Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash [LWN.net]

Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

Posted Sep 24, 2012 20:20 UTC (Mon) by raven667 (guest, #5198)
Parent article: Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

I think this is a neat idea and hopefully leads to a better sustainable revenue stream for Canonical so that they can keep operational. This feature does need some clear privacy boundaries though, it's nice that they are anonymizing the search queries by running it through their servers but this should also have a prominent option in the privacy settings to turn it off, in addition to the expedience of just removing the plugin's package.

to post comments

Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

Posted Sep 24, 2012 22:02 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (7 responses)

There are other issues beyond privacy. There will be a desire from some people to limit the amount of network activity consumed by a query to the minimum necessary to complete the intended query. When the goal is to search for an on-disk file do you really want a network transaction out to a 3rd party to occur every single time?

Does it really make sense for all queries through the desktop UI to hit the network and pull down images and other data, every single time?

Metered or reduced bandwidth scenarios..and you go to search for a file on disk via the dash..and it goes out on the network automatically to give you search related suggestions without explicit consent to do the network search eating what is most likely your most cost-senstive or scarce system resource.. is that really a good idea? I'm not convinced it is. Nor do I think turning it off entirely really makese sense either. There has to be a way to design in query by query selectivity for more suggestions beyond local datastores. I refuse to believe that the designers cannot accomodate a reality other than the "always-on" "always-connected" "always interested in being a consumer" pov.

We aren't all on FIOS to the home yet, neither do we all have all-you-can-eat 3g data plans. And I would daresay that just as much true in the rising tech markets such as China and India, where Canonical has a hope of making OEM pre-install deals happening, as it is in tech mature western markets where they'll have far less of a chance to get traction with OEMs.

The deep network search integration itself, and the default search providers chosen aren't the real issue. But how this is exposed to users needs continue to give users selective control on exactly which queries result in a network transaction and burn network resources.

-jef"I don't always query network search providers when looking for files on my system which reference "wolf lure", but when I do, I ask Amazon for related tempting deals of the day"spaleta

Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

Posted Sep 25, 2012 11:54 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (6 responses)

When the goal is to search for an on-disk file do you really want a network transaction out to a 3rd party to occur every single time?

In cities, at least, broadband has reached such a level of penetration that this is an almost irrelevant concern except for privacy reasons. Heck, Chrome has sent out queries on an (amortized) *keystroke-by-keystroke* basis for years: complaints have been minimal, and all of them that I've seen have been privacy-related, not bandwidth- or efficiency-related.

Bandwidth these days is more than high enough that even rural satellite broadband users just won't notice this (as long as it's done asynchronously). Heck, I work from home over the Internet and have never once blown my pathetic 4Gb/month bandwidth cap despite basically living on the net. What blows caps is not incidental usage like this but things like iplayer, youtube, and bittorrent streaming.

Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

Posted Sep 25, 2012 15:38 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (5 responses)

As a person who actually uses sat links on a regular basis in remote locations.. in the United States. I'm telling you flat out, that you are absolutely wrong about the viability of sat broadband for the always connected lifestyle.

And again.. chrome... the "web browser" is an application that you explicitly start and it connects to the network. It is understood to be a network consuming application. Your actual desktop search UI? Should it really be networked by default? You seem to have missed my point. There maybe be an implicit assumption sitting in the heads of some users that certain types of network activity, need to be part of an explicit transaction that involves the user making the choice to engage in networked services. For web browser, the act of firing up the application becomes that explicit transaction, the bright line the user chooses to cross, knowing that by doing so they are potentially using network services. The web browser as a thing is generally understood to be a networked thing. But the desktop integrated search UI? Does logging into your computer then become the choice point for interactive network activity? I'm really not sure that's going to sit well. If it did, well then we'd all be happily using Chromebooks.

I think the always networked is a hard sell to a segment of users who want to feel in control of their computing interactions. And I think the linux faithful has a larger population of people who want to feel in control of what their computer is doing than perhaps the wider population. It's probably one of the unvocalized things that attract people to any traditional linux offering really.

I think if Canonical is really serious about the always-on always-connected lifestyle, and want to build products that cater to that lifestyle without compromising their vision for the take-control lifestyle.. I think they'll lose their appeal to a wide swath of their current userbase. If that is what it takes for them to make the leap across the chasm into a mainstream mass-market product...its a pretty high stakes bet. I think they can compromise a weebit and make what they are trying to do more palatable to their existing userbase instead of burning that particular bridge. Then again, fires are cool...so I'm kinda conflicted over what I want to see them do.

