Author Topic: What the hell is OpenCandy? (Read 384223 times)

Renegade · « **Reply #450 on:** April 10, 2011, 11:58 PM »

I guess I'll just bid adieu. It is clear I am very out of sync with some of the general thinking here...in that I cannot see how anyone would conclude that this "method" has any coat of acceptability whatsoever.

I say that because, to me, if anything is being done (installed or info sent to wherever) before the user has a chance to prevent it, that unquestionably (in my opinion) constitutes unacceptable behavior.
-movrshakr (April 10, 2011, 03:46 PM)

I agree to an extent; just not as passionately as you. Mainly though I just want to keep Renegade from getting cranked back up... see if we can save him from destroying his keyboard in this thread!

Jim
-J-Mac (April 10, 2011, 10:36 PM)

Hahahaha~! YES! No need to get me all riled up any more!

I'm like a dog with a bone sometimes...

Ok... Most of the time~!

I have some more software that I want to get up onto Super Simple, and should get back to work! I've also got more client work for mobile phones and an MMORPG game coming in!

mouser · « **Reply #451 on:** April 11, 2011, 12:16 AM »

i don't mean to push my feelings on anyone.. but do we maybe think the points on this thread have been hashed out several times over, and maybe it's time to move on? just a thought.

J-Mac · « **Reply #452 on:** April 11, 2011, 12:20 AM »

i don't mean to push my feelings on anyone.. but do we maybe think the points on this thread have been hashed out several times over, and maybe it's time to move on? just a thought.
-mouser (April 11, 2011, 12:16 AM)

We keep trying... Maybe time to lock this one up for good? If any new information (reall news) comes up I'm sure that someone will start a new thread then.

Thanks!

Jim

Renegade · « **Reply #453 on:** April 11, 2011, 12:36 AM »

i don't mean to push my feelings on anyone.. but do we maybe think the points on this thread have been hashed out several times over, and maybe it's time to move on? just a thought.
-mouser (April 11, 2011, 12:16 AM)

No! Never! Mine! Nom nom nom~!

Sorry... Couldn't resist...

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #454 on:** April 11, 2011, 06:34 AM »

A zero tolerance policy for advertising (much as I like the idea) isn't going to help anybody. And OC seems to be doing a fine job of walking a very fine line ... At least to me.

So while it is not something I have any plans to use, it is also not something that would deter me from using a given piece of software.

Ren, if nothing else, you have convinced me of its innocence.

40hz · « **Reply #455 on:** April 11, 2011, 06:57 AM »

+1 w/Mouser.

It's starting to loop. Time to shut it down.

Like J-Mac said, if anything new comes up someone can always start a new thread.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #456 on:** April 11, 2011, 08:23 AM »

Just diverting the thread to new turn, is there any competitor of open candy ? I would like to see if there is any, afterall secondary tier CPA/CPI ads pay some good amount. It's interesting to see if there is any alternative ad network.

40hz · « **Reply #457 on:** April 11, 2011, 08:47 AM »

Just diverting the thread to new turn, is there any competitor of open candy ? I would like to see if there is any, afterall secondary tier CPA/CPI ads pay some good amount. It's interesting to see if there is any alternative ad network.
-mahesh2k (April 11, 2011, 08:23 AM)

Interesting...

How about starting a new thread for that question?

wraith808 · « **Reply #458 on:** April 11, 2011, 08:53 AM »

+1 w/Mouser. It's starting to loop. Time to shut it down.

Like J-Mac said, if anything new comes up someone can always start a new thread.
-40hz (April 11, 2011, 06:57 AM)

As long as there is constructive conversation, is there really any need to artificially shut it down? It petered out before, and when Renegade had new information, the thread was still here to keep context... just a thought.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #459 on:** April 11, 2011, 09:15 AM »

Interesting...
How about starting a new thread for that question?

Well even if i start another thread, you guys are going to make life hard for Dr.apps over there and that thread will reach 19th page for sure. So i'm saving bandwidth of soft layer

(J/K)

Anyway, seriously i would like to see alternatives thread. Not sure if mouser likes that discussions here ?

40hz · « **Reply #460 on:** April 11, 2011, 10:20 AM »

+1 w/Mouser. It's starting to loop. Time to shut it down.

