4 ms·

The Loopt debacle

28 points by prakash 18y ago

Tichy 18y ago
Hm, J2ME had it's problems, but at least there always was a popup asking the user for permission before a costly network operation was allowed.
- axod 18y ago
  "Costly network operation"? I guess you don't live in the UK or similar. (Data is free here (EDGE or free wifi)). Do you have to pay for incomming calls and SMS as well? If so that's just ridiculous. edit: If it is sending out SMS it would make sense for it to ask you first definitely.
  - swombat 18y ago
    It's free to receive in the UK, but very pricey to send. If Loopt spammed my contact list here, it would probably cost me about £10 in the process. I don't have an iPhone yet, so that can't happen. Lucky me! Oh wait..
  - sabat 18y ago
    Do you have to pay for incoming calls and SMS as well? Yes. If so that's just ridiculous. Yes, it is. Welcome to American capitalism, where avarice is more important than long-term strategy or customer loyalty.
  - icey 18y ago
    Merlin Mann said it better than any of us could ever hope to: "SMSs cost money. Like real money. Not popped collar polo shirt money." (Of course, he was referring to being the recipient of SMSs, not the sender. (Which also costs money.))
  - jonknee 18y ago
    I believe the messages sent were from Loopt's shortcode so it wouldn't technically cost you money, but it would cost whoever received the message. But in general you shouldn't send a message to everyone in the phonebook by default. Especially without a confirmation page. You potentially just shared your location with bunches of people you don't want to know your location (exes, bosses, clients, etc). This is the kind of thing that could easily get their shortcode revoked which is why they reacted so swiftly.
    - axod 18y ago
      Ah. So it would have actually been sent from Loopt and not from you. Now I understand.
    - boucher 18y ago
      It DOESN'T send a message to everyone in the phonebook. It only sends to people you select.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    Germany, and also J2ME has been around for a while. In the beginnings, sending SMS as well as network connections were very costly for most people in Germany. I guess even if it were free it would make sense to ask people before the phone is allowed to connect somewhere else. Some mobile phone vendors provided an "always allow" option in the settings, though.
boucher 18y ago
I'm completely underwhelmed by all the iPhone Loopt bashing. A slew of people have reported accidentally spamming their friends, but nobody has been able to describe what happened. When I used the Loopt iPhone app, it was pretty obvious what was going on to me. You have to actually tap on the names of people whom you want to invite. Now, if there is some bug that's causing invites to be sent to more than the individuals you tap, that should be addressed, but its probably nothing more than a bug. Merlin Mann hasn't even tried the Loopt app, but has no problem arguing about its supposed privacy violations. If anyone has more information, or can actually describe the problem people are supposedly having, I'd be interested to hear it.
- KirinDave 18y ago
  I've been using it, and it was fairly obvious to me exactly what I was signing up for. I actually bothered to skim the "Privacy" section of the license and said, "Oh, that's how Loopt plans to make money, by sending me SMSs with advertisements. That's predictable. I think what's happening is that people are conflating Loopt's "We will share your phone number and location with our advertisers if we so decide" with their invite system, and getting into an uproar as a result.
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    Top Ten List of Coder Excuses for Bad UI Design: 1. I understand the UI perfectly. The users must be stupid. 2. It's all spelled out perfectly clearly on page three of the license agreement. ... Let me add one: 3. You have no privacy anyway; get over it. Anybody else want to add one? I'm still a bit short of ten, here. I note, with approval, that the Loopt folks were smart enough not to make excuses but to fall immediately into the Apologizer role: http://loopt.typepad.com/loopt/2008/07/iphone-invite-c.html http://loopt.typepad.com/loopt/2008/07/iphone-invite-c.html ... which, if we carefully parse Loopt's own description of the problem, seems to be entirely warranted: When you clicked the “Who’s on Loopt” button, all of your contacts that are current Loopt users were auto-selected to receive invites. A total count of people receiving invites appeared at the bottom of the screen. However, we have since disabled that functionality due to customer feedback and confusion. We are working on an improved invite flow that will include an invite confirmation screen that will be released very soon. "...will include an invite confirmation screen". Uh, yep, that could be the problem! It would be nice to provide more detailed bug reports, but it seems that we can't because Loopt treated this as an emergency and updated the app right away. Which was also very smart.
andrewf 18y ago
I'm in Australia, and here, mobile charges for calls and SMS fall solely on the caller/sender. The US convention, where the person who is charged for an action is not the person who decided to take the action, has always seemed slightly insane. I've heard that the rationale for receiver pays in the US is: the receiver is the person who decided to carry a mobile rather than use a landline, and therefore should bear the cost. This makes some sense. But I prefer the Australian system, where the caller can distinguish mobile numbers from landline numbers, just like calling long distance.
- bbgm 18y ago
  And how does that logic work in a situation where land lines are becoming somewhat obsolete or atleast not a mandatory option? Plus, I carry a mobile, but does that mean I should only receive calls when I am home or near a land line? Sounds archaic at best and telecom company plan to get the most money they can at worst. The US system has never made sense to me.
- jonknee 18y ago
  It's even better than that, both the sender and receiver pay. So if two iPhone users send a message to each other they either both get billed $.20 or both get 1 message deducted from their bucket for the payment period (unless there is an unlimited messaging plan). Up to $.40 to shuffle 160 characters around your own network is quite a haul.
geuis 18y ago
I tried the Loopt app the first day of the iphone 2.0 launch. I promptly uninstalled it. Despite the hype that certain bloggers have ascribed it (ahem.. Techcrunch), I found the actual implementation to be poor. The interface is lacking. The integrated business search is potentially interesting, but there are other apps that do the same thing but better. The bottom line is that I don't want to join another social network. I was hoping to just turn on the app and find a bunch of other people in the city(San Francisco) to see what hot areas were going on. I can't even do that without inviting a bunch of other people to join Loopt also. Boo. Fail.

