Items tagged with: user
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19672795
Posted by uptown (karma: 64952)
Post stats: Points: 161 - Comments: 35 - 2019-04-16T11:44:14Z
#HackerNews #access #data #discussed #documents #facebook #for #plans #sell #show #user #years
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 119 - Loop: 192 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 109
Several users are now reporting similar incidents after they posted political posts.
Icons represent ideas in a simple, visual way. But we must use them carefully, and only where they help people. Users’ needs must come first, and we shouldn’t be afraid to challenge how people use…
Article word count: 857
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19661603
Posted by open-source-ux (karma: 3520)
Post stats: Points: 142 - Comments: 25 - 2019-04-14T20:45:22Z
#HackerNews #and #avoid #icons #needs #start #temptation #user #with
Icons represent ideas in a simple, visual way. But we must use them carefully, and only where they help people. Users’ needs must come first, and we shouldn’t be afraid to challenge how people use them.
Iʼm an interaction designer working in the team which redesigned the NHS website, previously NHS Choices. Over the years the site had developed lots of different navigation patterns and image styles to address the same user need.
Learning a new language
It’s tempting to throw a few icons on a page. But there are very few that everyone recognises. These include the icons for home, print, and search (the magnifying glass).
Expecting a user to understand a non-universal icon is like expecting them to learn a new language. And we know that most people don’t want to or can’t learn new languages easily.
That said, icons have their advantages. If they’re quickly recognised, they can be good targets for fingers and mouse cursors and they can overcome language barriers.
An icon for every occasion
Examples of the various icons on the NHS Choices website
There was a lack of consistency on the website – there were more than 30 icons, used as navigation, decoration and buttons. Our first task was to audit:
* what icons existed * what user needs they met * whether users understood them * whether they were essential * whether they were accessible
We also looked at the icons’ file formats, styles, sizes, colours and shapes. We also checked if there was any way of measuring their effectiveness with analytics.
We evaluated the 30 icons against two criteria:
* meeting specific user needs or * being essential to the page
and reduced the number to 15.
A set of icons for the NHS
We decided if we were to use icons, they needed to look like they were from the same family. The NHS brand is well established and based on trust, with its distinct blue colour and Frutiger font. We had to be careful about introducing new elements. Rather than using free icons, we decided to create our own.
We had proved through testing that buttons with rounded corners looked more ‘clicky’, so we styled our icons similarly. Our assumption was that icons with rounded corners would stand out among elements such as the NHS logo, which are quite angular and boxy.
Decisions and testing
NHS Choices used a ‘hamburger’ icon to toggle the menu (the main navigation) but, while hamburgers are used on a lot of websites and apps, they aren’t universally understood.
NHS Choices hamburger menu icon
On the new site, the menu link needed to sit in the new header alongside the NHS logo and search link. If we used the hamburger icon, we also needed a supporting label to be accessible (see Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.3.3). But then we lost the benefits of being simple and visually pleasing. The extra clutter would make it harder for users to scan.
‘Menu’ is a simple word and it didn’t fight with the NHS branding. We took it out to test with users.
We found that they had no problem navigating to the correct information via the menu and that their interpretation of the word ‘menu’ fits our model.
The new NHS website header
An example of our new navigation.
Exclamation or question
Exclamation marks and information icons had been used on the website’s health information pages to help users identify warnings and important content.
We took some new versions out to test with users in a shopping centre. To our astonishment, a number of users said that they wouldn’t read the information in the boxes. They likened them to advertising on news sites and overlooked them because of the ambiguity of the icon and the ‘READ ME!!!’ look.
Example of warning call out with exclamation icon
Example of inset text with an i icon
We also found the exclamation icon caused more harm than good. Users who read the boxes misunderstood their importance. Some thought on first glance that the information was more important than emergency ‘call 999’ messaging, which it wasn’t.
So, we replaced the exclamation with the word ‘important’.
Example of warning callout with the heading of important
When we retested, having ‘Important’ worked for warnings. Users read the information and understood its importance. We’ve since added context-specific, short headings which also test well with users.
