6 ms·

If they start out evil, then don't expect them to change.

nicce 5y ago
Usually the practice in these scenarios is to try out all possible ways to make out money and then go a little backwards once the public outcry is big enough. At some point you find the most profitable balance situation, before you have expelled all customers.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  There is a plethora of free GPU-accelerated terminals. Alacritty, kitty, foot, wezterm, etc. None of these as far as I know send telemetry data. I see no reason to think that a new terminal is going to make money somehow by finding a balance.
  - nicce 5y ago
    My comparison was about business models of these "evil" cases in general, not about terminals particularly. On general, free apps tends to need find a balance how much users can tolerate their "exploitation" and how much they get from the app, if the app maker wants to make some money. I don't personally see any reason to swap terminal with telemetry. One of my worst fears that some day I am forced to.
Groxx 5y ago
Wanting to collect usage information and errors isn't evil-by-default. It's incomparably useful for troubleshooting and improving. Absolutely nothing works better, it's the best by a ridiculously large margin. But yeah, terminals are very sensitive environments, opt-in should be a default even at launch.
- cestith 5y ago
  I appreciate the balanced, reasonable discussion. I agree both that telemetry is useful and that there's not necessarily a place for it in the tool I use to manage my workstation and hundreds of servers. Perhaps I'd opt in to a middle ground, that is collect telemetry locally into a support file I can review, evaluate, and potentially redact before submission.
- triska 5y ago
  > Absolutely nothing works better, it's the best by a ridiculously large margin. Is this really the case? It seems that to find mistakes in software for various interaction patterns, truly exhaustive automated tests would likely work far better by various measures (coverage, reliability, reproducibility, reusability etc.) and at the same time do not have the extreme downside of privacy invasion. For example, see a section from the Age of Empires Post Mortem https://www.gamedeveloper.com/pc/the-game-developer-archives-postmortem-ensemble-s-age-of-empires- https://www.gamedeveloper.com/pc/the-game-developer-archives... : "8. We didn’t take enough advantage of automated testing. In the final weeks of development, we set up the game to automatically play up to eight computers against each other. Additionally, a second computer containing the development platform and debugger could monitor each computer that took part. These games, while randomly generated, were logged so that if anything happened, we could reproduce the exact game over and over until we isolated the problem. The games themselves were allowed to run at an accelerated speed and were left running overnight. This was a great success and helped us in isolating very hard to reproduce problems. Our failure was in not doing this earlier in development; it could have saved us a great deal of time and effort. All of our future production plans now include automated testing from Day One."
  - throw10920 5y ago
    Automated tests are completely useless for finding (let alone solving) human interaction issues. To compare them with telemetry is a category error.
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      Shouldn't human interaction errors be left up to the user to report, as opposed to software sending sensitive information to a third-party?
      - warent 5y ago
        No data on this but instinctively it seems, given alternatives, most people abandon some buggy software rather than patiently reporting problems and waiting for it to get better.
- bitwize 5y ago
  > Absolutely nothing works better, it's the best by a ridiculously large margin. Then why is the telemetry-encrusted modern Windows a usability fail, even compared to past versions of Windows which relied on extensive in-house user testing?
  - deadbunny 5y ago
    Because power users turn off telemetry where they can which means they only see telemetry from "normal users". That's my theory anyway.
    - yoyohello13 5y ago
      You can’t turn telemetry off in windows. Your choices are “full telemetry” and “less telemetry”
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Because telemetry is used to maximize profit and not to maximize value for users.
  - Groxx 5y ago
    Having data available doesn't mean using it to do anything useful. As evidence of this, I offer: the vast majority of all human behavior over literally all time.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  It is evil by default. Paying beta testers, or giving them a free, opt-in version with telemetry is the ethical route. Being ridiculously, over the top clear about exactly what you snarf off the end user is the ethical route. You are not entitled to access my machine, and that shouldn't be casually dismissed with "don't worry, we're not doing anything bad." You're creating potential vulnerabilities, and by implementing identifiable patterns, reducing the security of your users. You shouldn't spy on people, and when you do, it's wrong. Remotely inspecting people's behavior is spying. Your software doesn't need to phone home. It doesn't need automatic updates. You don't need to spy on people to develop good software. That's toxic nonsense.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Telemetry is just the cheapest and most convenient option for business owners, and not necessarily the best option when it comes to improving customer value and experiences. Case studies, focus groups, surveys and interviews are great ways to determine usage patterns and problems with products and services. Of course, you'd need to pay users to participate in them, and then you need to pay expensive employees to conduct, collect and analyze the results. Spying is cheaper than doing any of that.
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  Ethical telemetry really in my view should: - be opt-in - provide an easy to read & access log which can be reviewed by the user at any point - never collect unnecessary information 'just because' it might be useful in the future - should provide a very good detailed analysis of any claims to anonymity If something doesn't even fulfil the first criterion, it's probably violating all the others too.

