6 ms·

If You're Not Gonna Use It, Why Are You Building It?

68 points by johndcook 16y ago

apedley 16y ago
Interestingly I have found that the apps I build for myself then decide this would be great for others, lets build it for everyone to use, have been the most successful of my apps.
ChuckMcM 16y ago
When my daughter was about 8 or 9 her curiosity was peaked by me looking at the stock market value. (she was 8 in 1998 :-)) She asked, "Why would you put any money at all in the stock market, where one day it was worth more than you started with and the next day it was worth less? When you could put it into a savings account and every month it was worth a little bit more and never less?" That question set the stage for an interesting discussion about risk and return, but the really important part was a discussion about money, money that you needed to pay the bills, vs money that you needed "just in case", vs money that you were saving to have available in 30 or 40 years for your retirement. The complexity of money management is something that develops with a deeper understanding of the role of money in the context of your current and future life goals. A mutual fund is of little value to an 8 year old, but a great tool for someone planning their retirement. The linked article shows someone who has a photo manipulation program, and that program has image adjustment tools that he has never used. He erroneously generalizes that to an unsupported hypothesis that nobody ever uses those tools, and then goes on to talk about photo applications which are much less flexible (Instagram and its competitors) and how he does use their tools. It is a great learning moment. This is a huge trap for young entrepreneurs and it helps to think about it and not fall into it. The platitude is "know your customers." This guy clearly gets along just fine with a tool which makes amusing transformations 'easy' sort of the MacOS photobooth equivalent. And yet the tools he belittles in his mini-rant are ones that are used daily by artists all around the world, and there are even companies built around still more manipulation 'effects' because an artist doesn't see a picture, they see input into what they are trying to express. So when your customers come to you and ask you for these features in your tools, it helps you get to know them better and helps you understand their needs. And while we often start by building tools for ourselves, if we can add a feature that other people find useful (even if we don't) and it gives wider appeal to that tool, its a Good Thing to do. Even if, as posited, we are not gonna use it.
- donnyg107 16y ago
  I think this programmer shows a little more depth than assuming that everyone shares his lack of use of these tools. I don't think he was trying to tell photoshop that they don't need such a large breadth of tools, he was telling programmers that more tools is not necessarily better. I think he's pointing out that simplicity is valuable as a reflection of the intent of the program. The iPhone app is not worse than photoshop, because its simplicity and LACK of design options are necessary components of a simple, quick, and control surrendering user interface. I imagine he recognizes the value of having obscure tools on a program like photoshop, but is pointing out that these extra options would ruin the photo app he loves. I like this message, as we often treat extra options as costless ways of improving a user experience, when often they can create a certain detriment. Options and simplicity should reflect the intent and user implementation of the program, and failure to do so can really ruin a user experience.
- barrkel 16y ago
  Pet pedantic peeve: it's "piqued", not "peaked".
  - pzxc 16y ago
    At least he didn't spell "lose" with two O's like I've seen half a dozen times on HN in the past month!
- gumbo 16y ago
  This is a wrong generalization. I'd never used all those filter in photoshop yet, but what i really like with PS is tye fact that when i need it, i don't need to go find another tool (buy it). PS is a one stop shop for anything you need go process an image. One should know his target, ps do not target the lambda photo hobiste, which make the article comparision pointless. However the premise is true and i could say as an entrepreneur "don't build something your users don't need"
dkersten 16y ago
I agree with the overall message, but in the case of image editing programs and their filters, I actually really like (and use) the large number of random filters that photoshop ships with. On the other hand, I've never used Instagram or Hipstamatic and likely never will..
holdenc 16y ago
PhotoShop stock filters (even the really kitschy looking ones) can be combined in moderation with other techniques to make some startling surfaces such as glass, skin and water. They are tools for generative design, and not really decorative filters as many might presume.
- pepijndevos 16y ago
  I totally agree, did you know you can do things like rising contrast and sharpening images in special ways using useless filters like neon glow in combination with blending modes.
- muhuk 16y ago
  A quick google search gave me these two tutorials, second one builds on the technique explained in the first: http://www.photoshopcafe.com/tutorials/lightning/lightning.htm http://www.photoshopcafe.com/tutorials/lightning/lightning.h... http://tutorialblog.org/lightning/ http://tutorialblog.org/lightning/
patio11 16y ago
Instagram doesn't sell because it has a superior filter versus Photoshop. Instagram sells because it lets the user express to their friends that the user is the kind of person who, given his druthers, would prefer tactile, authentic, classical, work-of-artisanal-hands-rather-than-mass-produced-at-a-sweatshop-in-China camera to an iPhone. Critically, the user actually prefers iPhones, or he would actually use an antique film camera. But that doesn't matter to him and it doesn't matter to his friend and it doesn't matter to Instagram. c.f. The discussion about using emotions to sell software. P.S. Photoshop is also an emotionally compelling piece of software, but its narrative is completely different. For one thing, if you use Photoshop, you get to sneer at this blog post.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- halostatue 16y ago
