[Gigachad]

Configuration adds complexity and is a huge source of confusion for users. Google drive strikes me as something that should just work and be so simple that you do not have to configure it.

There does not seem to be any genuine reason to make this change a setting because the main objection is just "I don't like it" rather than "it stops me from doing x" or "it makes x harder"

It would be much less painful to just have users get used to the new behavior than to support a setting for forever. For people who want full power, custom clients exist for google drive which can work however you want.

We see a constant trend where users move towards products which just work rather than require manuals and configuration. Seems only sane that general public products like google drive should cater to this and if you want full power over everything, you have 3rd party clients, nextcloud, ftp, etc.

[mjw1007]

I don't think it's safe to reason from what the "main" objection is.

I see one of the comments on that page is:

« I just installed the new Google Drive desktop client (Win 10 pro) and the new virtual drive it creates triggers a non-compliance issue with ClearPass OnGuard that my employer requires (because the drive is not encrypted) and thus prevents me from connecting to their VPN. »

Maybe this OnGuard thing is being foolish, but that's no comfort to the user.

[Silhouette]

Maybe this OnGuard thing is being foolish

Maybe, but if corporate policy requires all storage to be encrypted and the tool to enforce that policy can't verify that whatever Google's software is doing is compliant, maybe not.

Different policies might be appropriate for software that is used by non-experts in a personal capacity and software that is part of professionally managed IT systems used for business purposes with regulatory compliance obligations. A lot of the modern trends from the likes of Google, Apple and Microsoft might make sense for the former group but they are a significant concern for the latter and for prosumer or small business users who might want to operate more like the latter but are stuck with software aimed at the former.

[danielheath]

> It would be much less painful to just have users get used to the new behavior than to support a setting for forever.

Painful for who?

[b112]

Users are the product...

Do you care what gold thinks, as you mine it?

No, you only care about raw cost. And if you lose some gold, but in the end save money, who cares?

Which makes one wonder, should OSS vs profit driven, think of such things the same way?

[b112]

Ah-ha! Downvoted! The man, in combination with reverse vampires, is afraid of the truth being spoken.

[b112]

Configuration adds complexity and is a huge source of confusion for users

This is overstated, and blown out of proportion these days.

Many of the studies stating so are 30 years old, at a time when virtually everyone was new to computing.

As well, an "advanced" menu item makes it simplisticly clear, don't monkey here novice, even an option for 'expert'.

And these can all be hidden away, so the novice / confused cannot find them easily, such as a pref "show advanced option".

This had worked well for decades. No confusion.

The real reason this "confusion" narrative exists, is options cost money, time. It fits the preference of less work.

[barnabee]

> Configuration adds complexity and is a huge source of confusion for users.

Sometimes confusion is the appropriate state. Companies (or at least products) often have to choose between retaining the most users (or worse, customers) and catering to a subset who know what they want and are willing to learn to use it.

Sadly Google these days always seem to go with the former, and not to care about the latter. This completely turns me off their products and ecosystem.