-jef

Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

Posted Sep 26, 2012 11:43 UTC (Wed) by njwhite (guest, #51848) [Link]

> I think the always networked is a hard sell to a segment of users who want to feel in control of their computing interactions. And I think the linux faithful has a larger population of people who want to feel in control of what their computer is doing than perhaps the wider population. It's probably one of the unvocalized things that attract people to any traditional linux offering really.

Exactly right, I would say.

I agree with other comments that I don't really see the utility, but even if it was there, the privacy issues are reminicent of exactly the sorts of things that people choose to move away from proprietary operating systems to avoid. Anybody else remember installers which bundled tons of other "fun, helpful software" on Windows? I'm all for Ubuntu having diverse, creative revenue streams, but if they go this direction I think (and hope) it would lose them users, and more importantly, trust.

Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

Posted Sep 26, 2012 22:06 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

As a person who actually uses sat links on a regular basis in remote locations.. in the United States. I'm telling you flat out, that you are absolutely wrong about the viability of sat broadband for the always connected lifestyle.

Well, that's interesting. I thought we were talking about typing in a search box sending queries out to the Internet, yet suddenly in order to win the argument you have jumped across to 'the always connected lifestyle'.

I'd hate to point this out, but my mother types things in search boxes on a regular basis, over her satellite broadband link, and it works fine. She's not a member of the 'always connected lifestyle' crowd, though. There are a lot of people in that boat, but you've forgotten they exist.

Personally I have always assumed that virtually anything can and will talk to the network when it sees fit: networking is not something hived off into a few applications, but a property of the system as a whole. The system is networked, not the web browser. Unix systems have been like this for decades, and heavily used by 'people who want to feel in control of what the computer is doing'.

Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

Posted Sep 26, 2012 22:14 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

what you are missing is that some things are expected to use the network, and having those things be slow if you have a bad or not Internet connection is expected.

Having a local search box now require Internet connectivity _IS_ assuming the "always connected" lifestyle.

for people who are "always connected" with fast, low latency connections, the only concerns are privacy related.

for people who do not enjoy such "always connected" environments, these new dependencies on the network are a problem.

Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

Posted Sep 26, 2012 22:39 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

Not true. That is only so if search results do not appear until the Internet side of the search is completed. If they appear as soon as they have any results at all, and then update as new results come in, the net effective latency of the Internet side of the search is zero.

This is not rocket science: Chrome's suggestion box already does it.

Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

Posted Sep 27, 2012 4:57 UTC (Thu) by spaetz (guest, #32870) [Link]

but I can tell you from first hand experience that it is very dsconcerting and annoying to ha the layout and result page of a dash query jump around for 10 secs after the search. heck, if i type in the das, I probably just want to start GIMP and not earn about all possible gimp media out there.

Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

Posted Sep 24, 2012 22:19 UTC (Mon) by jiu (guest, #57673) [Link] (5 responses)

totally agree with that, Gnome have learnt the hard way (or have they, yet?) the results of taking configuration options away from their users.

Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

Posted Sep 25, 2012 17:20 UTC (Tue) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link] (4 responses)

GNOME profits have gone down the drain indeed :-(

Shuttleworth: Amazon search results in the Dash

Posted Sep 25, 2012 20:02 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (3 responses)

Good ol' bkor, short on empathy but always ready with a snark.

configuration settings, empathy

Posted Sep 30, 2012 11:19 UTC (Sun) by pjm (guest, #2080) [Link] (2 responses)

That seems like a very snarky and empathy-lacking reply.

It's clear that configuration options have both cost and benefit. The costs and benefits aren't directly comparable, so it can be hard to judge whether or at what point it's best to remove an option; but it does seem that some people and businesses are on balance better served by software with fewer configuration settings. Being able to see other people's viewpoints (one might almost say "having empathy"), one might congratulate the Gnome devs for daring to provide an option better suited for such people, rather than merely complain when one thinks oneself less suited by this choice.

configuration settings, empathy

Posted Oct 3, 2012 20:31 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (1 responses)

If you're talking about the big picture, I totally agree.

I was talking about bkor's one-liner. In reply to a substantial and earnest post, he says something like "I don't care" or "Gnome doesn't care" (the brevity makes it unclear). It's not very easy to empathize with that sort of discussion.

But, yes, I can emulate it. :)

configuration settings, empathy

Posted Oct 3, 2012 20:36 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Dangit, I misread the hierarchy. bkor was responding to snark with snark. Never mind.

Technically I stand by what I said, but it sure wasn't worth adding to this particular thread. *hits undo button*