  I think you're wrong here. Different people use Instagram for different reasons. For some people, I'm sure there's the "hipster" aesthetic that you've described. For others, it's about the simplicity involved. My wife uses Instagram because it's the easiest camera on the iPhone to share with Facebook (tap, tap, describe, done). I could have set her up with Best Camera, Camera+, Camera Genius, or anything like that, but Instagram has the "easy" part down pat in a way that the others don't, even though the others aren't hard. I will use any of those (but have been using Instagram lately because of the ease), but I also have other choices I can make if I want to use more than the iPhone. I can shoot with my Canon 40D and edit the pictures on my iPad with some of the features that the blog post sneers at (in fact, I did exactly that in Italy last summer: http://aureolastatua.tumblr.com http://aureolastatua.tumblr.com). I can shoot with a Minolta XG9 that my parents gave me (I'm mostly through the two rolls of film that I bought for it), or I can even shoot with my mom's mom's camera: http://home.tiscali.nl/benbojo/kodak%20bullet%20open.jpg http://home.tiscali.nl/benbojo/kodak%20bullet%20open.jpg Instagram doesn't force you to put styles on the photos; you can just use it to upload the pictures you take. It gives you those styles because it can bring out the emotion behind the picture you took better. Fundamentally, I agree with the point of the blog post: there are features that I will never use in Tiffen's Photo fx Ultra, and I suspect that very few people will use them (is there a single photograph that I've taken that would be improved by putting the "Light (foliage)/Jungle Leaf" filter offered? no). I have, however, used a bunch of other filters in that and in Lightroom on the Mac that, yes, sometimes add grain or make the photos sepia. Not because I am aiming for a specific "look", but because I think the photo looks better with those filters applied. I bought Instagram for the same reason I bought Best Camera: it gave me a quick interface for taking pictures, doing quick edits, and uploading those pictures to where those who I know will be able to see them. That's it.
olalonde 16y ago
I never really liked the mantra "build it for yourself". If this were true, we'd have tons of programming IDEs and project management software. What programmers and entrepreneurs really need to serve are markets where programmers are under represented. I'm talking about agriculture, natural resources, transport, finance, manufacturing, etc.
statictype 16y ago
I used to wonder the same thing. Until I started actually using Photoshop for more than just manipulating photos. When you want to create a block of marble or granite or clouds, then suddenly all those filters you never even knew existed turn out to be quite useful. If you find yourself creating something, and you don't understand how it will be used, and you don't plan on using it yourself, then it's time to take a few steps back and reevaluate what you're doing. Agreed. The disconnect here is that he thinks the people who created Photoshop don't know or care how it gets used. I think there's reason why Photoshop is the de-facto standard for artists and designers.
- wladimir 16y ago
  Thanks for posting this. A novice might not see the usefulness of those additional features. But a good artist uses the right tools at the right times, and that obscure filter might do exactly what you want (usually in combination with some other filter). There's a market for programs that are simplified and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, and there's a market for pro-tools bloated with features. Pros really like to get into a program, and for it to be as powerful as possible.
rythie 16y ago
The problem with building for yourself is that you end up with lots of apps for computing professionals, who are male and in their 20s which is not the only demographic.
defroost 16y ago
As someone who dabbles in tradition "wet" darkroom film processes for medium and large-format photography, and enjoys digital photography with a DSLR, I have a few observations: There are some fantastic digital filters available that try to mimic the look of film, infrared, vignette filters, colored filters with B&W film, etc. These have been available for years, and a company like Olympus has a successful products line of DSLR, rangefinder that have one-touch access to filters like neon, etc. These can be fun for about 2 weeks, but some people use them to great effect. I could play the luddite snob and sneer at the output of camera-phones with "retro" filters. But a quick look at Flickr demonstrates that people are making some amazingly interesting images with this digital filters. As far as the authors assertion that developers might take note of "unused" watercolor type filters built into Photoshop. Photoshop's stock filters are different in that they are designed to be combined, layered, etc. In 2011, there is nothing interesting about an image presented with one application of the Watercolor filter. A retro look with the stock install of PS is not a one-click operation. To achieve that look takes work on PS. But, there are countless PS filters from NIK and others that mimic old films, Ilford, the now defunct Kodachrome slide film, Fujichrome Velvia, and on and on. The better ones cost $$$. I suspect that if people had access to them, they would use them. Only then would you be able to approach the instantaneous gratification of an app like Instagram.
wmboy 16y ago
I'm not sure why this has turned into a photo editing app conversation. I think the paragraph that would be a better use of time to discuss was the last one; "If you find yourself creating something, and you don't understand how it will be used, and you don't plan on using it yourself, then it's time to take a few steps back and reevaluate what you're doing." This is a pretty good rule, right? Even if no one else pays to use it at least you've built a tool to make your life a little easier, or solve a problem you have. An exception to this rule though, would be people already selling a service to customers and turning this into a product you can reuse for others (I think Carbonmade started kind of like this - they had non-technical friends/acquaintances that needed galleries set up). In fact this would probably be better than simply building a product you'd use yourself as you've already validated that people are willing to pay to use it, not just use it.
willheim 16y ago
Instagram and Hipstamatic are fine... for now. Let's face it, they create intriguing images today that very likely we will look stylistically dated in 5-10 years as "Hipstamatic" or "Instagram" shots. On the other hand PS or any of the numerous photo editors I have on my iPhone allow me to take a raw image and process it as I would like and then save a copy. I much prefer this route even though it takes more time. I am left in the end with the "image" and the "art" which can then be reinterpreted at a later date. And I think that is something the author gets at... these new filter programs are "fun"... but will they look like those 1980's strip mall glamour shots in the year 2020?

