What is the point then? Justifying telemetry? Because the value for the user is at least very close to zero, but the privacy implications are not.

The question posed was why Intel would want to track what websites you visited for their video drivers. I answered why.

That was followed up by asking if telemetry has value for the user. I answered it can.

The reality of products generally not improving with telemetry is beside the point. That is a problem with the people using the telemetric data.

> I answered why.

I don't think that you did, though. The data that is gathered by monitoring what websites you go to can be obtained without monitoring what websites you go to. So why do they feel the need to monitor what sites you go to?

My answer to that is "marketing purposes".

You're just making up reasons why you think they are collecting this data. You haven't even verified this or actually know anything about why they are collecting it.

No, I didn't confirm anything since I don't work at Intel, but I can make reasonably educated guesses as to why they could want this information.

If you're just going to discuss in bad faith, and I wouldn't be surprised since telemetry is always going to be criticized no matter what, you can take a look at the Hacker News Guidelines[1] and re-evaluate your presence here.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> If the product improves quality of life for the user, yes there is value for the user.

"Value" can only be properly understood as "Benefit - Cost". If the cost is greater than the benefit, the value is negative.

> Everyone likes better software, right?

But does everyone have the same definition of "better"?