> So all the 1% features get axed and suddenly you have only 50% of the users. In practice things rarely get that far, thanks mostly due to the complete farce

> So all the 1% features get axed and suddenly you have only 50% of the users. In practice things rarely get that far, thanks mostly due to the complete farce that is "data driven design". Such an approach to design would naturally lead to the axing of every unpopular feature if it were followed mechanistically, but in reality "data driven design" actually refers to the practice of mining to support whatever you (the designer/programmer/manager/etc) have already decided to do, and the data is ignored for anything else. It actually works like this: I form a subjective judgement against some feature which I dislike (maybe because it's a pain to maintain or just because it doesn't suit my preferences for any reason.) Then, I look in the telemetry and start making charts of things until I can find some combination of the data that seems to support my prejudice against the feature. I bury all the presentations of the data which failed to support or even refuted me, I pretend I never saw them. Then I write up my report claiming that the feature should be removed for objective scientific reasons, and my fancy charts and graphs prove it! It's totally not just my subjective prejudices driving the design, no Siree... Besides the privacy/consent concerns, this is why telemetry is bad for users. It devalues dialogue between the users and developers and replaces it with pseudo-scientific arguments based on nothing but the developer's preferences. That's what it's really for, an excuse to never talk with the users.