Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
What the hell is OpenCandy?
app103:
Costs need to be covered. People need to eat.
-Renegade (April 11, 2011, 07:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
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:
Costs need to be covered. People need to eat.
-Renegade (April 11, 2011, 07:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
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:
Costs need to be covered. People need to eat.
-Renegade (April 11, 2011, 07:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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:
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)
--- End quote ---
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:
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)
--- End quote ---
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. :mrgreen:)
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 ;D
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)
--- End quote ---
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. :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version