6 ms·

Guys... honest question. What happened to settings menus? Why are we taking away configuration from users' hands?

swayson 5y ago
No idea, not sure if it is the next generation of users, forcing the change, or something more nefarious. ultimately, "control is an illusion"
- marderfarker2 5y ago
  You already lost control when you let someone else store your files for you. This drive letter issue is just a GUI problem.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    In any normal market, the customer is the one is control, because they are the one paying. Something is seriously rotten.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      That would be the tech knowledge of the individual. Record lows, considering the pervasive tech. We've taken the opportunity of technological advancement and turned it into societal devolvement in the name of convenience, instead.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  What kind of evil plot do you think google is behind here? Seems like a completely legitimate change to me.
  - swayson 5y ago
    Slippery slope, slowly conditioning people, and before you know it. Only a select few may have the ability to use general computers. Speculation, but plausible. I'd look at the broader trends, not just this one event. Rather, the series of events and the dark pattern behind it.
Gigachad 5y ago
Configuration adds complexity and is a huge source of confusion for users. Google drive strikes me as something that should just work and be so simple that you do not have to configure it. There does not seem to be any genuine reason to make this change a setting because the main objection is just "I don't like it" rather than "it stops me from doing x" or "it makes x harder" It would be much less painful to just have users get used to the new behavior than to support a setting for forever. For people who want full power, custom clients exist for google drive which can work however you want. We see a constant trend where users move towards products which just work rather than require manuals and configuration. Seems only sane that general public products like google drive should cater to this and if you want full power over everything, you have 3rd party clients, nextcloud, ftp, etc.
- mjw1007 5y ago
  I don't think it's safe to reason from what the "main" objection is. I see one of the comments on that page is: « I just installed the new Google Drive desktop client (Win 10 pro) and the new virtual drive it creates triggers a non-compliance issue with ClearPass OnGuard that my employer requires (because the drive is not encrypted) and thus prevents me from connecting to their VPN. » Maybe this OnGuard thing is being foolish, but that's no comfort to the user.
  - Silhouette 5y ago
    Maybe this OnGuard thing is being foolish Maybe, but if corporate policy requires all storage to be encrypted and the tool to enforce that policy can't verify that whatever Google's software is doing is compliant, maybe not. Different policies might be appropriate for software that is used by non-experts in a personal capacity and software that is part of professionally managed IT systems used for business purposes with regulatory compliance obligations. A lot of the modern trends from the likes of Google, Apple and Microsoft might make sense for the former group but they are a significant concern for the latter and for prosumer or small business users who might want to operate more like the latter but are stuck with software aimed at the former.
- danielheath 5y ago
aclelland 5y ago
I've come to accept that it's just a cost cutting measure for larger tech companies, why offer users an option when you don't need to? It costs extra to document, test and offer support for. I can't really think of any software from a major tech company that I use frequently and that's been updated to give me _more_ toggles to customize the app. It's always to take things away.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  Apple actually does really well at this where it matters. Their accessibility settings allow a huge amount of customization for making the devices easier to use for disabled people. They just don't have android rom style settings like changing the unlock screen to swipe down rather than up or turning the battery indicator in to a circle.
  - dannyw 5y ago
    Configurability matters in a lot more cases than just accessibility. example: set Spotify to be the default music app.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    Or the ability to change your system apps.
- simion314 5y ago
  Exactly. For example on a small company we had one user that needed RTL support, this ment we create backend code to store his perferences, front end code to add UI for it and testing the feature. We implemented because for a small company each user is important where big companies or projects(Firefox,GNOME will force this minorities to go elsewhere)
  - asvitkine 5y ago
    Uhm, there are literally hundreds of millions of people in the world that use RTL languages. For mainstream, global software this is not a niche feature but a core requirement.
thih9 5y ago
I guess companies are more interested in mainstream users than in technical users. The former are a larger group that seems easier to attract and retain, they mostly use defaults and don’t care that much about dark patterns. Google has been following this approach for years now, simplifying the UX in a way that both 1. makes the product easier to use and 2. in a way that benefits Google. Google has merged the url bar and the search bar in chrome, they force defaults on google search, and not long ago [1] we were discussing removing detailed cookie controls. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407656
- usui 5y ago
  I would like to posit the idea that all feature changes target #2 far more than #1: to benefit Google as an org. What if the emphasis of mainstream users is overstated? I find it more likely that an organization could be shaping features to coax its users into submission to make the org's life easier. "Yes, mainstream users want this simplification. No, we can't share the data or methodology in which we surmised this. Yes, this makes our life vastly easier, but we want to excuse it by pinning it on mainstream users." I've seen power apps (so by definition all the users are very technical and should not be patronized) that use the same reason to cut features instead of saying outright that it's too much to support. Maybe for a big org like Google it would be an admission of embarrassment.
antaviana 5y ago
They want to hide complexity and reduce surface of support to make products usable by a much, much larger audience than before. The poweruser needs to die to accomplish this goal.
zmix 5y ago
It's just like in authoritarian politics...
robbedpeter 5y ago
It's lazy and greedy and arrogant. It's catering to the lowest common denominator, pushing users into a cycle of manipulation and constant change, preventing any nuanced use of software, forcing users to increased dependence on a walled garden. It's a dark pattern - don't let people use the software in unexpected ways that might take potential profit away from another service or future feature. If any use gives more value than was intended, that use will be curtailed, then properly monetized elsewhere, or simply (and more often than not) shut off. If combinations of available settings reveal an actual bug, sometimes it's easier to take away the options than to fix the bug. But if it's simply a case that the software is doing things the developers don't want for any of the above reasons, they claim users are too incompetent to be trusted, and that they're removing the option for the good of the user. It's a gross and vapid perverse incentive endemic to FAANG. Good solutions exist for complexity and user configurations, like snapshots, reset to default, and so on. There's no excuse for mature software to lose configurability.
- ljm 5y ago
  Going with Occam's Razor, I think it's really just as simple as product/engineering not making this kind of feature a priority. Plus, we're talking about Google here, so this new desktop version was 99% likely to have been rebuilt as an MVP.
  - nixass 5y ago
    > Plus, we're talking about Google here Exactly the point the referred poster was making. Google does nothing without monetization in mind
    - kettleballroll 5y ago
      As opposed to which other company?
      - tux3 5y ago
        Mozilla? They're not the paragon of virtue I want them to be, but it sure fucking ain't Google. My point is that there are shades and degrees of bad behavior. It's a mistake to handwave every company as equally bad. That feeling is how you normalize horribly immoral things.
yosito 5y ago
> Why are we taking away configuration from users' hands? Because users are the product, not the customers. Time to choose a cloud provider with a different business model.
izacus 5y ago
It's just... easier for engineers. Less to test, less code, less to think about. And right now, all software is being built at the pleasure of the software engineers - this is why you're also seeing shift towards things like Electron apps and less options and worse UX. It's just easier for the guy programming it and noone really cares about user experience because there's no real competition. I mean, what are you going to do, use a 3rd party client for Google's services? You're not allowed to - at least not on the same service level.
- noahadavis 5y ago
  > I mean, what are you going to do, use a 3rd party client for Google's services? You're not allowed to - at least not on the same service level. 3rd party Google Drive clients have been the only type of Google Drive client on Linux for a long time. Probably the only good graphical client is this one and it's actually pretty good: https://www.insynchq.com/ https://www.insynchq.com/