Like J-Mac said, if anything new comes up someone can always start a new thread.
-40hz (April 11, 2011, 06:57 AM)

As long as there is constructive conversation, is there really any need to artificially shut it down? It petered out before, and when Renegade had new information, the thread was still here to keep context... just a thought.
-wraith808 (April 11, 2011, 08:53 AM)

I think it's more for the benefit of the discussion. Should people arrive late (and not read all 18 previous pages) there's a risk of needlessly revisiting issues that have already been discussed and settled.

So when it comes to OC, I think it would be better if this thread were either closed out, or kept exclusively focused on OC as much as possible.

Because right now, it basically comes down to whether or not you agree with OC's logic, philosophy, and methodology. It's not an issue of the technology. It's an issue of business practices - and how the technology gets deployed and used. (With special thanks to Renegade for his efforts to get to the bottom of exactly how OC's current software package works and also for sharing his findings with us.)

And there's not a lot of wiggle room in there.

About the only thing that would be newsworthy at this point is if OC changed it's "below the radar" business model and installation method (which I doubt will happen any time soon, if at all) - or - it goes over to the "dark side" (which I also doubt will happen any time soon, if at all - although I'm much less sanguine about that)...

So I respectfully suggest: New Thread!

wraith808 · « **Reply #461 on:** April 11, 2011, 10:55 AM »

A couple of questions before we get off this topic:

1. If they did change their business model to be obtrusive and glaring as you suggest, what do you think would be the effect on their bottom line? It would seem at that point that OC would be the focus of the software, rather than the software. Sort of like an advertisement for a product where another product is prevalent detracting from the subject.

2. I really like project wonderful and what they stand for, and their stated goals of bringing 'fairness, transparency, and profitability to the advertising process'. But if you ask yourself the same questions about OC (i.e. are you tracked before you have a chance to opt out), the answer would be yes. As soon as you go to a page with the PW ads installed, you are tracked as a necessity for payment. Even thing such as tickers at the bottom of the web page track visitors, and they don't ask you before they do so. Is the only difference between these and OC the fact that OC has to be bundled into software that you use to install other software on your machine?

I'm really trying to see the difference... unlike Renegade, the reason that I'm involved in the discussion is for the discussion's sake, and the fact that I like to operate from a logical perspective- and looking at it in that manner, it's not operating any differently from other things that we take for granted- other than the fact that it's bundled into an installer. There doesn't seem to be a way that they could change their business model in a way to stay viable in the market. I know that if I were selling/giving away software and had to blare the business model that I was using so that it outshined my product, I wouldn't really be too keen on utilizing it.

Thoughts?

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #462 on:** April 11, 2011, 11:33 AM »

2. I really like project wonderful and what they stand for, and their stated goals of bringing 'fairness, transparency, and profitability to the advertising process'. But if you ask yourself the same questions about OC (i.e. are you tracked before you have a chance to opt out), the answer would be no. As soon as you go to a page with the PW ads installed, you are tracked as a necessity for payment. Even thing such as tickers at the bottom of the web page track visitors, and they don't ask you before they do so. Is the only difference between these and OC the fact that OC has to be bundled into software that you use to install other software on your machine?
-wraith808 (April 11, 2011, 10:55 AM)

To me it is a simple matter of intent. OC's stated intent is to display one or two Ads, in the hopes that the person running the installer likes one of said advertised products. Fine. It is displayed only once during the install, and is then done. Which tracks with their stated intent.

Now, in the process of displaying the Ads, they (or the installer rather) load some code in the background, that has the potential to someday get misused (maybe). So. So do alot of things ... The question is what is the intent behind the code being loaded?

Let me put this a different way. I have a concealed weapons license, and frequently carry a gun. Banks have very high security concerns ... yet when I go to the bank, I am (and will be) carrying said a gun. Should I be accosted at the door because of what I might do? No. My actions are perfectly legal. Even though the fact that I'm standing in a bank, with a gun, does help facilitate robbing the place. It doesn't alter the simple fact that I have absolutely no intentions of doing so.