Removing the information icon was also effective. The blue left border worked well in highlighting information without making it appear more important than it should be.
Example of inset text without icon
Not all icons are bad
Whilst we found words more effective on certain components, some icons work well.
Do and Don’t lists have proved to reassure users. The tick and cross icons support the positive and negative statements and highlight information when users scan a page.
Example of do and don’t list
We also found arrow icons highlight ‘action’ links for users wanting to find help. Theyʼre noticeable but, unlike buttons, users actually read the link.
Example of action link
A final set of NHS icons
After lots of lab testing and pop-up sessions we ended up with a set of 11 icons
Screenshot of the final set of 11 NHS icons
They’re a great start but itʼs important to remember that they were tested in specific contexts for specific needs. You should only add icons if research shows there’s something missing. Underpin everything with user research.
If you’re using the icons available in the NHS.UK frontend library in a health context, please feedback on how they’re working.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 103 - Loop: 139 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 50
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19476505
Posted by edejong (karma: 2194)
Post stats: Points: 176 - Comments: 30 - 2019-03-24T14:28:22Z
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 127 - Loop: 342 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 47
Last month, Google announced that its Nest Secure would be updated to work with Google Assistant software. The problem? Google never told users its product had a microphone to begin with. Simple…
Article word count: 1018
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19407147
Posted by johnisgood (karma: 194)
Post stats: Points: 94 - Comments: 39 - 2019-03-16T10:17:05Z
#HackerNews #and #fiasco #googles #harms #invades #nest #privacy #their #trust #user
Technology companies, lawmakers, privacy advocates, and everyday consumers likely disagree about exactly how a company should go about collecting user data. But, following a trust-shattering move by Google last month regarding its Nest Secure product, consensus on one issue has emerged: Companies shouldn’t ship products that can surreptitiously spy on users.
Failing to disclose that a product can collect information from users in ways they couldn’t have reasonably expected is bad form. It invades privacy, breaks trust, and robs consumers of the ability to make informed choices.
While collecting data on users is nearly inevitable in today’s corporate world, secret, undisclosed, or unpredictable data collection—or data collection abilities—is another problem.
A smart-home speaker shouldn’t be secretly hiding a video camera. A secure messaging platform shouldn’t have a government-operated backdoor. And a home security hub that controls an alarm, keypad, and motion detector shouldn’t include a clandestine microphone feature—especially one that was never announced to customers.
And yet, that is precisely what Google’s home security product includes.
Google fumbles once again
Last month, Google announced that its Nest Secure would be updated to work with Google Assistant software. Following the update, users could simply utter “Hey Google” to access voice controls on the product line-up’s “Nest Guard” device.
The main problem, though, is that Google never told users that its product had an internal microphone to begin with. Nowhere inside the Nest Guard’s hardware specs, or in its marketing materials, could users find evidence of an installed microphone.
When Business Insider broke the news, Google fumbled ownership of the problem: “The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs,” a Google spokesperson said. “That was an error on our part.”
Customers, academics, and privacy advocates balked at this explanation.
“This is deliberately misleading and lying to your customers about your product,” wrote Eva Galperin, director of cybersecurity at Electronic Frontier Foundation.
“Oops! We neglected to mention we’re recording everything you do while fronting as a security device,” wrote Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at the New York University Stern School of Business.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) spoke in harsher terms: Google’s disclosure failure wasn’t just bad corporate behavior, it was downright criminal.
“It is a federal crime to intercept private communications or to plant a listening device in a private residence,” EPIC said in a statement. In a letter, the organization urged the Federal Trade Commission to take “enforcement action” against Google, with the hope of eventually separating Nest from its parent. (Google purchased Nest in 2014 for $3.2 billion.)
Days later, the US government stepped in. The Senate Select Committee on Commerce sent a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, demanding answers about the company’s disclosure failure. Whether Google was actually recording voice data didn’t matter, the senators said, because hackers could still have taken advantage of the microphone’s capability.
“As consumer technology becomes ever more advanced, it is essential that consumers know the capabilities of the devices they are bringing into their homes so they can make informed choices,” the letter said.
