3 ms·

I an certainly see why some people might be protective of how they use an application. However, speaking from experience, relying on user feedback alone to dri

I an certainly see why some people might be protective of how they use an application. However, speaking from experience, relying on user feedback alone to drive development is doomed to failure. People lie about what features they use, or will use - perhaps not maliciously, but they do. Also, it simply doesn't scale - apart from sampling bias (think about the sort of people who would provide feedback), if you have millions of users (and many of these webapps/mobile apps do), you need to use things like automated bug reports, and telemetry data to get your stats. There are sites that I do not frequent, simply because the ads are annoying, or I don't agree with that service's TOS - I simply don't use those services. The examples you cited (Lenovo and Sony) are certainly ones I wouldn't use (although to be honest, I probably wouldn't have used them even before either - I'm still upset at Sony for the whole MiniDisc fiasco, and their sad obsession with proprietary vendor/lock-in standards). If you don't want to use those services - then don't. But the author complaining about Amazon Underground, when the whole point of it is that it collects app usage data (to compensate application developers) seems a big disingenuous. If there is some wider issue around telemetry data and privacy implications, I'm certainly keen to hear it.

Jach 11y ago
Feedback alone is probably not a good idea, but I'd say background metrics alone isn't either. Though I think we're in agreement. (I don't care if your components' average EPTs dropped 60% since last release if your app is still crap... You made it better but not in a way I care about, and tell me again why you need access to my list of contacts?) Production telemetry is a godsend for developers to debug their crappy apps (I'd wish there were no buggy, crappy apps in the first place, but...) but I think there's an acceptable way and a questionable way of getting it. The acceptable way is simply requiring user action. Many programs let you email or just 'report' logs and other info if you or the program think there's a problem you want someone to look into. Some make it easy to see what the data actually consists of which can help you tell if they put effort trying to know as little as necessary, avoiding things not their business. There's also an expectation that the data will be used once for helping you and that's all. The questionable way of getting the data is to just hoover up whatever behind the scenes. The interesting cases (which apply to other data too) are in between. On one hand it's acceptable for LinkedIn to ask for your email password so they can get a list of people you might know and want to connect with, but you have little assurance they don't (or won't in the future) questionably hoover up all your email contents for vague reason x, no reason yet/just in case, or inadvertently for really unfortunate reason y when they get compromised, and that's enough for at least a creepy feeling if not fear in some cases.

Jach 11y ago

Feedback alone is probably not a good idea, but I'd say background metrics alone isn't either. Though I think we're in agreement. (I don't care if your components' average EPTs dropped 60% since last release if your app is still crap... You made it better but not in a way I care about, and tell me again why you need access to my list of contacts?) Production telemetry is a godsend for developers to debug their crappy apps (I'd wish there were no buggy, crappy apps in the first place, but...) but I think there's an acceptable way and a questionable way of getting it. The acceptable way is simply requiring user action. Many programs let you email or just 'report' logs and other info if you or the program think there's a problem you want someone to look into. Some make it easy to see what the data actually consists of which can help you tell if they put effort trying to know as little as necessary, avoiding things not their business. There's also an expectation that the data will be used once for helping you and that's all. The questionable way of getting the data is to just hoover up whatever behind the scenes. The interesting cases (which apply to other data too) are in between. On one hand it's acceptable for LinkedIn to ask for your email password so they can get a list of people you might know and want to connect with, but you have little assurance they don't (or won't in the future) questionably hoover up all your email contents for vague reason x, no reason yet/just in case, or inadvertently for really unfortunate reason y when they get compromised, and that's enough for at least a creepy feeling if not fear in some cases.