Hacker News Reader

Comment by penagwin | Hacker News Reader

I know this is the popular conclusion - but from a developer perspective, data such as what software your product is used with is INCREDIBLY valuable for project planning and prioritization. People hate web tracking, but knowing what browsers or devices are visiting your website can be enormously helpful.

Also I don't know all the details here - I know that Vizio TVs where collecting data and explicitly kept the IP and other personal data with it. I don't know if wacom is doing that.

Now that said - I don't like that they're handing this data to Google through Google Analytics. I also think they should be far more up front about what they collect, what they use it for, etc.

View on HN

> I know this is the popular conclusion - but from a developer perspective, data such as what software your product is used with is INCREDIBLY valuable for project planning and prioritization.

Maybe if it were only used for that it wouldn't be so bad. But I don't trust a company not to take another bite at the apple by selling customer data if they think they can get away with it. Matter of fact, refusing to do so is leaving money on the table and could get a CEO fired for not making the company as profitable as it could have been. Once companies have the data, they are almost certainly obligated to use it in ways to their benefit and your expense.

GDPR helps a litle with this.

Not really, it depends on the revenue strategy. Shareholders would likely be more displeased at initiatives that could end up breaking user trust and harming core revenue (e.g. the sale of peripheral hardware). Blindly leveraging everything in a way that doesn't align with vision or strategy generally leads to disappointing returns. Smart leaders know this.

> I know this is the popular conclusion - but from a developer perspective, data such as what software your product is used with is INCREDIBLY valuable for project planning and prioritization. People hate web tracking, but knowing what browsers or devices are visiting your website can be enormously helpful.

What happened to actually communicating with users to learn more about how they use the product?

That assumes a great deal about both the resources available to do it and the ability to get responses from a representative sample of customers.

It's not challenging to see why someone might choose a one-time cost in software engineering over an ongoing cost in communication.

It's not challenging, but it's wrong. If you want to explain it to them, making a binding promise of what it would be used for, and have it be opt-in, that would be another thing.

It's not hard to see how to do it right.

Morally and ethically, you're absolutely correct in every single possible way.

I was attempting to illustrate the decision-making processes that may have led to this juncture and what happened to communicating with customers. Please accept my apologies, as I have plainly failed to be clear that this was not an argument as to the moral or ethical questions concerned.

Again, you're completely right. It's not at all difficult to see the morally and ethically correct way to go about this.

I really like the approach that the Steam survey uses which blends engineering and communication:

1) Pop up and ask for permission to scan the machine.

2) Show the data collected that will be sent back and give a second chance to decline.

3) Allow everyone to see the aggregate results.

Being mostly automated, it's lower friction than a manual Q&A survey. But it also feels way more respectful that trying to snoop around and then clandestinely exfiltrate the data. It's one of the few cases where I'm willing to opt-in to data collection.

This. You aren't asking for vague blanket permission, nor are you asking for the user to manually fill out a survey. And you give them the opportunity to review what they're about to send.

Great point! And being able to see the results in aggregate is also interesting. It inclines me to share, because it becomes a two-way share, even though I don't actually have use for the information.

Being able to see the aggregate data isn't just interesting but publicly helpful.

From a game developer perspective, looking at it right now tells me that (simplified):

* Most gamers have at least a GTX 1050 and 8GB of ram or higher. Perfect now we know where to aim our medium settings.

* 74% use Nvidia GPUs, 15% use AMD - now we know where to focus driver optimizations

* English, Simplified Chinese, and Russian are the top languages (where to focus translations)

* 72% play on 1080p, 14% on 1440p, etc. Tells us what resolutions to make sure our UI works on.

Users stopped communicating. They install a thing, they uninstall it. 99% don't leave any comment at all.

(and yes, the obverse inference is also true. If you see one person complaining, there are probably 99 more who have had the same issue and have said nothing)

That's not an excuse, but a reason to pay for a focus group or study.

Slashed in pursuit of VC money and profits.

Wacom's a public company. There's a lot of things they might be chasing, but VC money seems unlikely to be high on that list.

> What happened to actually communicating with users to learn more about how they use the product?

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/first-rule-of-usability-don...

"watch users as they attempt to perform tasks"

Like a survey? I'm not sure the information would be all that accurate.

If you want to put resources into "hey folks like to use this product with ours" you need accurate information.

Do what companies have always done: pay for user studies and focus groups.

Big companies maybe.

It's a confirmation bias problem. Customers who fill out surveys and give direct feedback back to vendors are frequently lower-usage enthusiasts that aren't representative of your overall userbase.

I work on a product, and we include some telemetry. I'm also a strong privacy advocate, and I believe I've done my best within the corporate realm to ensure that the data we're collecting is extremely scoped AND useful for decision making and prioritization. In my experience, there aren't that many of me, but I implore folks to realize that as PMs and engineers, we absolutely do have a say in making sure that blanket data exfiltration and aggregation doesn't happen in our products.

Communicating with your customers proactively about what you're collecting and why is important too. And not buried in some privacy policy legalese: publish a blog post, explain what you're gathering, give examples of how it's driven decision-making for you in the past, and what you're hoping to learn in the future. It goes a long way.

As a user, even if you're up about these things and why they're important for product development, my answer is still "No."

Because I will only say "Yes" if I'm being paid or otherwise compensated specifically for that input.

I think it's important companies pay for usage testing so that they value that information and are more likely to hold it closely since it represents an investment and is perceived as competitive advantage.

That's why a sane data collection is aggreggate, upfront about the data it collects, avoidable, and most of all, explicitly opt-in. Alas, this requires eternal vigilance, as the pushback is neverending.

It appears to be this communities' commenters unpopular conclusion. That every piece of tracking is part of a conspiracy to sell you advertising.

> In section 3.1 of their privacy policy, Wacom wondered if it would be OK if they sent a few bits and bobs of data from my computer to Google Analytics, “[including] aggregate usage data, technical session information and information about [my] hardware device.”

What wasn't upfront about this? That they didn't add more details about what the session information was? Legally why would they? The post includes an image the section where they legally disclosed it. People not reading the privacy policy before using a product is not Wacom's legal problem.

Can you ask them to put this section on a separate screen? Sure. Will they do it? Who knows. I'm sure they'd want to know if you are a customer giving ideas than a low priority non customer as would any person.

How many blogs or websites disclose the use of Google Analytics in their privacy policy?

You could talk to many customers and this is the least thing they have on their minds. Paranoia displayed by commenters here is amazing.

As the post concludes, if you are a (prospective) customer who does not like what they collect then there are other brands. I might add who probably have a hidden, more intrusive way to track you because they are smaller, have smaller volume/margin and have the incentive to build and sell your profile like other small companies not in the field.

I don’t think anyone is denying that the data is valuable, but what is usually missing in the implementations (not sure if true in this case) are 1. Transparency about what is being collected, 2. Requesting consent from the user and 3. Providing control to the user in the form of an opt-in or opt-out.

Transparency, consent, and control.

If every company addressed these three issues, we wouldn’t be having this conversation about privacy and data collection over and over and over.

I fully agree that they need to address those problems. I really like the way Valve does it with their Steam Hardware Survey.

What I'm addressing is that I feel many people see a company tracking data, and assume this data is valuable enough to sell, and that the data is for sure being sold.

My point was that the data isn't just valuable to sell (maybe), but is legitimately valuable in making a better product/service.

> from a developer perspective, data such as what software your product is used with is INCREDIBLY valuable for project planning and prioritization.

I don't think anybody is disputing that. But that its very valuable to devs does not excuse collecting it without getting the user's informed consent first.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com