OC is simply asking for - and I feel deserves - the same courtesy.

app103 · « **Reply #463 on:** April 11, 2011, 06:51 PM »

Let me put this a different way. I have a concealed weapons license, and frequently carry a gun. Banks have very high security concerns ... yet when I go to the bank, I am (and will be) carrying said a gun. Should I be accosted at the door because of what I might do? No. My actions are perfectly legal. Even though the fact that I'm standing in a bank, with a gun, does help facilitate robbing the place. It doesn't alter the simple fact that I have absolutely no intentions of doing so.

OC is simply asking for - and I feel deserves - the same courtesy.
-Stoic Joker (April 11, 2011, 11:33 AM)

I am sure if you had a criminal record of armed robbery they would never have given you that concealed weapons license.

Unfortunately, in the software world, there is no equivalent to that kind of license. If there was, it is unlikely OC would have ever been given one for what the founders did while at DivX. (there is your equivalent to armed robbery) And even if they had been given one, it would probably have been revoked long ago for the unique tracking IDs, stealthy registry entries, the opt-out flip-flop they made back in September, and a few other things (there is your equivalent to assault and battery).

Renegade · « **Reply #464 on:** April 11, 2011, 07:35 PM »

Let me put this a different way. I have a concealed weapons license, and frequently carry a gun. Banks have very high security concerns ... yet when I go to the bank, I am (and will be) carrying said a gun. Should I be accosted at the door because of what I might do? No. My actions are perfectly legal. Even though the fact that I'm standing in a bank, with a gun, does help facilitate robbing the place. It doesn't alter the simple fact that I have absolutely no intentions of doing so.

OC is simply asking for - and I feel deserves - the same courtesy.
-Stoic Joker (April 11, 2011, 11:33 AM)

I am sure if you had a criminal record of armed robbery they would never have given you that concealed weapons license.

Unfortunately, in the software world, there is no equivalent to that kind of license. If there was, it is unlikely OC would have ever been given one for what the founders did while at DivX. (there is your equivalent to armed robbery) And even if they had been given one, it would probably have been revoked long ago for the unique tracking IDs, stealthy registry entries, the opt-out flip-flop they made back in September, and a few other things (there is your equivalent to assault and battery).
-app103 (April 11, 2011, 06:51 PM)

Doom9 had this to say about DivX in the Doom9 forums:

http://forum.doom9.o...hp?p=96332#post96332

can we stop this please? I posted instructions that will ensure that not only will the adware not launched, but it will also never be able to connect to the internet... you can even remove it if you keep a single registry key... is that so bad? no person that has complained has truly understood why the adware is there in the first place.. it's the damned mpeg-4 licensing fees. Apple has not release QT6 so far because of this.. DXn now has.. but had to find a way to cover their costs.

divx3 is illegal.. I think we can all agree on that. xvid's license says educational use only.. of course we don't do that.. but in a legal way that makes it illegal, too. Same goes for lame where nobody pays mp3 licensing fees either. While we as private users we don't have to worry about this too much (and most people don't even know it but go flaming DXn anyways), corporations do have to worry.

And the whole "you owe me something" attitude that's being shown about DivX5 really sickens me. Nobody owes you a codec. Absolutely nobody. Take it or leave it!

I've disabled the ads and am now encoding to find out if DivX5 really is better than its predecessor.. and then face off the best parameters against XviD and SBC. That is a much more useful activity than flaming around.

Case closed.. I don't want any more of this on this forum.

Others were similarly vocal about their support for DivX:

http://www.nanomessi...up/divx-spyware.html

It's recommend that you don't use this guide. Why? Because we are getting the opportunity to use this codec free of charge and one of the few ways DivXNetworks(DXN) can make money is by using adware and selling the pro codec. The more money they make the more resources they can make available to improve on future codecs they release. If more and more people disable the adware, DXN might have to start charging us for the use of their codec. Of course this is all up to you :-)... by powerdup

More about the DivX adware that helped to support a free version of the codec:

http://forum.doom9.o...owthread.php?t=35610

MPEG-LA always wants its cut no matter what. So if there's a pro and an ad supported version, and people choose the ad supported one, I don't see where they get off complaining. There's a paid one there. Choosing the ad supported version then complaining about it is a bit disingenuous.

Upfront fees alone for some codecs cost more than enough to buy a nice car.

