971–980 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would create vastly more support issues. You don't get to choose the software your users need.
Except IT does that all the time in most companies. You don't get to choose your own OS. You have to use Outlook and Teams in most windows shops. Good luck getting approval for an Office alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Google stuffs AI into everything, people shrug. Can't expect anything else from big tech. When Firefox does it, it sparks outrage across the internet, with entire forums filled with people vowing to leave Firefox forever and switching to something like Waterfor or Ilp/Zorp/Floop instead. As a result, searching for experiences other people had with Firefox makes it sound like hell on earth, while people have litt…
I hope you're not implying that that reaction to Mozilla going against the only reason anyone has to use Firefox is unwarranted.
Firefox does debatable thing, expressed outrage is at Level 11
but when
Chrome does far worse version of thing, expressed outrage is at Level Shrug.Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would create vastly more support issues. You don't get to choose the software your users need.
Except IT does that all the time in most companies. You don't get to choose your own OS. You have to use Outlook and Teams in most windows shops. Good luck getting approval for an Office alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you have a specific number of GB in mind that an app can take up, below which it's totally their business, and above which they need to plead their case, disclose the purpose, and allow me to choose. What's that number? How did you arrive at it and why? My Chrome binaries are about 700MB on Mac and 500MB on Windows. Is this below or your line, or are they actually in trouble as soon as they're extracte…
My arbitrary limit is "not 5x from when I installed it". Like if my gallon milk jug was suddenly 36 inches tall.
Framing this as needing "consent" is deeply misguided. It's as silly as claiming that Microsoft Word installed an English language spellcheck dictionary without your consent. It's just part of the software. You consented to installing the software and having it autoupdate. That covers it. Now we can argue whether or not it's an appropriate amount of disk space or bandwidth to use, but that's just a reasonable practic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is a question of framing or ignoring problematic behavior at all. I'm quite certain that you wouldn't find it anywhere near comparably egregious if Google added a new developer option without your consent- the most significant problem is the 4GB and the LLM. And, of course, you did consent to their software terms. You are free to switch browsers. What does consent have to do with this?
yes, no one would have a problem with it if it were useful, so what, they're hypocrites if they don't like it because it's useless? actually, people generally only complain about consent when they didn't like what happened. the takeaway is that if it's an update that will be thrusted upon a user, deliver value for them. and it's your problem, not the user's, to persuade them that what you're thrusting upon them has v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying users have no right to push against certain features. It's like saying Windows Recall was always ok and there was never any reason to demand it not be installed. The only difference is one can choose to use a different browser easier than they can choose a different OS. You're right in the sense that practicality and consent are orthogonal issues. There are probably stronger arguments to complain a…
> The only difference is one can choose to use a different browser easier than they can choose a different OS. I'm not even sure that is actually true for most people. If you mainly work in the browser, which many do, then you can change the OS under it without impacting the user too much but change the browser and there will need to be much more to adapt/relearn.