This isn’t just about user data
Collecting user data is essential to today’s technology companies. It powers Yelp recommendations based on a user’s location, product recommendations based on an Amazon user’s prior purchases, and search results based on a Google user’s history. Collecting user data also helps companies find bugs, patch software, and retool their products to their users’ needs.
But some of that data collection is visible to the user. And when it isn’t, it can at least be learned by savvy consumers who research privacy policies, read tech specs, and compare similar products. Other home security devices, for example, advertise the ability to trigger alarms at the sound of broken windows—a functionality that demands a working microphone.
Google’s failure to disclose its microphone prevented even the most privacy-conscious consumers from knowing what they were getting in the box. It is nearly the exact opposite approach that rival home speaker maker Sonos took when it installed a microphone in its own device.
Sonos does it better
In 2017, Sonos revealed that its newest line of products would eventually integrate with voice-controlled smart assistants. The company opted for transparency.
While this function has upset some Sonos users who want to turn off the microphone light, the company hasn’t budged.
A Sonos spokesperson said the company values its customers’ privacy because it understands that people are bringing Sonos products into their homes. Adding a voice assistant to those products, the spokesperson said, resulted in Sonos taking a transparent and plain-spoken approach.
Now compare this approach to Google’s.
Consumers purchased a product that they trusted—quite ironically—with the security of their homes, only to realize that, by purchasing the product itself, their personal lives could have become less secure. This isn’t just a company failing to disclose the truth about its products. It’s a company failing to respect the privacy of its users.
A microphone in a home security product may well be a useful feature that many consumers will not only endure but embrace. In fact, internal microphones are available in many competitor products today, proving their popularity. But a secret microphone installed without user knowledge instantly erodes trust.
As we showed in our recent data privacy report, users care a great deal about protecting their personal information online and take many steps to secure it. To win over their trust, businesses need to responsibly disclose features included in their services and products—especially those that impact the security and privacy of their customers’ lives. Transparency is key to establishing and maintaining trust online.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 75 - Loop: 114 - Rank min: 60 - Author rank: 9
Which websites featured on the Federation have the worst privacy?
My last post highlighted how ticking the OEmbed box to add a website picture to a post can compromise Federation users if it contains a tracker.
I also mentioned tools, like Disconnect, we could use to detect websites which track their users. In this post I reveal some of the most popular reference websites on the Federation with low privacy and high tracking rates.
I believe Federation users should consider not embedding, or at least warning their readers about the surveillance techniques carried out by these sites.
A Princeton University study identified almost a million websites that track their users. Here are just 5 examples of websites whose stories are commonly quoted on the Federation:
Wired is a popular website referenced on the Federation by many users because it publishes great tech-based stories. But how private is it?
Although it offers an ‘ad-free’ version for subscribers, normal visitors are ruthlessly fleeced for their data.
WIRED has embed deals (agreements to embed tracking codes into their pages for money or gain) with a staggering 171 third parties including Google, Amazon, Facebook, Vogue, GQ, Golf Digest, Bonappetit and Vanity Fair.
Some tracking beacons embedded on WIRED and captured by Ublock Origin
151 of these third parties are known tracking or advertising companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Turn, Add This, Scorecard Research, Adobe, Twitter Analytics, Typekit, Criteo and Quantserve. Aggressive trackers like Google Tag Manager (GTM), Add This and Turn are present here.
Below is a screengrab of the many scripts NoScript has blocked from the WIRED website, the 33 scripts, gifs and beacons blocked by Ublock Origin and a couple by Disconnect.
WIRED sets 25 short-term and 28 long-term cookies itself, while allowing its third party partners (including 69 tracking companies) to set 26 short-term and 133 long-term cookies.
It uses Google Analytics without the anonymization feature enabled, so user details are sent to Google servers.
All WIRED servers are based in the US so GDPR privacy rules can be ignored.
Websites loading this many scripts/cookies are usually blacklisted by most users, not least because they drain a device’s battery.
