Re: How to implement "Check for Updates"?

In article <1188133228.48728@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Michael Ash <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1188040167.261902@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Michael Ash <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There are three ways to obtain my software: autoupdater, download URL off
my web site, and from external sources. I have no reason to think that the
external sources are significant, being a couple of magazine CDs and
presumably things like getting copies from friends and shady pirate sites,
so the first two are the significant ones.

There is a real pattern of baseless assumption in your posts. Instead
of simply having "no reason", why not look into it? For example, I've
seen non-trivial traffic for software (InstantLinks) based off a small,
simple blurb in Mac OS X: The Missing Manual. Don't be so dismissive of
external sources unless you have hard data.

I'm not sure how I would do this, unless I did something like produce a
special magazine build every time somebody asked me about one, and I just
don't want to do that.

I never said you could easily track magazine users (though you might try
to look for a traffic spike around the publication date). What I said
is that you shouldn't discount the significance of such an external
source for no reason.

Incidentally, magazine CDs are a place to get software without visiting
software update sites, which you claimed can't be done.

Quote where I made that claim. What I *did* essentially claim is that
you were disingenuous in suggesting that tracker sites aren't that
useful to most people simply because you don't like to use them. All my
server logs say you're wrong, and your logs probably say the same thing.

Note that the download link for
people who are updating is *exactly the same* as the one for new users, so
there is no way for me to distinguish between them without redoing my
download process, which I'm not going to do for the sake of this thread.

I don't understand why you couldn't track the stats based on user agent.
I don't understand why you couldn't track the stats based on referrer.
Assuming bad practices are in place for those, I don't understand why
it'd be a major redo to add "?source=web" to a link or two and start
tracking stats.

New user finds software on update site and downloads.

Existing user finds new version on update site and downloads.

I have no idea how you can possibly differentiate between those two
scenarios unless you install spyware. Perhaps you have some suggestions?

You don't. Both cases go into the "a built-in updater is a waste of
time" bucket. I'm not sure why you try to keep shifting this to a new
vs. existing user issue.

There are two groups of users: long-term and short-term. The long-term
group would generally correlate well with the group of purchasers, which I
do have good data on.

Data you still conveniently have not shown.

Sorry, but you're not getting my sales statistics. Of course you didn't
even ask for my sales statistics, and they are completely useless on their
own. So why would I show them?

I'm confused; what's your point here? Was this a failed attempt at
trying to construct a straw man? All I'm asking for is a simple
statement like "N% of registered users downloaded the last update using
the built-in updater over 3 days after the release date".

What makes you think I have good data on any subset of my users?

Because you fucking *said* you did; go re-read the top of the last
quoted block! Excuse me while I boggle at your inability to follow the
conversation.

You're demanding completely impossible statistics for my side, while
presenting none for your side.

I am in the fortunate position of not being the one making extraordinary
claims. You are the one saying the bother of adding a built-in updater
is worth it. All you have to do is show the evidence that proves it.

Extraordinary is in the eye of the beholder. Given the number of apps I
have which have such systems, and which don't, I would say that the app
makers (at least of the kind of software I use) are already on my site,
and *you* are the one making extraordinary claims.

Just because a developer jumps on a bandwagon doesn't mean it's a good
idea. The burden is still on you to show that the *use* justifies
bothering with the implementation.

All I'm saying is that people use built-in stuff when it's provided.
You're saying that people hate it. Somehow I need to give evidence and you
don't. Very clever of you, saves you a lot of trouble to be sure.

I didn't say people hate it, just that I always shut it off, and I have
no problem agreeing that people will generally use what they're given.
That doesn't make your case for you, though, because the issue is about
whether or not the giving *causes* the use or merely *correlates* with
it. That's why I asked for stats that are distanced from the release
date, because it is quite possible for a user to read about an update on
a web site or in a newsgroup *before* the app does its scheduled check,
manually using the built-in updater not because it is better but just
because it is there.

Given that you have presented zero hard data in support of the value of
built-in updaters, it is the very essence of premature.

Well hey, I have zero *hard* data as to how many users obtain my software
off magazine CDs compared to my web site, why don't I just shut down the
annoying and costly web site downloads altogether? People will appreciate
the concreteness of having a CD and I'll save time and money.

You're actually helping me make my point. You absolutely *should* shut
down your web site if you have no evidence that it is a net gain for
you. Sorry to be reasonable about that and blow your attempt at sarcasm
out of the water, but it is the right way to run a business.

Alright, I welcome any suggestions on how to measure this.

I really can't run your business for you; I'd like to stay on the topic
of software updates. I will say, however, that hosting a web site is so
cheap these days that it's nearly at noise levels. Even if you never
made a sale directly from it, there are many other net benefits that are
worth the trivial cost.

The people using Google are only *stumbling* across your software.
Whatever contempt you have for tracker sites, most users specifically
looking for Mac software will be better served by them than Google when
the topic is so narrow and easily defined.

You're changing the argument. I never said anything about "better served",
I just said that *I*, *personally*, do not use them.

I'm not concerned with your sample set sized at 1. Perhaps that is why
you also got caught up with the lie/liar thing. I didn't change the
argument, but rather followed it to where you took it. Your own
evidence demonstrates that Google is just garbage for finding software.

Need I remind you that "lie" refers to *intentional deception*? It is not
the same as a falsehood.

I wasn't looking for a political-level spin doctoring here. Try to
skirt the *real* issue all you want, but the fact remains that one of
the few *true* advantages of implementing a built-in updater is vendor
lock-in.

Then you go on to say, "I personally don't have a problem with a developer
being selfish, but at least have the guts to bullet point vendor lock-in
as a major advantage of using built-in updaters." So not only am I liar,
but I'm a selfish liar. Oh, but I shouldn't get upset, because you have a
bunch of weasel words so you can make it look like you didn't mean to say
what you said! Good luck with that.

You're the one breaking out "falsehood" as though it materially matters,
so don't try to accuse *me* of using weasel words. The issue is that
you're refusing to own up to the reality of things. The reality is that
a developer benefits from lock-in. The reality is that Google blows for
software searches. I don't particularly care to couch those phrases in
some manner you find more palatable if that still won't get you any
closer to agreeing with the underlying reality.

Maybe you did just have an "ah ha!" moment and you were just trying to
apply these things to the general userbase and none of it was meant to
apply to me personally. If that is the case then you did an utterly
terrible job, and your wording came out looking like a personal attack.

No, you just *read* a personal attack into it. I obviously have no
problem calling you a fucking liar if I *wanted* to do that, but I
didn't and you simply decided to get steamed. I honestly don't know or
care if you have the best intentions for your users in implementing a
built-in updater, but without any evidence that it *does* benefit them
I, as a developer, naturally looked for how it would benefit you.

You haven't been giving any sound reasons either, besides a bunch of
handwaving or your own personal views.

My sound reason was already given by you: it takes additional effort to
implement and maintain a built-in updater. I think you'll find that a
lot of things don't get added to software, even things that should (a
favorite of mine is app-based URI handling defaults, especially when
contrasted with Finder-based file handling defaults), because it isn't
worth the effort.

Ah yes, positional definitions. "Sound reason" from you is a simple
statement that effort is involved. "Sound reason" from me is a
complicated set of web site statistics which involves modifications made
to my software and web site. Double standard, anyone?

As I already said, yours is the extraordinary claim that requires
extraordinary proof. Nobody said science is equitable. If you don't
like being on the wrong side of it, simply change your position.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, teranews.com, x-privat.org
.