28 points by prakash 18y ago

Tichy 18y ago

Hm, J2ME had it's problems, but at least there always was a popup asking the user for permission before a costly network operation was allowed.

axod 18y ago
"Costly network operation"? I guess you don't live in the UK or similar. (Data is free here (EDGE or free wifi)). Do you have to pay for incomming calls and SMS as well? If so that's just ridiculous. edit: If it is sending out SMS it would make sense for it to ask you first definitely.
- swombat 18y ago
  It's free to receive in the UK, but very pricey to send. If Loopt spammed my contact list here, it would probably cost me about £10 in the process. I don't have an iPhone yet, so that can't happen. Lucky me! Oh wait..
- sabat 18y ago
  Do you have to pay for incoming calls and SMS as well? Yes. If so that's just ridiculous. Yes, it is. Welcome to American capitalism, where avarice is more important than long-term strategy or customer loyalty.
- icey 18y ago
  Merlin Mann said it better than any of us could ever hope to: "SMSs cost money. Like real money. Not popped collar polo shirt money." (Of course, he was referring to being the recipient of SMSs, not the sender. (Which also costs money.))
- jonknee 18y ago
  I believe the messages sent were from Loopt's shortcode so it wouldn't technically cost you money, but it would cost whoever received the message. But in general you shouldn't send a message to everyone in the phonebook by default. Especially without a confirmation page. You potentially just shared your location with bunches of people you don't want to know your location (exes, bosses, clients, etc). This is the kind of thing that could easily get their shortcode revoked which is why they reacted so swiftly.
  - axod 18y ago
    Ah. So it would have actually been sent from Loopt and not from you. Now I understand.
  - boucher 18y ago
    It DOESN'T send a message to everyone in the phonebook. It only sends to people you select.
- Tichy 18y ago
  Germany, and also J2ME has been around for a while. In the beginnings, sending SMS as well as network connections were very costly for most people in Germany. I guess even if it were free it would make sense to ask people before the phone is allowed to connect somewhere else. Some mobile phone vendors provided an "always allow" option in the settings, though.