WIRED claims that subscribing with them will mean an ad free experience, but I find it hard to believe that a subscription to WIRED will suddenly load a clean page without a single tracker retrieving data. But then I am not a WIRED subscriber. Please comment if you are and have no trackers.
Seen by some as a safe pro-privacy resource celebrating Free and Open Source Software, FOSSPOST lets its users down by digitally fingerprinting their devices and loading 19 trackers into a browser.
FOSSPOST has embed deals with 27 third parties, making its embed renting in the ‘low’ category, including Google, Amazon, Creative Commons and WordPress.
13 of these are known tracking or advertising companies like Google, Amazon, Mailerlite, One Signal and the data-hungry caterpillar that is WordPress.
FOSSPOST sets 2 short-term and 2 long-term cookies itself while allowing its third party partners (including 3 tracking companies) to set 4 long-term cookies.
It uses Google Analytics without the anonymization feature so user details are sent to Google servers. All FOSSPOST servers are based in the US so GDPR privacy rules can be ignored.
Acquired by Yahoo’s parent company, Oath (a company that includes AOL), under the Verizon umbrella, in 2010, this is a popular reference source for researchers and Federation users.
Historically, Yahoo deserves some kudos as they were one of the few big tech companies that objected to sharing their users’ details with the PRISM
The Bush administration threatened them with $250k a day fines until they complied. Verizon bought them in 2017. Yahoo suffered the largest data breach in history in 2018.
The link to this NYT story is not embedded (consider blocking the GTM tracker on the site)
TECHCRUNCH.com fingerprints the user’s device and dumps 2-7 Yahoo trackers in their browser, depending on the page loaded.
TECHCRUNCH.com has embed deals with 27 third parties, including Google, Facebook, Yahoo and WordPress.
15 of these are known tracking or advertising companies like Google, Facebook, Yahoo, WordPress, Atwola, Typekit, AOL and Scorecard Research.
TECHCRUNCH.com sets 4 short-term and 5 long-term cookies itself while allowing its third party partners (including 4 tracking companies) to set 1 short-term and 7 long-term cookies.
It uses Google Analytics but interestingly enables the anonymization feature so some user details are not sent to Google servers.
All servers are based in the US so forget about GDPR privacy rules.
THE REGISTER .co.uk
Although a great resource with well-written and groundbreaking stories, it isn’t as private as I’d hoped.
There is no obvious digital fingerprinting but it seems to have gathered more Google syndication in the last couple of years, (9 of its 16 embed deals are with the Big G). 12 known tracking or advertising companies like Google, Admedo and the Amp Project gather data.
THE REGISTER sets 3 short-term and 4 long-term cookies itself while allowing its third party partners (including 2 tracking companies) to set 7 long-term cookies.
It uses Google Analytics without enabling the anonymization feature so user details are sent to Google servers. Although THE REGISTER’s domain is in the UK, both its data and email servers are based in the US so GDPR privacy rules could be compromised here, though I am not a lawyer.
The Guardian .com
I’ve been sitting on this for a few years now but it’s about time I blew the whistle.
I first noticed the Guardian newspaper’s website was digitally fingerprinting its users’ devices when they published an article on, um, Canvas Fingerprinting.
That page has been removed since, but they still continued doing it, long before Facebook, though not before Google.
I’ve kept quiet about this surveillance because I admire the paper for its incredible journalism, especially exclusives like the Snowdon revelations, and its general championing of freedom issues across many sectors of society. But the hypocrisy has started to wear me down.
Some tracking items & widgets embedded on Guardian .com and captured by Ublock Origin
The Guardian has embed deals with a privacy-sapping 142 third parties, including Google, Amazon, Bing, Twitter, and, despite being one of its main critics, Facebook. 132 of these third party partners are known tracking or advertising companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Turn, AddThis, Scorecard Research, Blue Kai, Twitter Analytics, Rubicon, Criteo and Quantserve.
Some of the most aggressive trackers like GTM, AddThis and Turn are present here.
The Guardian also sets 3 short-term and 5 long-term cookies itself, while allowing its third party partners (including 51 tracking companies) to set 10 short-term and 131 long-term cookies.