68 points by johndcook 16y ago

Interestingly I have found that the apps I build for myself then decide this would be great for others, lets build it for everyone to use, have been the most successful of my apps.

ChuckMcM 16y ago

When my daughter was about 8 or 9 her curiosity was peaked by me looking at the stock market value. (she was 8 in 1998 :-)) She asked, "Why would you put any money at all in the stock market, where one day it was worth more than you started with and the next day it was worth less? When you could put it into a savings account and every month it was worth a little bit more and never less?" That question set the stage for an interesting discussion about risk and return, but the really important part was a discussion about money, money that you needed to pay the bills, vs money that you needed "just in case", vs money that you were saving to have available in 30 or 40 years for your retirement. The complexity of money management is something that develops with a deeper understanding of the role of money in the context of your current and future life goals. A mutual fund is of little value to an 8 year old, but a great tool for someone planning their retirement. The linked article shows someone who has a photo manipulation program, and that program has image adjustment tools that he has never used. He erroneously generalizes that to an unsupported hypothesis that nobody ever uses those tools, and then goes on to talk about photo applications which are much less flexible (Instagram and its competitors) and how he does use their tools. It is a great learning moment. This is a huge trap for young entrepreneurs and it helps to think about it and not fall into it. The platitude is "know your customers." This guy clearly gets along just fine with a tool which makes amusing transformations 'easy' sort of the MacOS photobooth equivalent. And yet the tools he belittles in his mini-rant are ones that are used daily by artists all around the world, and there are even companies built around still more manipulation 'effects' because an artist doesn't see a picture, they see input into what they are trying to express. So when your customers come to you and ask you for these features in your tools, it helps you get to know them better and helps you understand their needs. And while we often start by building tools for ourselves, if we can add a feature that other people find useful (even if we don't) and it gives wider appeal to that tool, its a Good Thing to do. Even if, as posited, we are not gonna use it.

