10 hours ago, Khatharr said:

... so instead of breaking up platforms to allow competition to solve problems, the FCC is toying with the idea of castrating the fucking internet just for shits and giggles.

I can't help but feel sorry for the current state of things for you Americans. The net neutrality "debate" is so far removed from reason that it boggles my mind it exists in the first place.

10 hours ago, Tom Sloper said:

The thing that's amazing is that air is still free to breathe here (not that it's healthy to do so). I wonder: when American ISPs can charge us differently for different 'net usages, how that'll affect you'uns not here in the States.  And the air will always be free to breathe outside the States (can't say the same for here in the States). 

I've wondered this myself, because the US has traditionally been a role model - for good or bad -, especially for smaller countries such as the one I live in, which are economically and politically dependent on maintaining good relations with it. However, that's really been changing recently - if not politically (although you can see considerable disalignment and even pushback from larger EU countries), then at least ideologically and morally. Trump is not popular (sic!) and that is undermining the US' credibility, making other allegiances increasingly more important.

In short, I think you guys are screwed (for now), but it'd be far more difficult to push something like this though in the EU. Not speaking for China or Russia here...

I think we'll get used to it or they'll fix it in the end. But I definitely think there's too much bloat and something wrong in eg MSVC2017 text drag-selection and the auto-correcting it does despite turning off auto bracket completion. 

On 7/7/2017 at 11:40 AM, irreversible said:

 

1) make it opt-in (or at least opt-out)
2) allow users to sample the changes and then make it easy (or in the very least possible) to revert
3) provide a huge red button that says "FEEDBACK" somewhere. Anywhere, really, as long as it's visible
4) warn about the changes before you silently apply them

Some companies do this, most notably and recently is Yahoo! Mail (gasp! yes I am still using that).  They would let users know before the update, and let them have the option to try it, and a feedback button.  Yes at least Yahoo Mail is doing all things right when it comes to software and managing changes, although the company as a whole is a completely different story.

Why they do this? I am pretty sure it varies from one company to another. On one I used to work at, it was because the product managers had a lot pressure to drive more users, clicks, and views, and when they had exhausted all options, usually a UI redesign is on the list of things to try.

Did they test it out? Yes. They conduct AB testing, but I am pretty sure as a user you either see it or you won't ever. I remember catching Amazon.com UI change back several years ago. They don't seem to move forward with that idea.

What about Skype or Spotify? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. *shrugs*

12 hours ago, szecs said:

it seems that the market is not dictated by demand but by the free-time and boredness of the developers.

Yes and no. There are several things at play.

There used to be some serious gatekeepers, some groups that needed to be satisfied before products could enter the market.  One gatekeeper that has largely vanished is the role of publishers. Developers don't need to get approval from publishers, they can bring their game directly to the storefronts.  Another gatekeeper is the storefronts themselves. There are no physical shelves to fight over, no purchasing managers to convince about stocking one product or another.  Combined they mean that nearly anyone can make nearly any software immediately available to customers.

Another element at play is the ease of distribution. With continuous deployment on web sites, features can be enabled by flipping a digital switch, instantly in use by all visitors. Flipping the switch again shuts it off.  There are features that can be enabled for minutes or even for seconds. Web sites can test new ideas by exposing a few people randomly to the feature. This is radically different from the model where releases were infrequent, and changes were announced with a flashy banner like "New and Improved!" or "New look, same great product!"

Another element at play is the open communication by users/customers that is widely available without screening.  Anyone can make a comment which is instantly visible to anyone who cares to search, or to anyone who looks at a product review. Product reviews don't go through an editing process, and the views of a bratty 12-year-old (who thinks anonymity is an excuse for the foulest language) can quickly float to the top when people think the review is funny rather than accurate.

There is also this problem. 

Combine them all and you've got an overcrowded marketplace filled with garbage, and a few trusted review sites become the new gatekeepers as they recommend what they enjoyed. Anything not on those list of the best gets tossed to the side.