Yes, we NEED the Guardian’s continued existence, but castigating Facebook et al while allowing them to track its users doesn’t sit well with me.
The website uses Google Analytics but at least enables the anonymization feature, so some user details are not sent to Google servers.
Although The Guardian’s data servers are in Germany, their email servers are based in the US so GDPR privacy rules could be compromised here, though, again, I am not a lawyer.
In conclusion, I’ve given just 5 examples of popular sites Federation users quote in their posts.
I am NOT advocating a boycott of these sites but politely suggest we don’t OEmbed them, just feature a hyperlink and give readers the heads-up about these privacy concerns.
Alternatively, look for other sources featuring the same story. It’s also worth highlighting which websites do NOT add a tracker when we OEmbed a story, or have a low level of surveillance. Please promote those guys.
#news #fakenews #journalism #FreePress #PressFreedom #theguardian
#privacy #tracking #trackers #facebook #social #mass-surveillance #gdpr #google #location #user #device #setup #private #secure #internet #tips #tricks #online #os #windows #apple #ios #advertising #ad #revenue #streams #developers #media #data #corporations #telemetry #consent #spyware #surveillancecapitalism #humanrights, #anonymity #cookies #surveillance #browser #proxy #relay #network #www #leaks #fingerprint #activity #activitytrackers #thefederation #pods #federation #fediverse #friendica #mastodon #pleroma #socialhome # #Gnusocial #Funkwhale #Peertube #pixelfed #hubzilla #Diaspora
How can Federation users post more safely?
You know how it goes. We find a great story online and we want to share it with our supporters or feature it in our feed with appropriate hashtags for maximum reach.
But do we check the website featuring the story for privacy before we post?
When we embed a link by selecting the OEmbed box (often ticked by default) this displays an image or video on our post from the website we’ve featured.
They may look cool, but these images can contain beacons or other trackers. Embedded trackers also load into the browsers of any user who scrolls down the public feeds.
Should we ensure the website is safe before linking to it?
Actually some do. Posts that don’t feature a website’s images (with the OEmbed box unchecked as below) can actually protect Federation users from a serious amount of surveillance.
Some thoughtful users actually reproduce the article’s main points in their post, to protect their readers from visiting the site itself. They usually supply a link to the original content if one wants more detail and perhaps is protected with tracker blockers. So how do we know a site we recommend is safe?
Here are some privacy tips:
• Consider checking the page’s security/privacy before linking to it.
Using Tor, or a beefed-up Firefox fork or version (for detecting digital fingerprinting), and/or Disconnect, NoScript or Ublock Origin add-ons to reveal a multitude of trackers.
• There is usually more than one website featuring the same story. Consider picking the website with the least trackers and digital fingerprinting.
• Issue a warning in your post about any of the site’s surveillance methods and privacy issues you’ve detected.
• Embedding a picture/video could also make users vulnerable. Consider unchecking the OEmbed box.
In the next post I’ll give examples of a number of websites with low privacy and excessive trackers, commonly featured in the public feeds.
#secure #internet #windows #apple #revenue #streams #developers #Social #media #data #corporations #tracking #trackers #facebook #social #mass-surveillance #gdpr #google #alphabet #location #user #device #setup #private #secure #internet #chrome #tips #tricks #online #os #mobile #ie #safari #apple #ios #ad #revenue #streams #developers #telemetry #consent #windows10 #windows7 #windows81 #microsoft #linux #debian #ubuntu #mate #gnome #grub #iphone #firefox #advertising #android #chrome #browser #browsers #phone #phones #device #Tor #privacy, #humanrights, #anonymity #internet #security #cookies #surveillance #browser #web #onion #router #torbrowser #bridge #proxy #relay #leaks #fingerprint #activity #activitytrackers #spyware #surveillancecapitalism
GitHub is where people build software. More than 31 million people use GitHub to discover, fork, and contribute to over 100 million projects.
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19182956
Posted by jordwalke (karma: 1420)
Post stats: Points: 143 - Comments: 60 - 2019-02-17T06:21:50Z
#HackerNews #but #faceswap #github #logged #public #repo #requires #user
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.
