Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

What the hell is OpenCandy?

<< < (40/99) > >>

JavaJones:
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:
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)
--- End quote ---

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:
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:
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)
--- End quote ---

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:
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)
--- End quote ---

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.

 8)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page