donnyg107 16y ago
I think this programmer shows a little more depth than assuming that everyone shares his lack of use of these tools. I don't think he was trying to tell photoshop that they don't need such a large breadth of tools, he was telling programmers that more tools is not necessarily better. I think he's pointing out that simplicity is valuable as a reflection of the intent of the program. The iPhone app is not worse than photoshop, because its simplicity and LACK of design options are necessary components of a simple, quick, and control surrendering user interface. I imagine he recognizes the value of having obscure tools on a program like photoshop, but is pointing out that these extra options would ruin the photo app he loves. I like this message, as we often treat extra options as costless ways of improving a user experience, when often they can create a certain detriment. Options and simplicity should reflect the intent and user implementation of the program, and failure to do so can really ruin a user experience.
barrkel 16y ago
Pet pedantic peeve: it's "piqued", not "peaked".
- pzxc 16y ago
  At least he didn't spell "lose" with two O's like I've seen half a dozen times on HN in the past month!
gumbo 16y ago
This is a wrong generalization. I'd never used all those filter in photoshop yet, but what i really like with PS is tye fact that when i need it, i don't need to go find another tool (buy it). PS is a one stop shop for anything you need go process an image. One should know his target, ps do not target the lambda photo hobiste, which make the article comparision pointless. However the premise is true and i could say as an entrepreneur "don't build something your users don't need"

dkersten 16y ago

I agree with the overall message, but in the case of image editing programs and their filters, I actually really like (and use) the large number of random filters that photoshop ships with. On the other hand, I've never used Instagram or Hipstamatic and likely never will..

holdenc 16y ago

PhotoShop stock filters (even the really kitschy looking ones) can be combined in moderation with other techniques to make some startling surfaces such as glass, skin and water. They are tools for generative design, and not really decorative filters as many might presume.

pepijndevos 16y ago
I totally agree, did you know you can do things like rising contrast and sharpening images in special ways using useless filters like neon glow in combination with blending modes.
muhuk 16y ago
A quick google search gave me these two tutorials, second one builds on the technique explained in the first: http://www.photoshopcafe.com/tutorials/lightning/lightning.htm http://www.photoshopcafe.com/tutorials/lightning/lightning.h... http://tutorialblog.org/lightning/ http://tutorialblog.org/lightning/

patio11 16y ago

Instagram doesn't sell because it has a superior filter versus Photoshop. Instagram sells because it lets the user express to their friends that the user is the kind of person who, given his druthers, would prefer tactile, authentic, classical, work-of-artisanal-hands-rather-than-mass-produced-at-a-sweatshop-in-China camera to an iPhone. Critically, the user actually prefers iPhones, or he would actually use an antique film camera. But that doesn't matter to him and it doesn't matter to his friend and it doesn't matter to Instagram. c.f. The discussion about using emotions to sell software. P.S. Photoshop is also an emotionally compelling piece of software, but its narrative is completely different. For one thing, if you use Photoshop, you get to sneer at this blog post.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
halostatue 16y ago
I think you're wrong here. Different people use Instagram for different reasons. For some people, I'm sure there's the "hipster" aesthetic that you've described. For others, it's about the simplicity involved. My wife uses Instagram because it's the easiest camera on the iPhone to share with Facebook (tap, tap, describe, done). I could have set her up with Best Camera, Camera+, Camera Genius, or anything like that, but Instagram has the "easy" part down pat in a way that the others don't, even though the others aren't hard. I will use any of those (but have been using Instagram lately because of the ease), but I also have other choices I can make if I want to use more than the iPhone. I can shoot with my Canon 40D and edit the pictures on my iPad with some of the features that the blog post sneers at (in fact, I did exactly that in Italy last summer: http://aureolastatua.tumblr.com http://aureolastatua.tumblr.com). I can shoot with a Minolta XG9 that my parents gave me (I'm mostly through the two rolls of film that I bought for it), or I can even shoot with my mom's mom's camera: http://home.tiscali.nl/benbojo/kodak%20bullet%20open.jpg http://home.tiscali.nl/benbojo/kodak%20bullet%20open.jpg Instagram doesn't force you to put styles on the photos; you can just use it to upload the pictures you take. It gives you those styles because it can bring out the emotion behind the picture you took better. Fundamentally, I agree with the point of the blog post: there are features that I will never use in Tiffen's Photo fx Ultra, and I suspect that very few people will use them (is there a single photograph that I've taken that would be improved by putting the "Light (foliage)/Jungle Leaf" filter offered? no). I have, however, used a bunch of other filters in that and in Lightroom on the Mac that, yes, sometimes add grain or make the photos sepia. Not because I am aiming for a specific "look", but because I think the photo looks better with those filters applied. I bought Instagram for the same reason I bought Best Camera: it gave me a quick interface for taking pictures, doing quick edits, and uploading those pictures to where those who I know will be able to see them. That's it.