Usually the practice in these scenarios is to try out all possible ways to make out money and then go a little backwards once the public outcry is big enough. At some point you find the most profitable balance situation, before you have expelled all customers.

encryptluks2 5y ago
There is a plethora of free GPU-accelerated terminals. Alacritty, kitty, foot, wezterm, etc. None of these as far as I know send telemetry data. I see no reason to think that a new terminal is going to make money somehow by finding a balance.
- nicce 5y ago
  My comparison was about business models of these "evil" cases in general, not about terminals particularly. On general, free apps tends to need find a balance how much users can tolerate their "exploitation" and how much they get from the app, if the app maker wants to make some money. I don't personally see any reason to swap terminal with telemetry. One of my worst fears that some day I am forced to.

Groxx 5y ago

Wanting to collect usage information and errors isn't evil-by-default. It's incomparably useful for troubleshooting and improving. Absolutely nothing works better, it's the best by a ridiculously large margin. But yeah, terminals are very sensitive environments, opt-in should be a default even at launch.

cestith 5y ago
I appreciate the balanced, reasonable discussion. I agree both that telemetry is useful and that there's not necessarily a place for it in the tool I use to manage my workstation and hundreds of servers. Perhaps I'd opt in to a middle ground, that is collect telemetry locally into a support file I can review, evaluate, and potentially redact before submission.
triska 5y ago
> Absolutely nothing works better, it's the best by a ridiculously large margin. Is this really the case? It seems that to find mistakes in software for various interaction patterns, truly exhaustive automated tests would likely work far better by various measures (coverage, reliability, reproducibility, reusability etc.) and at the same time do not have the extreme downside of privacy invasion. For example, see a section from the Age of Empires Post Mortem https://www.gamedeveloper.com/pc/the-game-developer-archives-postmortem-ensemble-s-age-of-empires- https://www.gamedeveloper.com/pc/the-game-developer-archives... : "8. We didn’t take enough advantage of automated testing. In the final weeks of development, we set up the game to automatically play up to eight computers against each other. Additionally, a second computer containing the development platform and debugger could monitor each computer that took part. These games, while randomly generated, were logged so that if anything happened, we could reproduce the exact game over and over until we isolated the problem. The games themselves were allowed to run at an accelerated speed and were left running overnight. This was a great success and helped us in isolating very hard to reproduce problems. Our failure was in not doing this earlier in development; it could have saved us a great deal of time and effort. All of our future production plans now include automated testing from Day One."
- throw10920 5y ago
  Automated tests are completely useless for finding (let alone solving) human interaction issues. To compare them with telemetry is a category error.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    Shouldn't human interaction errors be left up to the user to report, as opposed to software sending sensitive information to a third-party?
    - warent 5y ago
      No data on this but instinctively it seems, given alternatives, most people abandon some buggy software rather than patiently reporting problems and waiting for it to get better.
bitwize 5y ago
> Absolutely nothing works better, it's the best by a ridiculously large margin. Then why is the telemetry-encrusted modern Windows a usability fail, even compared to past versions of Windows which relied on extensive in-house user testing?
- deadbunny 5y ago
  Because power users turn off telemetry where they can which means they only see telemetry from "normal users". That's my theory anyway.
  - yoyohello13 5y ago
    You can’t turn telemetry off in windows. Your choices are “full telemetry” and “less telemetry”
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Because telemetry is used to maximize profit and not to maximize value for users.
- Groxx 5y ago
  Having data available doesn't mean using it to do anything useful. As evidence of this, I offer: the vast majority of all human behavior over literally all time.
robbedpeter 5y ago
It is evil by default. Paying beta testers, or giving them a free, opt-in version with telemetry is the ethical route. Being ridiculously, over the top clear about exactly what you snarf off the end user is the ethical route. You are not entitled to access my machine, and that shouldn't be casually dismissed with "don't worry, we're not doing anything bad." You're creating potential vulnerabilities, and by implementing identifiable patterns, reducing the security of your users. You shouldn't spy on people, and when you do, it's wrong. Remotely inspecting people's behavior is spying. Your software doesn't need to phone home. It doesn't need automatic updates. You don't need to spy on people to develop good software. That's toxic nonsense.
heavyset_go 5y ago
Telemetry is just the cheapest and most convenient option for business owners, and not necessarily the best option when it comes to improving customer value and experiences. Case studies, focus groups, surveys and interviews are great ways to determine usage patterns and problems with products and services. Of course, you'd need to pay users to participate in them, and then you need to pay expensive employees to conduct, collect and analyze the results. Spying is cheaper than doing any of that.
bigDinosaur 5y ago
Ethical telemetry really in my view should: - be opt-in - provide an easy to read & access log which can be reviewed by the user at any point - never collect unnecessary information 'just because' it might be useful in the future - should provide a very good detailed analysis of any claims to anonymity If something doesn't even fulfil the first criterion, it's probably violating all the others too.