4 ms·

It's more complicated than that though. A few months back when they removed those features, they used that spin to turn it into some free publicity that made it

It's more complicated than that though. A few months back when they removed those features, they used that spin to turn it into some free publicity that made it sound like they were unconventionally responding to their users. Now they're stuck with that lie, which I'm sure rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but I'll bet it was worth it just to have their name in some memorable headlines.

stcredzero 15y ago
Now they're stuck with that lie, which I'm sure rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but I'll bet it was worth it just to have their name in some memorable headlines. Not only are they playing fast and loose with insecure passing of private data, they also tell their users lies? Maybe deleting their app was the right choice for me.
- MaxGabriel 15y ago
  That's not a lie. I've read through several hundred bump reviews and their app had very poor ratings from users who expected full app/music sharing. It was misleading in the first place to not give indications of limitations on those features, though. Edit: I had looked after Bump 3.0 and they had tons of 1 star reviews for removing the features, but now they're up to 4.5 stars, whereas they had ~2.5 on Bump 2.0
- mistercow 15y ago
  I understand that you are angry about this product (I don't really care about it except I guess the concept is kind of neat?), but your comment really wasn't a relevant and appropriate reply to my comment. In fact, I didn't even make the point about them lying; I assumed it as a premise in explaining why they might have seen it as a net marketing advantage to tell it.
tlear 15y ago
It is not a lie, they were not sharing actual music or apps just links. This led to a ton of confusion and bad reviews on old app. Personally I think it was a really good idea to cut those features out. They also made the app much simpler to use in the process.
- mistercow 15y ago
  Well, I did not really mean to take a stance on whether it was a lie or not. My point was that if it was a lie, it would not be so clear cut that it was a poor marketing decision.

stcredzero 15y ago

Now they're stuck with that lie, which I'm sure rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but I'll bet it was worth it just to have their name in some memorable headlines. Not only are they playing fast and loose with insecure passing of private data, they also tell their users lies? Maybe deleting their app was the right choice for me.

MaxGabriel 15y ago
That's not a lie. I've read through several hundred bump reviews and their app had very poor ratings from users who expected full app/music sharing. It was misleading in the first place to not give indications of limitations on those features, though. Edit: I had looked after Bump 3.0 and they had tons of 1 star reviews for removing the features, but now they're up to 4.5 stars, whereas they had ~2.5 on Bump 2.0
mistercow 15y ago
I understand that you are angry about this product (I don't really care about it except I guess the concept is kind of neat?), but your comment really wasn't a relevant and appropriate reply to my comment. In fact, I didn't even make the point about them lying; I assumed it as a premise in explaining why they might have seen it as a net marketing advantage to tell it.

tlear 15y ago

It is not a lie, they were not sharing actual music or apps just links. This led to a ton of confusion and bad reviews on old app. Personally I think it was a really good idea to cut those features out. They also made the app much simpler to use in the process.

mistercow 15y ago
Well, I did not really mean to take a stance on whether it was a lie or not. My point was that if it was a lie, it would not be so clear cut that it was a poor marketing decision.