On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you realistically think that by hurting the _user_ you will make the
> _developer_ write better code? No, really.
As an application writer, if my users complain that their battery is
being drained (as it happened), they stop using it, and other people
see there are problems, so they stop using it, if people get angry
about it they will vote it down.
New users will see it has low score; they will not install it. That's
a network effect.
Having users is the quintessential reason people write code.
> If the user likes the app very much (or depends on it or whatever makes him
> use it), he will rather switch the platform to one that allows him to run that
> app without _visible_ problems than complain to the developer, because _the_
> _user_ _doesn't_ _realize_ that the app is broken. From the user's
> perspective, the platform that has problems with the app is broken, because
> the app apparently runs without problems on concurrent platforms.
Yeah, right. I don't think anybody has every bought an iPhone because
of Tweetie. People care how the applications run on their phones, not
how their phone's platform runs their favorite application, in fact,
most probably it became their favorite application because it was
running great on their phone, and they wouldn't expect it to run on
phones with other platforms. Either applications run on S60, iPhone
OS, Android, or Maemo, but not in a combination of those. And if their
certain app that runs on multiple platforms, and the user actually
knows that (probably a geek), then he knows he can't expect it to work
exactly the same.
> The whole "no reason to tolerate broken apps" midset is simply misguided IMO,
> because it's based on unrealistic assumptions. That's because in general users
> only need the platform for running apps they like (or need or whatever). If
> they can't run apps they like on a given platform, or it is too painful to them
> to run their apps on it, they will rather switch to another platform than stop
> using the apps.
You seriously think people switch high-end phones just to run their
favorite apps? It's much cheaper to switch apps, and that's what users
do.
--
Felipe Contreras
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:16:33 +0300
Felipe Contreras <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Do you realistically think that by hurting the _user_ you will make the
> > _developer_ write better code? ?No, really.
>
> As an application writer, if my users complain that their battery is
> being drained (as it happened), they stop using it, and other people
> see there are problems, so they stop using it, if people get angry
> about it they will vote it down.
>
> New users will see it has low score; they will not install it. That's
> a network effect.
>
> Having users is the quintessential reason people write code.
>
That is nice. But how does it impact the problem that suspend blockers
solve? And why do suspend blockers interfere with that?
Cheers,
Flo
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Florian Mickler <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:16:33 +0300
> Felipe Contreras <[email protected]> wrote:
>> New users will see it has low score; they will not install it. That's
>> a network effect.
>>
>> Having users is the quintessential reason people write code.
>
> That is nice. But how does it impact the problem that suspend blockers
> solve? And why do suspend blockers interfere with that?
It doesn't, I don't know why people keep bringing this argument, I
just though it should not be left open as a valid one.
I should have mentioned that this is indeed irrelevant.
--
Felipe Contreras
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 22:56:45 +0300
Felipe Contreras <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Florian Mickler <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:16:33 +0300
> > Felipe Contreras <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> New users will see it has low score; they will not install it. That's
> >> a network effect.
> >>
> >> Having users is the quintessential reason people write code.
> >
> > That is nice. But how does it impact the problem that suspend blockers
> > solve? And why do suspend blockers interfere with that?
>
> It doesn't, I don't know why people keep bringing this argument, I
> just though it should not be left open as a valid one.
>
> I should have mentioned that this is indeed irrelevant.
>
Uh! I found out how this is relevant to the suspend blockers case.
Because not having users means that the bugs don't get fixed.
Whereas in the suspend blockers case the users can use the app and get
the bugs fixed.
Cheers,
Flo
p.s.: I really wished you would focus more on solving the
problem and not on dismissing it.