3 ms·

> The reason they collect telemetry usually is why they say they do - to improve the product. Even if that's true, organizations like to keep this stuff for lo

> The reason they collect telemetry usually is why they say they do - to improve the product. Even if that's true, organizations like to keep this stuff for longer than they should and are not immune to hacks or changing business priorities (like AI). If there was serious liability attached to leaking or "off-label" use of this data then I'd feel better about it. Also, using telemetry to justify removing features is not about making the product better but about cutting costs. How is Firefox better without RSS support? The fact that only a small number of users use it tells you nothing about how passionate or influential those users are, nor how such a change will affect wider perception of your products. See also: how pissed off many on HN still are about the death of Google Reader even though it was a "niche" product.

freedomben 3y ago
> Also, using telemetry to justify removing features is not about making the product better but about cutting costs. How is Firefox better without RSS support? Maintaining stuff has a cost in time and/or money. Added new features or fixing bugs has a cost in time and/or money. Time and/or money is limited, so decisions must be made on what is the best use of it. Removing features can (sometimes) result in a lot of savings in the form of simplified codebase (which means improved developer productivity), reduces surface area for bugs, etc. I (really) hate when products remove features, and I think it's often done assuming a lot more savings than actually happens, but there is some logic to it. I don't know what Firefox used the RSS support savintgs to do, but if they used it to build containers (which I use constantly) then for me Firefox is much better. If they squandered that time, then of course it's not better off. But without having access to roadmaps and planning documents, it's dificult to know which tradeoffs were made.

freedomben 3y ago

> Also, using telemetry to justify removing features is not about making the product better but about cutting costs. How is Firefox better without RSS support? Maintaining stuff has a cost in time and/or money. Added new features or fixing bugs has a cost in time and/or money. Time and/or money is limited, so decisions must be made on what is the best use of it. Removing features can (sometimes) result in a lot of savings in the form of simplified codebase (which means improved developer productivity), reduces surface area for bugs, etc. I (really) hate when products remove features, and I think it's often done assuming a lot more savings than actually happens, but there is some logic to it. I don't know what Firefox used the RSS support savintgs to do, but if they used it to build containers (which I use constantly) then for me Firefox is much better. If they squandered that time, then of course it's not better off. But without having access to roadmaps and planning documents, it's dificult to know which tradeoffs were made.