For one popular codec, think in the $25k~$30k range. I forget exactly, so don't quote me. But 6-of-1, that's still a pretty penny just to get access to the SDK. Then there were royalty fees on top of that. And they weren't $0.50 either. If I remember properly, they were in the $66 to $90 range. (Professional level, not consumer.)

Costs need to be covered. People need to eat.

app103 · « **Reply #465 on:** April 11, 2011, 07:49 PM »

Costs need to be covered. People need to eat.
-Renegade (April 11, 2011, 07:35 PM)

And that makes anything and everything ok? All is fair in love and war...and making money?

Don't try to whitewash what they did while at DivX...their own spokesperson sure doesn't and admits the crap they did was evil.

Those Divx Guys and My Life as a User Advocate

I’m not going to defend what some of the colleagues did while at Divx. Because I was one of the people who spent in inordinate amount of time removing the crap that Divx installed. Actually, out of the last 9 years, I’m confident in saying that I’ve spent at 2 hours a day, Monday through Sunday removing malware, adware and spyware from user’s systems. I do it for free (for those who can’t afford to pay) and I do it as a paid IT consultant (to home users and small businesses). So I’ve spent the equivalent of 273 days removing malware from systems. Heck I haven’t even been alive for 11,000 days. So approximately 2.5% of my life I’ve spent removing malware! (WOW! Now that I did the calculation and see it in writing… it’s sad.) That doesn’t include the unfathomable amount of time I’ve spent setting up Windows systems and securing them.

When I was interviewed by the OpenCandy team in February, I let my displeasure with what Divx bundled be known. And you know what? Those that were involved knew they made a mistake… and had no problem saying so. EVERYBODY makes mistakes... just NEVER make the SAME one TWICE. They didn't... What they learned at DivX allowed them to identify an opportunity to democratize software distribution so that ALL developers and ALL users could benefit. So they embarked on a mission and created a vision to do just that... the RIGHT way. And they (we) have built something that is not only beneficial to the developer community (they can increase distribution, make money or both), it’s really beneficial to users (users get to discover great software via recommendations by developers of applications they trust).
-drapps (May 13, 2009, 02:52 PM)

But while he has forgiven them and think they deserve another chance, especially since they are willing to give him a paycheck...I am not ready to forgive them or trust them, and can't bring myself to touch their money. You can't pay me to change my mind about them. I can't be that easily bought.

40hz · « **Reply #466 on:** April 11, 2011, 08:13 PM »

Costs need to be covered. People need to eat.
-Renegade (April 11, 2011, 07:35 PM)

Perhaps the best solution to that 'problem' is to write software people are actually willing to pay for?

And if that proves impossible, do something else for a living?

That's how it works with just about everything else.

Renegade · « **Reply #467 on:** April 11, 2011, 08:42 PM »

Costs need to be covered. People need to eat.
-Renegade (April 11, 2011, 07:35 PM)

Perhaps the best solution to that 'problem' is to write software people are actually willing to pay for?

And if that proves impossible, do something else for a living?

That's how it works with just about everything else.
-40hz (April 11, 2011, 08:13 PM)

A lot of that was back in 2002/2003. The Internet was much less mature then. There was a lot more experimenting. But I think a lot of lessons were learned from a lot of mistakes in the earlier years of the Internet. It's fine to look back and see mistakes with 20/20 hindsight, but... Anyways... I'm going to drop it. I really don't care much about dwelling on ancient history. It has its lessons.

Regarding:

Perhaps the best solution to that 'problem' is to write software people are actually willing to pay for?

So, Google should drop free Gmail and free search? People should pay for Windows updates? Ditch Linux entirely? Make people pay to use all web sites? Close up all standards and RFCs and make people pay royalties? Ban all ads? And while we're at it, make all free broadcasts for radio and television also pay-to-use?