olalonde 16y ago

I never really liked the mantra "build it for yourself". If this were true, we'd have tons of programming IDEs and project management software. What programmers and entrepreneurs really need to serve are markets where programmers are under represented. I'm talking about agriculture, natural resources, transport, finance, manufacturing, etc.

statictype 16y ago

I used to wonder the same thing. Until I started actually using Photoshop for more than just manipulating photos. When you want to create a block of marble or granite or clouds, then suddenly all those filters you never even knew existed turn out to be quite useful. If you find yourself creating something, and you don't understand how it will be used, and you don't plan on using it yourself, then it's time to take a few steps back and reevaluate what you're doing. Agreed. The disconnect here is that he thinks the people who created Photoshop don't know or care how it gets used. I think there's reason why Photoshop is the de-facto standard for artists and designers.

wladimir 16y ago
Thanks for posting this. A novice might not see the usefulness of those additional features. But a good artist uses the right tools at the right times, and that obscure filter might do exactly what you want (usually in combination with some other filter). There's a market for programs that are simplified and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, and there's a market for pro-tools bloated with features. Pros really like to get into a program, and for it to be as powerful as possible.

rythie 16y ago

The problem with building for yourself is that you end up with lots of apps for computing professionals, who are male and in their 20s which is not the only demographic.

defroost 16y ago

As someone who dabbles in tradition "wet" darkroom film processes for medium and large-format photography, and enjoys digital photography with a DSLR, I have a few observations: There are some fantastic digital filters available that try to mimic the look of film, infrared, vignette filters, colored filters with B&W film, etc. These have been available for years, and a company like Olympus has a successful products line of DSLR, rangefinder that have one-touch access to filters like neon, etc. These can be fun for about 2 weeks, but some people use them to great effect. I could play the luddite snob and sneer at the output of camera-phones with "retro" filters. But a quick look at Flickr demonstrates that people are making some amazingly interesting images with this digital filters. As far as the authors assertion that developers might take note of "unused" watercolor type filters built into Photoshop. Photoshop's stock filters are different in that they are designed to be combined, layered, etc. In 2011, there is nothing interesting about an image presented with one application of the Watercolor filter. A retro look with the stock install of PS is not a one-click operation. To achieve that look takes work on PS. But, there are countless PS filters from NIK and others that mimic old films, Ilford, the now defunct Kodachrome slide film, Fujichrome Velvia, and on and on. The better ones cost $$$. I suspect that if people had access to them, they would use them. Only then would you be able to approach the instantaneous gratification of an app like Instagram.

wmboy 16y ago

I'm not sure why this has turned into a photo editing app conversation. I think the paragraph that would be a better use of time to discuss was the last one; "If you find yourself creating something, and you don't understand how it will be used, and you don't plan on using it yourself, then it's time to take a few steps back and reevaluate what you're doing." This is a pretty good rule, right? Even if no one else pays to use it at least you've built a tool to make your life a little easier, or solve a problem you have. An exception to this rule though, would be people already selling a service to customers and turning this into a product you can reuse for others (I think Carbonmade started kind of like this - they had non-technical friends/acquaintances that needed galleries set up). In fact this would probably be better than simply building a product you'd use yourself as you've already validated that people are willing to pay to use it, not just use it.

willheim 16y ago

Instagram and Hipstamatic are fine... for now. Let's face it, they create intriguing images today that very likely we will look stylistically dated in 5-10 years as "Hipstamatic" or "Instagram" shots. On the other hand PS or any of the numerous photo editors I have on my iPhone allow me to take a raw image and process it as I would like and then save a copy. I much prefer this route even though it takes more time. I am left in the end with the "image" and the "art" which can then be reinterpreted at a later date. And I think that is something the author gets at... these new filter programs are "fun"... but will they look like those 1980's strip mall glamour shots in the year 2020?