Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
What the hell is OpenCandy?
40hz:
+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. :Thmbsup:
-40hz (April 11, 2011, 06:57 AM)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
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:
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:
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)
--- End quote ---
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:
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)
--- End quote ---
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:
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)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
Doom9 had this to say about DivX in the Doom9 forums:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?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.
--- End quote ---
Others were similarly vocal about their support for DivX:
http://www.nanomessiah.com/dvd-backup/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
--- End quote ---
More about the DivX adware that helped to support a free version of the codec:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version