No idea, not sure if it is the next generation of users, forcing the change, or something more nefarious. ultimately, "control is an illusion"

marderfarker2 5y ago
You already lost control when you let someone else store your files for you. This drive letter issue is just a GUI problem.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  In any normal market, the customer is the one is control, because they are the one paying. Something is seriously rotten.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    That would be the tech knowledge of the individual. Record lows, considering the pervasive tech. We've taken the opportunity of technological advancement and turned it into societal devolvement in the name of convenience, instead.
Gigachad 5y ago
What kind of evil plot do you think google is behind here? Seems like a completely legitimate change to me.
- swayson 5y ago
  Slippery slope, slowly conditioning people, and before you know it. Only a select few may have the ability to use general computers. Speculation, but plausible. I'd look at the broader trends, not just this one event. Rather, the series of events and the dark pattern behind it.

Gigachad 5y ago

Configuration adds complexity and is a huge source of confusion for users. Google drive strikes me as something that should just work and be so simple that you do not have to configure it. There does not seem to be any genuine reason to make this change a setting because the main objection is just "I don't like it" rather than "it stops me from doing x" or "it makes x harder" It would be much less painful to just have users get used to the new behavior than to support a setting for forever. For people who want full power, custom clients exist for google drive which can work however you want. We see a constant trend where users move towards products which just work rather than require manuals and configuration. Seems only sane that general public products like google drive should cater to this and if you want full power over everything, you have 3rd party clients, nextcloud, ftp, etc.

mjw1007 5y ago
I don't think it's safe to reason from what the "main" objection is. I see one of the comments on that page is: « I just installed the new Google Drive desktop client (Win 10 pro) and the new virtual drive it creates triggers a non-compliance issue with ClearPass OnGuard that my employer requires (because the drive is not encrypted) and thus prevents me from connecting to their VPN. » Maybe this OnGuard thing is being foolish, but that's no comfort to the user.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  Maybe this OnGuard thing is being foolish Maybe, but if corporate policy requires all storage to be encrypted and the tool to enforce that policy can't verify that whatever Google's software is doing is compliant, maybe not. Different policies might be appropriate for software that is used by non-experts in a personal capacity and software that is part of professionally managed IT systems used for business purposes with regulatory compliance obligations. A lot of the modern trends from the likes of Google, Apple and Microsoft might make sense for the former group but they are a significant concern for the latter and for prosumer or small business users who might want to operate more like the latter but are stuck with software aimed at the former.
danielheath 5y ago

aclelland 5y ago

I've come to accept that it's just a cost cutting measure for larger tech companies, why offer users an option when you don't need to? It costs extra to document, test and offer support for. I can't really think of any software from a major tech company that I use frequently and that's been updated to give me _more_ toggles to customize the app. It's always to take things away.

