The latest update just came through on a piece of software I’ve suggested to many friends in the past, Digsby.
Hey, I thought, this new look is really cool. And off I went using it, (the portable version that is.)
<RANT ON>
However, they have made a really dumb decision this time. One that will stop me using their product forever. My trust is gone and with it any chance of getting me back.
Lifehacker first alerted me to it in their post entitled Digsby Joins the Dark Side, Uses Your PC to Make Money.
It seems Digsby are allowing your computer, your bandwidth and your processor to be used if your PC’s idle. Here’s the terms of service (NB: The program updates automatically without showing terms of service!)
15. USAGE OF COMPUTER RESOURCES.
You agree to permit the Software to use the processing power of your computer when it is idle to run downloaded algorithms (mathematical equations) and code within a process. You understand that when the Software uses your computer, it likewise uses your CPU, bandwidth, and electrical power. The Software will use your computer to solve distributed computing problems, such as but not limited to, accelerating medical research projects, analyzing the stock market, searching the web, and finding the largest known prime number. This functionality is completely optional and you may disable it at any time.
Huh! You may disable it at any time!
How about notifying users through an instant message (you do it to garner votes for just about everything!) and give them the ability to opt in.
Doh! How dumb of you Digsby.
Shame on you!
<RANT OFF>
Related posts:
- Offline for a few days Unfortunately, Telecom New Zealand has not provided a particularly good...
- Rant of the Day Because I’m picking some of our youth up from an...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
11 comments ↓
RT: @shroedernz: New Post: Shame on you Digsby http://ow.ly/15L0b4 >pse retweet this needs to be known
New Post: Shame on you Digsby http://ow.ly/15L0b4
We made a lengthy post( http://blog.digsby.com/archives/68) explaining the feature when we introduced it but we realize that as we've grown, new users were not aware of it.
We are working to make this option more transparent and will release and update this morning. Check out our blog post where we in explain in detail the revenue models we are testing and ask for your feedback – http://blog.digsby.com/archives/693
We made a lengthy post( http://blog.digsby.com/archives/68) explaining the feature when we introduced it but we realize that as we've grown, new users were not aware of it.
We are working to make this option more transparent and will release and update this morning. Check out our blog post where we in explain in detail the revenue models we are testing and ask for your feedback – http://blog.digsby.com/archives/693
Its great to see that Erick has address your post and has stated that Digsby want to remain as transparent as possible. I dont think its the 'new features' that are upsetting but more the fact that they rolled out some new T&C's without really making it known to their users.
Ta
Baz
Its great to see that Erick has address your post and has stated that Digsby want to remain as transparent as possible. I dont think its the 'new features' that are upsetting but more the fact that they rolled out some new T&C's without really making it known to their users.
Ta
Baz
Twitter: PGardnerNZ
on 08.15.09 at 8:09 am
Thanks for taking the time to comment Erick.
A few points:
1. I hope you don't really expect everyone who uses Digsby to subscribe to your blog? (I know you don't because if you did, you'd use blog posts to suggest to people they vote for Digsby in Lifehacker Hive Five competitions and the like. But no, you use broadcast messages to get that message across)
2. Why have something as intrusive as this enabled by default? Surely if the research its helping is for a good cause people would flock to enable it if you gave them that option.
3. Perception is reality and you've ensured that (people will perceive) that Digsby updates can't be trusted to not automatically install something we don't want without asking first.
Why not fess up to your mistake (we know you had good motives) and promise not to do it that way in the future. You may win some people back. But if you don't think you've actually done anything wrong with this implementation… Well that's another story entirely
Twitter: PGardnerNZ
on 08.15.09 at 8:09 am
Thanks for taking the time to comment Erick.
A few points:
1. I hope you don't really expect everyone who uses Digsby to subscribe to your blog? (I know you don't because if you did, you'd use blog posts to suggest to people they vote for Digsby in Lifehacker Hive Five competitions and the like. But no, you use broadcast messages to get that message across)
2. Why have something as intrusive as this enabled by default? Surely if the research its helping is for a good cause people would flock to enable it if you gave them that option.
3. Perception is reality and you've ensured that (people will perceive) that Digsby updates can't be trusted to not automatically install something we don't want without asking first.
Why not fess up to your mistake (we know you had good motives) and promise not to do it that way in the future. You may win some people back. But if you don't think you've actually done anything wrong with this implementation… Well that's another story entirely
Twitter: PGardnerNZ
on 08.15.09 at 8:09 am
Thanks for taking the time to comment Erick.
A few points:
1. I hope you don't really expect everyone who uses Digsby to subscribe to your blog? (I know you don't because if you did, you'd use blog posts to suggest to people they vote for Digsby in Lifehacker Hive Five competitions and the like. But no, you use broadcast messages to get that message across)
2. Why have something as intrusive as this enabled by default? Surely if the research its helping is for a good cause people would flock to enable it if you gave them that option.
3. Perception is reality and you've ensured that (people will perceive) that Digsby updates can't be trusted to not automatically install something we don't want without asking first.
Why not fess up to your mistake (we know you had good motives) and promise not to do it that way in the future. You may win some people back. But if you don't think you've actually done anything wrong with this implementation… Well that's another story entirely
Twitter: PGardnerNZ
on 08.15.09 at 8:10 am
Thanks for that Barry.
I agree with you but the trouble seems to be that they don't think they've done anything wrong by doing it that way. I haven't seen any apologies anywhere yet…
Twitter: PGardnerNZ
on 08.15.09 at 8:10 am
Thanks for that Barry.
I agree with you but the trouble seems to be that they don't think they've done anything wrong by doing it that way. I haven't seen any apologies anywhere yet…
Leave a Comment