10 ms·
Honestly, I'm continually amazed by the level of absolute garbage people can ship with any level of popularity. And worse, get funding to ship it.
by problems 9y ago
Honestly, I'm continually amazed by the level of absolute garbage people can ship with any level of popularity. And worse, get funding to ship it.
- ng12 9y agoBut it doesn't really matter does it? It's a social application, not a banking system. If your garbage gets users it's not garbage.
- pcwalton 9y agoIf a company gets users but fails to retain them, causing the product to fail and the investors to lose their funds, then it certainly isn't a success.
- ng12 9y agoSure, but it's a calculated risk -- maybe they decided that growth features were more important than uptime or data integrity. That still doesn't mean the app is garbage.
- TacticalTable 9y agoYikyak didn't fail because of garbage code, it failed because of absolutely stupid decisions of direction. Adding usernames absolutely killed the app
- s73ver 9y agoNo, that just means it's popular garbage.
- ng12 9y agoAnd that's infinitely better than scalable, well-designed garbage nobody uses.
- austenallred 9y agoThe quality of code and level of popularity are not directly correlated. In fact, I've found often times they're inversely correlated. Maybe something to do with where time is spent?
- Trundle 9y agoIt amused me last year when I realised that 95% of my phone use was the facebook app, tinder, and pokemon go. One a notorious battery drain, the next crashed regularly, and then the last was worst at both. I definitely think there are a lot of programmers who place a too much weight on the effect of quality when it comes to consumer apps.