There is more than just 1 business model in the industry.

wraith808 · « **Reply #468 on:** April 11, 2011, 08:51 PM »

But while he has forgiven them and think they deserve another chance, especially since they are willing to give him a paycheck...I am not ready to forgive them or trust them, and can't bring myself to touch their money. You can't pay me to change my mind about them. I can't be that easily bought.
-app103 (April 11, 2011, 07:49 PM)

That's cool... but does an individual's right to choose not to consume make the company's right to exist and operate moot? Does an opinion not based in current facts surrounding the company make the company evil? I don't think anyone would force you to install software you don't want to install or participate in a program you don't want to participate in. But people aren't just choosing not to participate, they are actively campaigning against them. Is that right in the face of a lack of bad actions or proof of bad intent? And if the same people go to another company in the computer industry- does that make that company evil by association, since apparently this company is evil by their association?

40hz · « **Reply #469 on:** April 11, 2011, 09:39 PM »

So, Google should drop free Gmail and free search? People should pay for Windows updates? Ditch Linux entirely? Make people pay to use all web sites? Close up all standards and RFCs and make people pay royalties? Ban all ads? And while we're at it, make all free broadcasts for radio and television also pay-to-use?

There is more than just 1 business model in the industry.
-Renegade (April 11, 2011, 08:42 PM)

Agree, but I think you're overreacting to what I'm saying.

What I was commenting on was a certain sense of 'entitlement' I see creeping into a lot of discussions about software development. Almost as if there's a feeling that the simple act of creating a piece of software 'deserves' something in return.

This attitude isn't confined to software BTW. I see the same thing in music performance and composition, which is something I'm personally involved in. But in my case, I tend to look at it the same way. (I'm the last person I'll ever claim an exception or privilege for.

)

If I want to write and play the music I want to play, then I have to accept the fact I may well have to do it on my own tab if other people don't also see a value in it. Not to say I can't do what I want so long as I do something else for my main source of income. Which is what I do.

Could music be my sole source of income?

Probably...

I say that because it was in the past. But it got to the point where it became too annoying, and required too many compromises to mix business with pleasure. So I worked out a compromise with myself where I no longer insisted my work and my play be one and the same. Which allowed me to become exactly the musician I wanted to be while still covering costs and being able to eat on a fairly regular basis.

And oddly enough, the music itself got better once I re-engineered my career plan.

Since the music market is very small where I live, had I insisted on "making it pay" I probably would have ended up being forced to abandon music sooner or later. Doing it the way I did it allowed me to keep a hand in the game.

So to your point about there being more than one business model, I'll agree with you completely. But all I'm saying is that, within the range of possible business models and revenue strategies, sometimes the most obvious ones get overlooked.

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again. Then quit. There's no use in being a damn fool about it. - W.C.Fields

But people aren't just choosing not to participate, they are actively campaigning against them. Is that right in the face of a lack of bad actions or proof of bad intent? And if the same people go to another company in the computer industry- does that make that company evil by association, since apparently this company is evil by their association?
-wraith808 (April 11, 2011, 08:51 PM)

Like it or not, that's what's called "a reputation."

A good one is hard to earn, but easy to lose.

And it has persistence.

Most people subscribe to the notion: "Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me."

So while it's all well and good to change one's 'evil' ways and apologize, there's no guarantee you'll be given a second chance.

That's just the way it goes sometimes. Not everyone believes in redemption.

J-Mac · « **Reply #470 on:** April 11, 2011, 09:51 PM »

Wait a minute - if folks are actually going to attempt to defend what DivX did then we had better start a new thread.

Don’t speak as if we had a choice with DivX; nothing was open or upfront last time. All was deception. DivX did do some evil. And regarding Gmail I don’t think that's a valid comparison either. I use Gmail very little personally, but at least Google made it abundantly clear when they launched Google Mail that it was ad-driven. DivX dii all under the table, hidden.

Please don’t insult us with DivX apologist nonsense.

Jim

app103 · « **Reply #471 on:** April 11, 2011, 10:10 PM »

That's cool... but does an individual's right to choose not to consume make the company's right to exist and operate moot? Does an opinion not based in current facts surrounding the company make the company evil?
-wraith808 (April 11, 2011, 08:51 PM)

Pardon me, but it s a known fact that I have trust issues (I don't believe in 3 strikes and you'd be lucky if you were allowed 2), so help me out here...

When does a current fact stop being current and become old news, worthy of forgetting? If they do something seriously questionable today, do we immediately forgive and forget tomorrow, if they stop, change the way they do things, apologize, make promises, etc?