Press h to open a hovercard with more details.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 115 - Loop: 26 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 71
Right now, it seems that most maintainers may publish their packages from their local environment. There should be a way to verify what is published against the public source code or specific git s...
Article word count: 43
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19156707
Posted by niftylettuce (karma: 950)
Post stats: Points: 109 - Comments: 35 - 2019-02-13T20:34:40Z
#HackerNews #koa-router #nodejs #package #tell #transferred #unknown #user
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.
Press h to open a hovercard with more details.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 84 - Loop: 318 - Rank min: 80 - Author rank: 28
I was answering the question “What are the strategies to convert a free user to a premium user for a SaaS product?” and the answer became an article in itself. At the same time, it̵…
Article word count: 1338
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19127523
Posted by cuu508 (karma: 471)
Post stats: Points: 148 - Comments: 79 - 2019-02-10T12:25:58Z
#HackerNews #convert #free #how #premium #user
I was answering the question “What are the strategies to convert a free user to a premium user for a SaaS product?” and the answer became an article in itself. At the same time, it’s yet another one of my core fundamentals which I think can impact someone. Below is my answer.
It’s all about intent.
If your intent is to make as much money as possible as fast as possible (i.e short term), the answer is not for you. You’ll do things that other guys/gurus mention such as “Provide incentive for prospects to sign up for freemium but do not provide too much value so that free version of the product is enough.” — that’s corny, dull and lacking a long-term vision.
Here’s something that I’ve noticed within myself. At a point, I’ve realised I love some companies to the point where I feel like they’re my friend. They’ve done so much good to me and they’ve been “by my side” to a point where I don’t have any problem with parting with my money.
There’s an emotional connection between me and them. It may sound dramatic but it’s true. When I pay them I do so happily as I support their cause.
Here’s the answer
Help them grow so you can grow together.
By that I mean the freemium model should offer the client the chance to grow — equality of opportunity — and if it does happen that they grow and become profitable, the SaaS starts charging based on that. In a sense, value-based pricing, or at least as much as it could get with a scalable model.
In other words, open up the doors for a lot of people and then benefit mutually from the winners.
But I don’t want to have users on the freemium plan leeching my resources
Now here’s the catch — I’d say charge the winners enough so that it’ll cover the expenses for those who didn’t get it yet (or leeches, because I know that might be going through your mind, especially if you’re a business person).
Charge them enough so that you won’t get mad when you find out about that couple of users that just sucked the benefits of your benevolence and never contributed towards your company.
I can’t afford to offer the free plan to so many people
Here’s another magnificent thing that happens when you open the doors for everyone — word of mouth is on steroids. You’re on a fast track to word-of-mouth express. It’s possible you might have heard this comparison before — arguably you can reach 1000 people. And one of these people knows 1000 people. That means you’re a person away from a million. And two people away from a billion.
If your intent is to do good and give chances to everyone to prove themselves, within that network of a billion some of the engagements will include how nice it is that your SaaS is doing them good — whether they pay or not.
Therefore, I’m pretty confident when I say that the ARR you’ll get to in 1–2 years, given the money you’ll be burning initially because of the free plan (it’s not the case all the time though) will be significantly bigger than the ARR you’d have by implementing the shitty tactic of
“Provide incentive for prospects to sign up for freemium but do not provide too much value so that free version of the product is enough.”
Give them bloody enough if you can. Because you’ll have a customer for life and some of them will become even friends. And then when they win and scale, they’ll be more than happy to pay you. And I’ll state it again: they’ll be happy to pay you amounts of value that will cover for those on a freemium plan.
Why? Simple — you see it everywhere. Millionaires who grew up as orphans donate back to orphanages because without these houses, they couldn’t have won. Most of the time it’s more than just THE orphanage they grew up in. We’re humans and once we accumulate resources, if the intent is good in that person, they want to help the cause. Remember what I wrote above that in my case I wanted to contribute to the company’s cause?
