4 ms·

> Reason is OK, the execution is controversial. And even then, only controversial to nerds with opinions. Nothing else about it is controversial. If anything,

> Reason is OK, the execution is controversial. And even then, only controversial to nerds with opinions. Nothing else about it is controversial. If anything, knowing whether the app is installed or not is kinda important? If you open a file shared with you in the browser, the option to "Open in Desktop" versus "Install Desktop App" actually works correctly?

rglullis 7mo ago
> In which case, how else would you propose doing it? - Registering an url handler? - Asking the user?
- gjsman-1000 7mo ago
  You can't detect whether a URL handler worked correctly in a browser; otherwise Windows will appear with a "Select an app to open YOURPROTOCOLHERE://" which is completely nonsensical to the user. As for option 2; ask them every time, or edit their hosts file. Easiest decision in the world: Edit their hosts file, every time, no question. The 1% of nerds who care, and oddly enough don't buy Adobe software, are completely meaningless to the 99% of customers who experience the decision positively.
  - imiric 7mo ago
    What a ridiculous conclusion. Why does Adobe need to exfiltrate some information from my machine anyway? If I'm a customer, then they should know this when I sign into my account. They absolutely don't need this information if I'm visiting their website without logging in. Modifying a global system file is something their software shouldn't be doing in the first place, but relying on this abuse to track me on their website is on another level of insidious behavior.
    - gjsman-1000 7mo ago
      If you're worried about device fingerprinting, Adobe has far more reliable ways to do it already. Canvas fingerprinting, IP tracking, cookies. A hosts entry tells them almost nothing they couldn't get elsewhere, provides them with almost no entropy, and attributing insidious intent to what is most plausibly a UX feature is conspiratorial.
      - imiric 7mo ago
        I'm not worried about this, since I don't use Adobe products. I'm just calling out what's clearly user hostile behavior. Considering the amount of hostility Adobe has exhibited towards its users over the years, I'm inclined to believe this is yet another example. Nothing conspiratorial about that. If anything, calling this a "UX feature" without any evidence either way is suspiciously dismissive.
jacobgkau 7mo ago
> If anything, knowing whether the app is installed or not is kinda important? If you open a file shared with you in the browser, the option to "Open in Desktop" versus "Install Desktop App" actually works correctly? This is not an approach any other app on any platform has historically used, and it doesn't seem sustainable if every app you install has to modify your hosts file to use a hack like this to detect whether it should handle files or not. If you want the browser to be able to give the OS a file handler and have the OS present an option to install the app if it's not installed, that should be handled at the platform level, not on the website using a hack like this. Why can a file not simply be downloaded with a page displayed showing a link to install the app and also instructions to open the file, trusting the user will know if they already have it installed? At best, you're talking about a very small UX optimization. Emphasis on the "kinda" in "kinda important."
- gjsman-1000 7mo ago
  > This is not an approach any other app on any platform has historically used, and it doesn't seem sustainable if every app you install has to modify your hosts file to use a hack like this to detect whether it should handle files or not. Actually it's completely sustainable. DNS was invented a decade after hosts files. The idea of your host file being almost completely empty is a modern aberration from the days it used to be thousands of lines long. Do I wish there was a better mechanism? Sure. Would HN ever agree on a OS-level app-detection API for the browser? Never. > Why can a file not simply be downloaded with a page displayed showing a link to install the app and also instructions to open the file, trusting the user will know if they already have it installed? At best, you're talking about a very small UX optimization. Emphasis on the "kinda" in "kinda important." A small UX decision, adding up to tens of millions of times per day, affecting 99.9% of people who don't give a darn - versus a matter of slight software engineering principles of "we just don't do it that way." Easiest decision ever.
  - jacobgkau 7mo ago
    > Would HN ever agree on a OS-level app-detection API for the browser? Never. There already is one. It just asks the user whether it's okay before it tells the website, as you acknowledged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47664546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47664546 What you're arguing for is not good UX. It's lack of user privacy & control. You just think you're being hip or whatever for being blasé about it.

rglullis 7mo ago

> In which case, how else would you propose doing it? - Registering an url handler? - Asking the user?

gjsman-1000 7mo ago
You can't detect whether a URL handler worked correctly in a browser; otherwise Windows will appear with a "Select an app to open YOURPROTOCOLHERE://" which is completely nonsensical to the user. As for option 2; ask them every time, or edit their hosts file. Easiest decision in the world: Edit their hosts file, every time, no question. The 1% of nerds who care, and oddly enough don't buy Adobe software, are completely meaningless to the 99% of customers who experience the decision positively.
- imiric 7mo ago
  What a ridiculous conclusion. Why does Adobe need to exfiltrate some information from my machine anyway? If I'm a customer, then they should know this when I sign into my account. They absolutely don't need this information if I'm visiting their website without logging in. Modifying a global system file is something their software shouldn't be doing in the first place, but relying on this abuse to track me on their website is on another level of insidious behavior.
  - gjsman-1000 7mo ago
    If you're worried about device fingerprinting, Adobe has far more reliable ways to do it already. Canvas fingerprinting, IP tracking, cookies. A hosts entry tells them almost nothing they couldn't get elsewhere, provides them with almost no entropy, and attributing insidious intent to what is most plausibly a UX feature is conspiratorial.
    - imiric 7mo ago
      I'm not worried about this, since I don't use Adobe products. I'm just calling out what's clearly user hostile behavior. Considering the amount of hostility Adobe has exhibited towards its users over the years, I'm inclined to believe this is yet another example. Nothing conspiratorial about that. If anything, calling this a "UX feature" without any evidence either way is suspiciously dismissive.

jacobgkau 7mo ago

> If anything, knowing whether the app is installed or not is kinda important? If you open a file shared with you in the browser, the option to "Open in Desktop" versus "Install Desktop App" actually works correctly? This is not an approach any other app on any platform has historically used, and it doesn't seem sustainable if every app you install has to modify your hosts file to use a hack like this to detect whether it should handle files or not. If you want the browser to be able to give the OS a file handler and have the OS present an option to install the app if it's not installed, that should be handled at the platform level, not on the website using a hack like this. Why can a file not simply be downloaded with a page displayed showing a link to install the app and also instructions to open the file, trusting the user will know if they already have it installed? At best, you're talking about a very small UX optimization. Emphasis on the "kinda" in "kinda important."

gjsman-1000 7mo ago
> This is not an approach any other app on any platform has historically used, and it doesn't seem sustainable if every app you install has to modify your hosts file to use a hack like this to detect whether it should handle files or not. Actually it's completely sustainable. DNS was invented a decade after hosts files. The idea of your host file being almost completely empty is a modern aberration from the days it used to be thousands of lines long. Do I wish there was a better mechanism? Sure. Would HN ever agree on a OS-level app-detection API for the browser? Never. > Why can a file not simply be downloaded with a page displayed showing a link to install the app and also instructions to open the file, trusting the user will know if they already have it installed? At best, you're talking about a very small UX optimization. Emphasis on the "kinda" in "kinda important." A small UX decision, adding up to tens of millions of times per day, affecting 99.9% of people who don't give a darn - versus a matter of slight software engineering principles of "we just don't do it that way." Easiest decision ever.
- jacobgkau 7mo ago
  > Would HN ever agree on a OS-level app-detection API for the browser? Never. There already is one. It just asks the user whether it's okay before it tells the website, as you acknowledged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47664546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47664546 What you're arguing for is not good UX. It's lack of user privacy & control. You just think you're being hip or whatever for being blasé about it.