Opt out means devs get crappy data.
Only way for software to improve is to get usage data.
Would you rather be stuck with crappy software dictated by the needs and wants by the minority?
Only way for software to improve is to get usage data.
Would you rather be stuck with crappy software dictated by the needs and wants by the minority?
I can’t imagine I would be able to delivery even the basic mapping and data visualization features in the 1990s in the same time frame, and it certainly wouldn’t have the ease of distribution.
That's a bold claim. Why not make something that works for the dev and then take user feedback into consideration?
For example, in what should have been a surprise to no-one, it turned out that "power users" who spend a lot of time with a certain application and heavily customise its UI for their needs were also more likely to change default telemetry options to turn things off. Similarly, systems at work that are managed by specialist staff in large organisations tend to be more tightly locked down than what you find in a small office where Bob sets things up for the new starters when he has a couple of hours free from his usual job.
Consequently, when certain big-name software developers redesigned their whole UI, proudly declaring that the new version would be more effective because it was based on what their objective telemetry data had told them about how the application was used, power users instead found the new UI confusing and inefficient. There is always some resistance to change in these situations, but when you have a significant and influential part of your market still not upgrading to your newer products years later and citing the UI as one of their reasons, you've probably made a mistake on that one.