I really can’t afford it because I don’t have the money right now — I’m bootstrapping it, hence no investments
Fair. Charge for what you do, don’t offer a freemium plan or do so but only as a trial. But as soon as you’re able to do what I said above, please do it.
The point is this: the more you’re able to give away for free, the more it will come back to you. It won’t make any sense to you unless you’ve experienced it yourself but maybe one single reader will simply trust it by heart and she or he will be taken far.
Here’s another choice of words for sceptics: the more you’re able to give to people, the more you’ll be able to ask from them (eventually). Makes sense?
Some practical examples
I’ll give some examples below along with a brief description. Cloud services are more prone to do so given the fact that what they offer is more fungible and is easier to be priced in a “pay as you go” model.
Dropbox — 2 GB free for anyone. Moreover, get people onboard and we’ll give you more. All for free. Help me, help you.
Spotify — free music, no problem. Just ads. If you mind them (i.e. if your time is more valuable than the monthly $10), we’ve got you as well.
GitHub — sure, put your beloved code and creations on our platform. Open to anyone. If you’re looking to do more than just a hobby, only then we’ll charge you
Firebase — If your database downloads exceed 10 GB/mo, then you’re pretty serious and most probably you can afford to pay for a solution. If not, however, it’s fine, we’ll take the risk with you. Let’s see if your idea works, no problem if it doesn’t. We’ll swallow it.
Cloudflare (which I absolutely love by the way, even though I don’t use their service) — You know what guys, we’ll sell you the domains at wholesale price, we won’t get any commission. And if your website is tiny, it’s just a small personal website or a blog that just started, it’s fine. Stay for free. Only later, when you worry about high-performance and security (which is when you’re at a later stage), we’ll start charging you.
MailChimp — Mailing lists are on us until 2,000 subscribers or 12,000 email sent per month. Anything over that might mean you’re up to something but hey, until then, test your idea with us — we’ll hedge the risk.
The bottom line
Opening up the doors for everyone can go this way. One in 10,000 make it through and have a huge impact on the world, which usually is affiliated with resource gathering.
If your intent is to create a win-win environment and give equality of opportunity so that eventually the next Leonardo da Vinci will come from under your rooftop (and he won’t forget that), this is a way to solve the freemium-to-premium user conversion problem.
About Ch Daniel
I run chagency, an experiences design agency that specialises on helping tech CEOs reduce user churn. We believe experiences are not only the reason why users choose not to leave but also what generates word of mouth. We’re building a credo around this belief.
If I’ve brought you any kind of value, follow me and get in touch here: LinkedIn | Twitter | Email
I’ve also created an infinitely-valuable app for sneaker/fashion enthusiasts called Legit Check that impacted hundreds of thousands over millions of times – check it out at chdaniel.com/app
Please share this with someone and subscribe to our newsletter!— helps us keep pumping content😉
Illustration Credits: Marianna Tomaselli, Mike Tomilin
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 125 - Loop: 400 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 22
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19121882
Posted by subsonico (karma: 102)
Post stats: Points: 115 - Comments: 95 - 2019-02-09T12:01:03Z
#HackerNews #against #because #china #invest #platform #reddits #tencent #the #uprising #user #will
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 108 - Loop: 147 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 30
Turn off location. PART 2
Apart from Edge, which has to be tweaked from the W10 OS, most browsers can have their location services disabled through their menu. I cannot list EVERY browser in existence here, as I have a life. If you have other browser location tweaks, please share.
1. Click on Chrome’s menu and select the cog symbol – SETTINGS
2. Click the SHOW ADVANCED SETTINGS link at the bottom. Don’t be afraid of the ‘advanced’ implication, this has been worded to scare off timid sheep from reclaiming their privacy.
3. Click the CONTENT SETTINGS button under PRIVACY. While we’re here, consider unchecking the boxes urging us to use web services to ‘resolve navigational errors’ or ‘prediction services’ to auto complete our searches. This is just more telemetry.
4. Scroll down to the LOCATION section and select DO NOT ALLOW ANY SITE TO TRACK YOUR PHYSICAL LOCATION.
There are countless versions and forks of Firefox so, to save column inches, here are the about:config settings. Firefox (and especially Tor) should have location disabled.
