are. Draw whatever conclusions you will from that. But I don't think FUD can legitimately be one of them.

Eóin · « **Reply #197 on:** March 09, 2011, 03:37 PM »

The paranoia which surround OpenCandy astonishes me. I find the DLL related freak-outs particularly funny, seems as if people think a DLL sitting on your harddrive is more dangerous than a txt file? Which by the way, in terms of security/vulnerability issues, it's not!

Maybe someone, someday will be able to explain to me why OpenCandy is worse than Google/Bing/etc toolbar.

Eóin · « **Reply #198 on:** March 09, 2011, 03:44 PM »

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)

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.

40hz · « **Reply #199 on:** March 09, 2011, 03:58 PM »

Maybe someone, someday will be able to explain to me why OpenCandy is worse than Google/Bing/etc toolbar.
-Eóin (March 09, 2011, 03:37 PM)

There are times when background scanning may be excused. One example would be to check that the required correct version of a browser or something like .NET was already installed. But even then, obtaining the owner's ok would be preferable before it took any action.

Anything that scans for information not related to the operational software being installed - which it then reports back somewhere without first asking for the user's approval - fits the generally accepted definition of what constitutes spyware.

----

@Eóin - can't help but notice you seem to be willing excuse something wrong (or maybe just think Oh well...) because other people are doing similar things. Do I understand you correctly in that? Reason I ask is because the old "You're Another" argument may bring an accuser's bona fides into question. But it still doesn't answer to the accusation itself. And in that little virtual reality I call "my head," it doesn't matter a dollop how many people may or may not be doing something. Because I refuse base my definition of what constitutes "acceptable behavior" as being little more than a function of the numbers of people or entities participating in that behavior.

I'm not that cynical.

Might does not make right - even if it does get results.