Gigachad 5y ago
Apple actually does really well at this where it matters. Their accessibility settings allow a huge amount of customization for making the devices easier to use for disabled people. They just don't have android rom style settings like changing the unlock screen to swipe down rather than up or turning the battery indicator in to a circle.
- dannyw 5y ago
  Configurability matters in a lot more cases than just accessibility. example: set Spotify to be the default music app.
- atatatat 5y ago
  Or the ability to change your system apps.
simion314 5y ago
Exactly. For example on a small company we had one user that needed RTL support, this ment we create backend code to store his perferences, front end code to add UI for it and testing the feature. We implemented because for a small company each user is important where big companies or projects(Firefox,GNOME will force this minorities to go elsewhere)
- asvitkine 5y ago
  Uhm, there are literally hundreds of millions of people in the world that use RTL languages. For mainstream, global software this is not a niche feature but a core requirement.

thih9 5y ago

I guess companies are more interested in mainstream users than in technical users. The former are a larger group that seems easier to attract and retain, they mostly use defaults and don’t care that much about dark patterns. Google has been following this approach for years now, simplifying the UX in a way that both 1. makes the product easier to use and 2. in a way that benefits Google. Google has merged the url bar and the search bar in chrome, they force defaults on google search, and not long ago [1] we were discussing removing detailed cookie controls. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407656

usui 5y ago
I would like to posit the idea that all feature changes target #2 far more than #1: to benefit Google as an org. What if the emphasis of mainstream users is overstated? I find it more likely that an organization could be shaping features to coax its users into submission to make the org's life easier. "Yes, mainstream users want this simplification. No, we can't share the data or methodology in which we surmised this. Yes, this makes our life vastly easier, but we want to excuse it by pinning it on mainstream users." I've seen power apps (so by definition all the users are very technical and should not be patronized) that use the same reason to cut features instead of saying outright that it's too much to support. Maybe for a big org like Google it would be an admission of embarrassment.

antaviana 5y ago

They want to hide complexity and reduce surface of support to make products usable by a much, much larger audience than before. The poweruser needs to die to accomplish this goal.

zmix 5y ago

It's just like in authoritarian politics...

robbedpeter 5y ago

It's lazy and greedy and arrogant. It's catering to the lowest common denominator, pushing users into a cycle of manipulation and constant change, preventing any nuanced use of software, forcing users to increased dependence on a walled garden. It's a dark pattern - don't let people use the software in unexpected ways that might take potential profit away from another service or future feature. If any use gives more value than was intended, that use will be curtailed, then properly monetized elsewhere, or simply (and more often than not) shut off. If combinations of available settings reveal an actual bug, sometimes it's easier to take away the options than to fix the bug. But if it's simply a case that the software is doing things the developers don't want for any of the above reasons, they claim users are too incompetent to be trusted, and that they're removing the option for the good of the user. It's a gross and vapid perverse incentive endemic to FAANG. Good solutions exist for complexity and user configurations, like snapshots, reset to default, and so on. There's no excuse for mature software to lose configurability.

ljm 5y ago
Going with Occam's Razor, I think it's really just as simple as product/engineering not making this kind of feature a priority. Plus, we're talking about Google here, so this new desktop version was 99% likely to have been rebuilt as an MVP.
- nixass 5y ago
  > Plus, we're talking about Google here Exactly the point the referred poster was making. Google does nothing without monetization in mind
  - kettleballroll 5y ago
    As opposed to which other company?
    - tux3 5y ago
      Mozilla? They're not the paragon of virtue I want them to be, but it sure fucking ain't Google. My point is that there are shades and degrees of bad behavior. It's a mistake to handwave every company as equally bad. That feeling is how you normalize horribly immoral things.

yosito 5y ago

> Why are we taking away configuration from users' hands? Because users are the product, not the customers. Time to choose a cloud provider with a different business model.

izacus 5y ago

It's just... easier for engineers. Less to test, less code, less to think about. And right now, all software is being built at the pleasure of the software engineers - this is why you're also seeing shift towards things like Electron apps and less options and worse UX. It's just easier for the guy programming it and noone really cares about user experience because there's no real competition. I mean, what are you going to do, use a 3rd party client for Google's services? You're not allowed to - at least not on the same service level.

noahadavis 5y ago
> I mean, what are you going to do, use a 3rd party client for Google's services? You're not allowed to - at least not on the same service level. 3rd party Google Drive clients have been the only type of Google Drive client on Linux for a long time. Probably the only good graphical client is this one and it's actually pretty good: https://www.insynchq.com/ https://www.insynchq.com/