4 ms·

Overreaching perhaps. Probably. Doing nothing wrong however… If this game is consuming more bandwidth than is necessary to deliver its experience, then they

Overreaching perhaps. Probably. Doing nothing wrong however… If this game is consuming more bandwidth than is necessary to deliver its experience, then they are doing something wrong. Both in the technical sense and the moral sense. Developers have a moral obligation to not waste their user's resources, dammit.

Bjartr 10y ago
There is always another thing to optimize, so no matter how well they do they are still doing something wrong by your point of view.
seanp2k2 10y ago
I whole-heartedly agree, but the reality is that it depends on your perspective. We could have uni kernel apps to run spreadsheets, but instead we now use Google Sheets, inside a JS VM inside of a sandboxed browser on top of an OS which maintains a separate copy of tons of configuration files for each separate piece of software which runs in a sandboxed environment and uses other layers of translation to do things on the hardware. We've shown over the past 40 years that we value developer productivity much more than user resources. Most relevantly, consider the average size of a webpage: http://www.yottaa.com/company/blog/application-optimization/a-brief-history-of-web-page-size/ http://www.yottaa.com/company/blog/application-optimization/...
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  This state of affairs is utterly ridiculous and bad engineering. Sure it's driven by the market, and most of us have to operate within those constraints because of our jobs - but I think it is a responsibility of a developer to push back at least a little bit when the market pressures promote bad engineering. Think of it as sending feedback to the system. That's the only way to price quality in - users won't do it, because in most cases, users have zero real choice except to use the product. Only those making it can make it work well. And then we can also support those working on changing the platform-level stuff.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  > We've shown over the past 40 years that we value developer productivity much more than user resources Of course: we're developers, and we can't multiply. When we use the user's time, we picture using one user, not one million (or, more reasonably, a couple thousands). So it rarely occurs to us that the users' resources are vastly more important than our own productivity. To a lesser extent, this can be true for custom software as well.
Trundle 10y ago
Would you care to share the premises that lead to such a stance? I can't think of how such an obligation would be occurred or why. To me use indicates that the value the end user gets is greater than the costs. Why would creating something valuable but not perfect be immoral? If those that create value are acting immoraly when failing to achieve perfection, are those that don't create value likewise held to the same standard? I'm honestly a little offended at the notion that developers owe anything beyond what's contractually agreed to their users. That something can be accessed and enjoyed for free, that it can be preferable to any other alternative activity the user could be doing, and still not be enough on the part of the supplier to avoid moral condemnation seems like the height of entitlement.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > failing to achieve perfection This is a straw man - nobody expects perfection. For some reason there is a lot of resistance to educating the use and asking their permission. I suspect that this game simply needed a clear warning before download and on startup that includes an estimate of the bandwidth needs. Perhaps only the first startup with an acknowledgement from the user. It may not be possible, but if there is a way to estimate the remaining data plan limit it, including an estimate that "This game will use X% of your data plan per hour" would be a very good way to let the user manage the own usage. > offended Welcome to the club. I'm offended every time a developer user resources (including data) without specific informed consent. "Free" is rarely without cost, and the user is rarely informed in detail. This lack of respect for the user has grown in recent years with the paternalistic attitude that users shouldn't/can't understand technology and the developer should manage the software for the user. Often this is claimed to be for dubious security reasons. You complain that the developer shouldn't have to do anything beyond what they promised in a contract. They can have that level of interaction if-and-only-if they inform the user properly so the user can make informed choices, and they leave the user alone. If, however, the developer wants to retain any amount of control such as data gathering, forcing updates, or using any user resources without informed consent, then the developer is the responsible party. Let the user actually manage everything for themselves in a responsible manner, or accept liability for any problems derived from your software. > height of entitlement The height of improper entitlement are the developers that think they have a right to spy on users, take actions on the user's system without their permission, or otherwise do anything behind the user's back. The user, however, is entitled to business interactions free of any dissembling or obfuscation.
prodigal_erik 10y ago
I think this is a nonstarter. For two generations we've been failing to enforce even a moral obligation that software should work reliably.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Or, work at all. And companies know well that looking nice and being "user-friendly" has a better ROI than actually doing something useful.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  Because we didn't kill enough people yet. (Irradiated patients, unintended accelerations…) When that happens, governments will do the only thing they can: regulate the hell out of us. Unless maybe we regulate ourselves first.
Guyag 10y ago
> Developers have a moral obligation to not waste their user's resources, dammit. Where do you draw the line to define 'wasting' on the expansive scale of efficiency? Past a point it doesn't make business (or technological) sense to optimise. How do you define what level of bandwidth is 'necessary'? If you're suggesting that apps should not release with obviously stupid practices then I agree with you. Past that I'd find it difficult.