Where do YOU draw the line? At what point do you say enough is enough and now I am not going to trust you until you have proven yourselves worthy of that trust? How long does it take to win that trust back? How many infractions are they allowed during that period? How serious are those infractions allowed to be? At what point do you write them off and never trust again?

These were not just employees of DivX that were being paid to just do their job and the company made them do stuff that they didn't feel good about, so they quit.

No, these guys were very involved at a high level. It was because of them that the spyware was bundled into DivX...it was their idea and they stood behind it 100% without losing a wink of sleep.

They took what they learned while at DivX and started Open Candy to do the same, but instead of bundling it in their own software, they will get developers to bundle it in their software. And at first they will look like the good guys, sweet talking, smooth, and convincing open source and freeware developers that they are the good guys (meanwhile they keep getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar, pulling their hand out and saying "look, see, no cookie, I'm not doing anything wrong") And little by little they change the way people think about adware and spyware, redefining it, pushing the envelope until what they did at DivX is completely acceptable by the public as something wonderful. Then they can take freely from the cookie jar and say "it's only cookies, and we are only taking a few, and we are sharing them with others that deserve some too."

Because if they can get you to swallow a tiny bit of BS and make you like it, it will be that much easier to get you to swallow more and more till you live on a diet entirely of BS, and like it. And since they are going after the mainstream, you are going to end up with a McBS on every corner before too long.

A lot of that was back in 2002/2003. The Internet was much less mature then. There was a lot more experimenting.
-Renegade (April 11, 2011, 08:42 PM)

You could say that about 1999, but not 2002/2003.

But I think a lot of lessons were learned from a lot of mistakes in the earlier years of the Internet. It's fine to look back and see mistakes with 20/20 hindsight, but... Anyways... I'm going to drop it. I really don't care much about dwelling on ancient history. It has its lessons.
-Renegade (April 11, 2011, 08:42 PM)

Those that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. There was a time when things like Gator, CometCursors, Gozilla, and the CueCat (a company I really wish did things right) were cool, just like OpenCandy seems to some to be cool today.

f0dder · « **Reply #472 on:** April 11, 2011, 11:05 PM »

As much as I don't believe what OC are doing right now is particularly bad, I'm afraid the ever-perceptive app103 hit the nail on my gut feeling about them. That, and their name makes me think of child molesters >_<

Renegade · « **Reply #473 on:** April 11, 2011, 11:21 PM »

Wait a minute - if folks are actually going to attempt to defend what DivX did then we had better start a new thread.

Don’t speak as if we had a choice with DivX; nothing was open or upfront last time. All was deception. DivX did do some evil. And regarding Gmail I don’t think that's a valid comparison either. I use Gmail very little personally, but at least Google made it abundantly clear when they launched Google Mail that it was ad-driven. DivX dii all under the table, hidden.

Please don’t insult us with DivX apologist nonsense.

Jim
-J-Mac (April 11, 2011, 09:51 PM)

Not my intent. I'm only vaguely remembering from a long time ago and a quick few searches. I used to read EULAs completely and not install most because of that. I just don't recall much other than adware with 2 versions and some controversy, and I didn't find anything to indicate that it was malicious. But I really don't care much either because it's ancient history. (I'm skeptical of claims about things being "bad" because there's a lot of alarmism and claims with nothing to back them up.)

app103 · « **Reply #474 on:** April 11, 2011, 11:39 PM »

That, and their name makes me think of child molesters >_<
-f0dder (April 11, 2011, 11:05 PM)

Oh, it doesn't make me think of that.

Coming originally from the world of retail, it makes me think of charge backs, damaged goods that the department merchandiser is supposed to record in a book and then dispose of. One of my departments was candy. Customers would occasionally rip open a bag and help themselves to some "free samples" and leave the bag sitting on the shelf. It was technically against the rules, to dispose of this candy in any other way than the trash, but it was customary for the merchandiser to leave it on his or her podium if it was something that came individually wrapped, and quietly and discreetly go around and tell the other employees about the open candy, who would then go help themselves at their leisure.

It was a way for employees to bend the rules enough to pilfer from the company and blame it on someone else (the customers). As long as we weren't the ones that opened the bag, we didn't see anything wrong with it. But like it or not, it was still breaking the rules.