6 ms·

Who defines what is 'useful'? I have a cousin, he sits at home all day, watching TV. When he buys apps, he does not want or care for things like 'currency bot'.

Who defines what is 'useful'? I have a cousin, he sits at home all day, watching TV. When he buys apps, he does not want or care for things like 'currency bot'. Why would he care about that, he never needs to convert currency. But if he sees something like the x-ray stuff, he'd be quite entertained by it. For him, it's much more useful than a VIM clone for android. Your definition of useful is not the same as most of the worlds definition.

CrazedGeek 16y ago
use·ful 1. being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society. 2. of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying common needs: the useful arts; useful work. Seems to me that his definition is spot on.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  The point maxklein was making is that these apps are useful to someone, otherwise, kreci wouldn't be making money from them. Just because we don't deem them useful here doesn't mean there aren't people who do find them useful.
  - exit 16y ago
    > ... these apps are useful to someone, otherwise, kreci wouldn't be making money from them. this logic only works out if you approach things myopically. do you think drug dealers provide a useful commodity? they're certainly making a lot of money. the apps described take advantage of some neurological disposition to gimmicks / novelty - it's not a given that the world is a better place because of them.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      I guess you're calling capitalism myopic. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's the framework we've set up. (And yes, I do think drug dealers provide value. It's a service, people want it. In any other context, we'd be writing articles about how a perceptive entrepreneur rose up from a simple upbringing to rolling in cash, it's just that we look down upon the product.) There's a pretty decent sibling of mine who's dead. You may want to turn showdead on temporarily.
      - exit 16y ago
        yes, capitalism is myopic and you can justify many myopic conclusions by limiting yourself to its framework. > ... it's just that we look down upon the product. that's an amusing misdirection. it's actually more about the lives ruined and suffering experienced by way of the product. > What is your definition of wealth? Paul Graham says, and I tend to agree with him, that wealth is "things people want". If people want these apps (or drugs), then the apps (and drugs) create wealth. wealth is control over other people. having lots of money in a capitalist system is a proxy for being able to control lots of other people in this system. taking advantage of neurological hooks (chemical in the case of drugs, or sensual in the case of advertising / apps / etc) is certainly one way to gain controller over others (by the proxy of money). i suppose if your concerns are entirely contained within the bounds of playing that game (very much the case for many entrepreneurial types) there's no motivation to challenge its definition of "value".
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        > it's actually more about the lives ruined and suffering experienced by way of the product. This is an 'amusing misdirection,' to use your own words, about you forcing your own morality on others. There are plenty of people that use drugs without ruining their lives, no need to get high and mighty about it. > wealth is control over other people. Hey man, I'm an anarchist. I understand exactly what you're saying. But regardless of my own personal thoughts on the subject, that's not the way that this country is set up. As I said over here[1], it's just that we're talking about two different things. Within capitalism, kreci is creating value. If you'd like to discuss a different system, then you need to tell everyone that you're talking about something else. When on a forum about startups, I assume people are discussing the current system by default. 1: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1882865 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1882865
    - ecounysis 16y ago
      I think it is very difficult to objectively say that anyone who likes these apps has an "unfortunate neurological disposition to gimmicks". From your perspective the world may be a worse place because of these apps (and drugs), but for the people who like these apps (or people who like drugs) they make the world more enjoyable. What is your definition of wealth? Paul Graham says, and I tend to agree with him, that wealth is "things people want". If people want these apps (or drugs), then the apps (and drugs) create wealth. We could impose our own values and what we want on other people's preferences, but then we are forcing the definition of wealth to be limited to only things we want, rather than what people in general want.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
andreyf 16y ago
You can't be serious. Just because people are willing to pay money for it doesn't mean it's worth your time. There's nothing wrong with making money on the side with a couple of apps like this, but just as AIDS or cancer research is more "useful" than penis pills or breast enhancement surgery regardless of profitability, there are many ways for mobile developers to "push the state of the art" without making more fake cracked screen apps.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  > Just because people are willing to pay money for it doesn't mean it's worth your time. By definition, if someone is willing to pay money for something, it's worth _their_ time, which is the whole point of making products. We preach "Making something that a customer finds valuable. MVP and iterate. Get lots of feedback to build something the customer wants." So kreci builds something people want. > ust as AIDS or cancer research is more "useful" than penis pills or breast enhancement surgery regardless of profitability This is where the main discrepancy comes in. You guys are talking about two different things: 'value' within a capitalist framework and 'nobility' within your particular moral one. Neither one is necessarily 'better', but that's the core difference.
  - Yzupnick 16y ago
    > This is where the main discrepancy comes in. You guys are talking about two different things: 'value' within a capitalist framework and 'nobility' within your particular moral one. Neither one is necessarily 'better', but that's the core difference. I think this is something that is confused all the time, even by people who realize the distinction. It is something I (and I suspect others) find hard to keep track of without actively thinking about it.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      Absolutely. I think it's a common trap that we all fall into; I know that I do, for sure. We assume that something doesn't have any value unless it solves a hard problem. In reality, there's a ton of low-hanging fruit out there just waiting to be exploited. As the web matures, I think we'll look back and realize that this is an era where the problem space looks like a tree: a trunk has sprung up of problems that we're solving, and then we're going to the highest levels of difficulty, branching out. Eventually, more will start doing what some people (like kreci) are just starting to do: working on easier problems. There's a whole world out there of things that we can easily be doing to help people with their day. They may not be 'noble', but even fart apps have their place in people's lives. Numerous fortunes have been made from pornography, professional wrestling, and soap operas. We'd do well to remember that.