Bjartr 10y ago

There is always another thing to optimize, so no matter how well they do they are still doing something wrong by your point of view.

seanp2k2 10y ago

I whole-heartedly agree, but the reality is that it depends on your perspective. We could have uni kernel apps to run spreadsheets, but instead we now use Google Sheets, inside a JS VM inside of a sandboxed browser on top of an OS which maintains a separate copy of tons of configuration files for each separate piece of software which runs in a sandboxed environment and uses other layers of translation to do things on the hardware. We've shown over the past 40 years that we value developer productivity much more than user resources. Most relevantly, consider the average size of a webpage: http://www.yottaa.com/company/blog/application-optimization/a-brief-history-of-web-page-size/ http://www.yottaa.com/company/blog/application-optimization/...

TeMPOraL 10y ago
This state of affairs is utterly ridiculous and bad engineering. Sure it's driven by the market, and most of us have to operate within those constraints because of our jobs - but I think it is a responsibility of a developer to push back at least a little bit when the market pressures promote bad engineering. Think of it as sending feedback to the system. That's the only way to price quality in - users won't do it, because in most cases, users have zero real choice except to use the product. Only those making it can make it work well. And then we can also support those working on changing the platform-level stuff.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
> We've shown over the past 40 years that we value developer productivity much more than user resources Of course: we're developers, and we can't multiply. When we use the user's time, we picture using one user, not one million (or, more reasonably, a couple thousands). So it rarely occurs to us that the users' resources are vastly more important than our own productivity. To a lesser extent, this can be true for custom software as well.

Trundle 10y ago

Would you care to share the premises that lead to such a stance? I can't think of how such an obligation would be occurred or why. To me use indicates that the value the end user gets is greater than the costs. Why would creating something valuable but not perfect be immoral? If those that create value are acting immoraly when failing to achieve perfection, are those that don't create value likewise held to the same standard? I'm honestly a little offended at the notion that developers owe anything beyond what's contractually agreed to their users. That something can be accessed and enjoyed for free, that it can be preferable to any other alternative activity the user could be doing, and still not be enough on the part of the supplier to avoid moral condemnation seems like the height of entitlement.

pdkl95 10y ago
> failing to achieve perfection This is a straw man - nobody expects perfection. For some reason there is a lot of resistance to educating the use and asking their permission. I suspect that this game simply needed a clear warning before download and on startup that includes an estimate of the bandwidth needs. Perhaps only the first startup with an acknowledgement from the user. It may not be possible, but if there is a way to estimate the remaining data plan limit it, including an estimate that "This game will use X% of your data plan per hour" would be a very good way to let the user manage the own usage. > offended Welcome to the club. I'm offended every time a developer user resources (including data) without specific informed consent. "Free" is rarely without cost, and the user is rarely informed in detail. This lack of respect for the user has grown in recent years with the paternalistic attitude that users shouldn't/can't understand technology and the developer should manage the software for the user. Often this is claimed to be for dubious security reasons. You complain that the developer shouldn't have to do anything beyond what they promised in a contract. They can have that level of interaction if-and-only-if they inform the user properly so the user can make informed choices, and they leave the user alone. If, however, the developer wants to retain any amount of control such as data gathering, forcing updates, or using any user resources without informed consent, then the developer is the responsible party. Let the user actually manage everything for themselves in a responsible manner, or accept liability for any problems derived from your software. > height of entitlement The height of improper entitlement are the developers that think they have a right to spy on users, take actions on the user's system without their permission, or otherwise do anything behind the user's back. The user, however, is entitled to business interactions free of any dissembling or obfuscation.

prodigal_erik 10y ago

I think this is a nonstarter. For two generations we've been failing to enforce even a moral obligation that software should work reliably.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Or, work at all. And companies know well that looking nice and being "user-friendly" has a better ROI than actually doing something useful.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
Because we didn't kill enough people yet. (Irradiated patients, unintended accelerations…) When that happens, governments will do the only thing they can: regulate the hell out of us. Unless maybe we regulate ourselves first.

Guyag 10y ago

> Developers have a moral obligation to not waste their user's resources, dammit. Where do you draw the line to define 'wasting' on the expansive scale of efficiency? Past a point it doesn't make business (or technological) sense to optimise. How do you define what level of bandwidth is 'necessary'? If you're suggesting that apps should not release with obviously stupid practices then I agree with you. Past that I'd find it difficult.