> They are abused to the point where many users - me included - would rather forego all updates (let alone automatic ones) simply because we apparently can not trust the party on the other side of this transaction to have our, the users, interests at heart.
I would say this is putting it lightly. We're at a point where the ability to produce updates for a popular software is an asset that is traded on markets. A popular life-cycle for apps or browser extensions is basically:
- Some person makes an app or extension that is genuinely useful and available for free (often with the best intentions).
- At some point the developer cannot maintain the software anymore: They have lost interest or don't have enough time available, etc.
- Some company offers to buy the software and take over maintenance duties.
- As soon as the company owns the keys, they will push an update that includes ads/trackers/malware/etc into the formerly useful app, instantly compromising the machines iof the app's whole userbase.
- After some time, the community might notice and gradually the app will be communicated as harmful. The community mourns the loss of a useful program and users will move on until the cycle repeats...
> So, software vendors, automatic updates:
- should always keep the user centric
[... should do this, should not do that...]
This list is well-intentioned but I feel ultimately fruitless. Yes, updates should be centered around the interests of the users, but as the articel itself states, companies don't have the interests of their users in mind when pushing updates.
So I don't see a lot of incentive to follow that list, honestly.
I would say this is putting it lightly. We're at a point where the ability to produce updates for a popular software is an asset that is traded on markets. A popular life-cycle for apps or browser extensions is basically:
- Some person makes an app or extension that is genuinely useful and available for free (often with the best intentions).
- At some point the developer cannot maintain the software anymore: They have lost interest or don't have enough time available, etc.
- Some company offers to buy the software and take over maintenance duties.
- As soon as the company owns the keys, they will push an update that includes ads/trackers/malware/etc into the formerly useful app, instantly compromising the machines iof the app's whole userbase.
- After some time, the community might notice and gradually the app will be communicated as harmful. The community mourns the loss of a useful program and users will move on until the cycle repeats...
> So, software vendors, automatic updates:
- should always keep the user centric
[... should do this, should not do that...]
This list is well-intentioned but I feel ultimately fruitless. Yes, updates should be centered around the interests of the users, but as the articel itself states, companies don't have the interests of their users in mind when pushing updates.
So I don't see a lot of incentive to follow that list, honestly.