CrazedGeek 16y ago

use·ful 1. being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society. 2. of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying common needs: the useful arts; useful work. Seems to me that his definition is spot on.

steveklabnik 16y ago
The point maxklein was making is that these apps are useful to someone, otherwise, kreci wouldn't be making money from them. Just because we don't deem them useful here doesn't mean there aren't people who do find them useful.
- exit 16y ago
  > ... these apps are useful to someone, otherwise, kreci wouldn't be making money from them. this logic only works out if you approach things myopically. do you think drug dealers provide a useful commodity? they're certainly making a lot of money. the apps described take advantage of some neurological disposition to gimmicks / novelty - it's not a given that the world is a better place because of them.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    I guess you're calling capitalism myopic. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's the framework we've set up. (And yes, I do think drug dealers provide value. It's a service, people want it. In any other context, we'd be writing articles about how a perceptive entrepreneur rose up from a simple upbringing to rolling in cash, it's just that we look down upon the product.) There's a pretty decent sibling of mine who's dead. You may want to turn showdead on temporarily.
    - exit 16y ago
      yes, capitalism is myopic and you can justify many myopic conclusions by limiting yourself to its framework. > ... it's just that we look down upon the product. that's an amusing misdirection. it's actually more about the lives ruined and suffering experienced by way of the product. > What is your definition of wealth? Paul Graham says, and I tend to agree with him, that wealth is "things people want". If people want these apps (or drugs), then the apps (and drugs) create wealth. wealth is control over other people. having lots of money in a capitalist system is a proxy for being able to control lots of other people in this system. taking advantage of neurological hooks (chemical in the case of drugs, or sensual in the case of advertising / apps / etc) is certainly one way to gain controller over others (by the proxy of money). i suppose if your concerns are entirely contained within the bounds of playing that game (very much the case for many entrepreneurial types) there's no motivation to challenge its definition of "value".
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        > it's actually more about the lives ruined and suffering experienced by way of the product. This is an 'amusing misdirection,' to use your own words, about you forcing your own morality on others. There are plenty of people that use drugs without ruining their lives, no need to get high and mighty about it. > wealth is control over other people. Hey man, I'm an anarchist. I understand exactly what you're saying. But regardless of my own personal thoughts on the subject, that's not the way that this country is set up. As I said over here[1], it's just that we're talking about two different things. Within capitalism, kreci is creating value. If you'd like to discuss a different system, then you need to tell everyone that you're talking about something else. When on a forum about startups, I assume people are discussing the current system by default. 1: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1882865 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1882865
  - ecounysis 16y ago
    I think it is very difficult to objectively say that anyone who likes these apps has an "unfortunate neurological disposition to gimmicks". From your perspective the world may be a worse place because of these apps (and drugs), but for the people who like these apps (or people who like drugs) they make the world more enjoyable. What is your definition of wealth? Paul Graham says, and I tend to agree with him, that wealth is "things people want". If people want these apps (or drugs), then the apps (and drugs) create wealth. We could impose our own values and what we want on other people's preferences, but then we are forcing the definition of wealth to be limited to only things we want, rather than what people in general want.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

andreyf 16y ago

You can't be serious. Just because people are willing to pay money for it doesn't mean it's worth your time. There's nothing wrong with making money on the side with a couple of apps like this, but just as AIDS or cancer research is more "useful" than penis pills or breast enhancement surgery regardless of profitability, there are many ways for mobile developers to "push the state of the art" without making more fake cracked screen apps.

steveklabnik 16y ago
> Just because people are willing to pay money for it doesn't mean it's worth your time. By definition, if someone is willing to pay money for something, it's worth _their_ time, which is the whole point of making products. We preach "Making something that a customer finds valuable. MVP and iterate. Get lots of feedback to build something the customer wants." So kreci builds something people want. > ust as AIDS or cancer research is more "useful" than penis pills or breast enhancement surgery regardless of profitability This is where the main discrepancy comes in. You guys are talking about two different things: 'value' within a capitalist framework and 'nobility' within your particular moral one. Neither one is necessarily 'better', but that's the core difference.
- Yzupnick 16y ago
  > This is where the main discrepancy comes in. You guys are talking about two different things: 'value' within a capitalist framework and 'nobility' within your particular moral one. Neither one is necessarily 'better', but that's the core difference. I think this is something that is confused all the time, even by people who realize the distinction. It is something I (and I suspect others) find hard to keep track of without actively thinking about it.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    Absolutely. I think it's a common trap that we all fall into; I know that I do, for sure. We assume that something doesn't have any value unless it solves a hard problem. In reality, there's a ton of low-hanging fruit out there just waiting to be exploited. As the web matures, I think we'll look back and realize that this is an era where the problem space looks like a tree: a trunk has sprung up of problems that we're solving, and then we're going to the highest levels of difficulty, branching out. Eventually, more will start doing what some people (like kreci) are just starting to do: working on easier problems. There's a whole world out there of things that we can easily be doing to help people with their day. They may not be 'noble', but even fart apps have their place in people's lives. Numerous fortunes have been made from pornography, professional wrestling, and soap operas. We'd do well to remember that.