To check, type about:config in the address bar and press enter.
• Press the button that says "I'll be careful, I promise!" or “I’ll take the risk!”
Type the terms in the search box and toggle to the following settings if you don't already have them:
geo.enabled = false → Disables the browser geolocation feature.
WITHOUT THE [SQUARE BRACKETS][geo].provider.ms-windows-location = false → Disables windows location.
geo.wifi.uri → Mozilla has used Google's geolocation service in Firefox by default for many years, so check for any Google addresses that may be here. This is an example of how Mozilla has lied about some of its user privacy claims – it seems to be posting our movements to the Big G. Erase any Google address and leave this field blank.
1. Click the TOOLS menu
2. Select INTERNET OPTIONS.
3. Click the PRIVACY tab at the top of the window
4. Check the NEVER ALLOW WEBSITES TO REQUEST YOUR PHYSICAL LOCATION box.
5. Click “OK” to save changes.
To disable Location in Safari, first click Safari > Preferences.
• Select the PRIVACY ‘hand’ icon at the top of the window.
• Under WEBSITE USE OF LOCATION SERVICES, select DENY WITHOUT PROMPTING to prevent all websites from asking to show your location.
Like the iOS, iPhone apps have to explain how they’ll use location data and must allow users to turn it off. Of course, access to this info is usually well hidden and when we find it it’s often written in brief, vague terms. To find LOCATION, do the following:
- Tap the SETTINGS icon, usually a cog or wheel
- Tap the PRIVACY icon, usually a white hand on a blue background
- Tap LOCATION SERVICES
• ALWAYS allow location (not recommended – it draws data even when it’s off)
• NEVER allow location
• Allow WHILE USING
The last one should be used for apps we think need to know our location or may be affected by disabling, although I’d venture there are few or none of these.
If you just want to block location on EVERYTHING just swipe that green switch in the pic above, to the left.
Always delete apps you never use. Limits spyware and saves battery.
Owned by Google, Android doesn’t stop snooping apps snuffle away location data, even when they’re turned off. It doesn’t even have the iPhone feature to turn off location when not using an app. After much criticism on this, on newer phones, the Big G reckons developers are only allowed to collect data “a few times an hour,” but if we don’t want ANY data collected, we have to do it from the phone’s main SETTINGS menu.
Older Androids are simpler to tweak
1. Open SETTINGS
2. Tap SECURITY and/or LOCATION
3. Uncheck ACCESS TO MY LOCATION box
4. Swipe GPS SATELLITES button to OFF
Like the iPhone, newer Android phones show a list of individual apps and allow us to turn off each app’s location button. Otherwise we can switch all location snoops off with the main button in APP LEVEL PERMISSIONS.
WIPE THE DATA GOOGLE HAVE COLLECTED
To be fair to Google, who collect data like bees collect pollen, they do have a portal where we can remove our location data (and more).
I am not sure if we can access all the data Google collects about us, or our device, if we DON’T have an account with one of their services, (#Gmail, Google Docs, #YouTube, Android, Google Drive, G+, etc) but it’s worth going through the data they’ve collected "to improve our advertising experience".
Obviously, we will be tracked within an inch of our life at Google central, but will have to suck it up if we want to clear our data. Be prepared for eyes to water and flabbers to be gasted.
#privacy #tracking #trackers #facebook #social #patent #mass-surveillance #surveillance #gdpr #google #alphabet #location #user #what3words #device #setup #private #secure #internet #chrome #tips #tricks #online #os #windows #mobile #ie #safari #apple #ios #ad #revenue #streams #developers #Social #media #data #corporations #telemetry #consent #windows10 #windows7 #windows81 #microsoft #linux #debian #ubuntu #mate #gnome #grub #iphone #firefox #advertising #android #chrome #browser #browsers #phone #phones #device
The biggest and perhaps best source of data about what people like to watch on the internet and what they would pay for doesn’t come from streaming giants like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, or Hulu. It comes from porn.