I assume it's yet another case of the fallacy of revealed preferences.
If you look at what people actually do, any insight into what they want is confounded by environmental effects (eg, they'd prefer to use feature A, but feature A is missing or inconvenient to access, so they end up mostly using feature B), selection bias (feature A is most useful to precisely the people who know how to turn off or deliberately break telemetry), and other issues (A/B testing confirms that people have a revealed preference for clicking on animated icons (because they're trying to make the fucking thing stop squirming in their peripheral vision while they're trying to concentrate on something else)).
(Talking with users is definitely possible (usually easy) to screw up, but I have yet to encounter any evidence that it's possible to not screw up telemetry-based design decisions by any means other than ignoring the telemetry.)
I assume it's yet another case of the fallacy of revealed preferences.
If you look at what people actually do, any insight into what they want is confounded by environmental effects (eg, they'd prefer to use feature A, but feature A is missing or inconvenient to access, so they end up mostly using feature B), selection bias (feature A is most useful to precisely the people who know how to turn off or deliberately break telemetry), and other issues (A/B testing confirms that people have a revealed preference for clicking on animated icons (because they're trying to make the fucking thing stop squirming in their peripheral vision while they're trying to concentrate on something else)).
(Talking with users is definitely possible (usually easy) to screw up, but I have yet to encounter any evidence that it's possible to not screw up telemetry-based design decisions by any means other than ignoring the telemetry.)