boucher 18y ago

I'm completely underwhelmed by all the iPhone Loopt bashing. A slew of people have reported accidentally spamming their friends, but nobody has been able to describe what happened. When I used the Loopt iPhone app, it was pretty obvious what was going on to me. You have to actually tap on the names of people whom you want to invite. Now, if there is some bug that's causing invites to be sent to more than the individuals you tap, that should be addressed, but its probably nothing more than a bug. Merlin Mann hasn't even tried the Loopt app, but has no problem arguing about its supposed privacy violations. If anyone has more information, or can actually describe the problem people are supposedly having, I'd be interested to hear it.

KirinDave 18y ago
I've been using it, and it was fairly obvious to me exactly what I was signing up for. I actually bothered to skim the "Privacy" section of the license and said, "Oh, that's how Loopt plans to make money, by sending me SMSs with advertisements. That's predictable. I think what's happening is that people are conflating Loopt's "We will share your phone number and location with our advertisers if we so decide" with their invite system, and getting into an uproar as a result.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  Top Ten List of Coder Excuses for Bad UI Design: 1. I understand the UI perfectly. The users must be stupid. 2. It's all spelled out perfectly clearly on page three of the license agreement. ... Let me add one: 3. You have no privacy anyway; get over it. Anybody else want to add one? I'm still a bit short of ten, here. I note, with approval, that the Loopt folks were smart enough not to make excuses but to fall immediately into the Apologizer role: http://loopt.typepad.com/loopt/2008/07/iphone-invite-c.html http://loopt.typepad.com/loopt/2008/07/iphone-invite-c.html ... which, if we carefully parse Loopt's own description of the problem, seems to be entirely warranted: When you clicked the “Who’s on Loopt” button, all of your contacts that are current Loopt users were auto-selected to receive invites. A total count of people receiving invites appeared at the bottom of the screen. However, we have since disabled that functionality due to customer feedback and confusion. We are working on an improved invite flow that will include an invite confirmation screen that will be released very soon. "...will include an invite confirmation screen". Uh, yep, that could be the problem! It would be nice to provide more detailed bug reports, but it seems that we can't because Loopt treated this as an emergency and updated the app right away. Which was also very smart.

andrewf 18y ago

I'm in Australia, and here, mobile charges for calls and SMS fall solely on the caller/sender. The US convention, where the person who is charged for an action is not the person who decided to take the action, has always seemed slightly insane. I've heard that the rationale for receiver pays in the US is: the receiver is the person who decided to carry a mobile rather than use a landline, and therefore should bear the cost. This makes some sense. But I prefer the Australian system, where the caller can distinguish mobile numbers from landline numbers, just like calling long distance.

bbgm 18y ago
And how does that logic work in a situation where land lines are becoming somewhat obsolete or atleast not a mandatory option? Plus, I carry a mobile, but does that mean I should only receive calls when I am home or near a land line? Sounds archaic at best and telecom company plan to get the most money they can at worst. The US system has never made sense to me.
jonknee 18y ago
It's even better than that, both the sender and receiver pay. So if two iPhone users send a message to each other they either both get billed $.20 or both get 1 message deducted from their bucket for the payment period (unless there is an unlimited messaging plan). Up to $.40 to shuffle 160 characters around your own network is quite a haul.

geuis 18y ago

I tried the Loopt app the first day of the iphone 2.0 launch. I promptly uninstalled it. Despite the hype that certain bloggers have ascribed it (ahem.. Techcrunch), I found the actual implementation to be poor. The interface is lacking. The integrated business search is potentially interesting, but there are other apps that do the same thing but better. The bottom line is that I don't want to join another social network. I was hoping to just turn on the app and find a bunch of other people in the city(San Francisco) to see what hot areas were going on. I can't even do that without inviting a bunch of other people to join Loopt also. Boo. Fail.