8 ms·

I think 'too simple' is like what some search company CEO said to Larry Page about page rank being 'too effective' when Larry/Sergey were trying to license it t

I think 'too simple' is like what some search company CEO said to Larry Page about page rank being 'too effective' when Larry/Sergey were trying to license it to him before starting Google (people won't stay on the search portal to look at ads because they find their result too quickly). It's a lame excuse. None of those old search companies exist anymore. If you want to drive most users to just use index funds you can have great software that does that while also having great software that allows users to do everything else they may want to do (like have a checking account, wire money to other banks, automatically invest, etc.). Having shitty software and then pretending it's 'by design' is just a lazy justification. If Robinhood can build up a userbase by focusing on a neglected area they can expand and take over everyone. Their downward pressure on fees is already a win for users, if they're able to get through growing pains (unacceptable downtime/scale issues) I don't see why they can't be as big as Fidelity. I don't know if their software is actually that good, but there's definitely an opening here for someone that can get a foothold.

outworlder 6y ago
> I think 'too simple' is like what some search company CEO said to Larry Page about page rank being 'too effective' This is fine for search results. It is NOT fine for complex financial instruments where people can lose money. There's only so much you can 'simplify'. In this particular case, you can only make the UI itself simpler and easier to understand and operate. They can't make options trading itself any simpler. In other words, they can't make the domain itself any simpler by just throwing UX at it. Specifically, they can't make it any simpler by hiding information. The information is needed. This is why other trading platforms look 'busy'. Because trading options is not simple. Pretending that they are only lead to losses.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I think we probably actually agree more than we disagree on what we're talking about. I agree simplicity that hides relevant information is not good. My complaints about Fidelity are not that it's surfacing too much relevant information. Some quick things: - Fidelity has tons of menus that hide things in hard to find places. - The UI is slow, and the actions are poorly designed. Want to wire money to someone else? That's hidden under transfer -> to bank account -> new bank account -> that I don't own. Everything they have is like this, buried and weirdly named. - A link might load an entire different section of Fidelity unrelated to your actual account. Tons of spam on the front page about resources that are irrelevant or just trying to sell you some Fidelity crap. - Want to buy a call option? Small modal pop up window that's hard to use. I'm not arguing for simplicity by hiding relevant information, I'm arguing for good UX - focus on the stuff that matters and organize things in a way that is actually good for users. > "This is why other trading platforms look 'busy'. Because trading options is not simple." I think other platforms look busy not because they're showing relevant information, but because they're hacked together over years by people that previously relied on in-person traders and phone call support (and except for Vanguard, arguably scamming users via active trading fees). It's a mess of legacy systems and UI that doesn't have to get better because there aren't that many players and it's a hard market for competitors to enter. HavenMoney (acquired by CreditKarma) had an approach to this I really liked, they basically did best practices for most people. Index funds, emergency savings, 401k handling - all automated. Something like this by default that also had a trading platform would be great. It'd also be cool if it always compared a user's active trading to what would have happened if they left their funds in a total market index.
  - outworlder 6y ago
    We are not exactly disagreeing :) The established companies can still be disrupted by great execution. There is potential there. Robinhood can still do great by having an elegant interface AND showing relevant data. Show the greeks, even if that means they will have to come up with fancier indicators. For instance, Delta. Show me probability of profit instead, right in the list, as it is derived from delta. Show theta, even if you have to come up with a cartoon graphic to illustrate time decay. Show a flame when IV is high. Suggest other strategies if the trade looks bad. Don't show that something is up 1500% just because there were no bids previously. And so on. Not trying to plug tastyworks, but their desktop interface is leaps and bounds ahead of what Robinhood does on either platform, and it is easier to understand too. What they have NOT figured out is how to get the same experience on mobile. If Robinhood can figure that out, everyone else is in for a bad day (even with their horrible fills). > HavenMoney (acquired by CreditKarma) had an approach to this I really liked, they basically did best practices for most people. Index funds, emergency savings, 401k handling - all automated. This is great. Automated investing is the way to go - and can be surprisingly difficult to do. There are platforms that do similar things, at least for index funds, such as Betterment. But they tend to have higher fees than Vanguard.

outworlder 6y ago

> I think 'too simple' is like what some search company CEO said to Larry Page about page rank being 'too effective' This is fine for search results. It is NOT fine for complex financial instruments where people can lose money. There's only so much you can 'simplify'. In this particular case, you can only make the UI itself simpler and easier to understand and operate. They can't make options trading itself any simpler. In other words, they can't make the domain itself any simpler by just throwing UX at it. Specifically, they can't make it any simpler by hiding information. The information is needed. This is why other trading platforms look 'busy'. Because trading options is not simple. Pretending that they are only lead to losses.

fossuser 6y ago
I think we probably actually agree more than we disagree on what we're talking about. I agree simplicity that hides relevant information is not good. My complaints about Fidelity are not that it's surfacing too much relevant information. Some quick things: - Fidelity has tons of menus that hide things in hard to find places. - The UI is slow, and the actions are poorly designed. Want to wire money to someone else? That's hidden under transfer -> to bank account -> new bank account -> that I don't own. Everything they have is like this, buried and weirdly named. - A link might load an entire different section of Fidelity unrelated to your actual account. Tons of spam on the front page about resources that are irrelevant or just trying to sell you some Fidelity crap. - Want to buy a call option? Small modal pop up window that's hard to use. I'm not arguing for simplicity by hiding relevant information, I'm arguing for good UX - focus on the stuff that matters and organize things in a way that is actually good for users. > "This is why other trading platforms look 'busy'. Because trading options is not simple." I think other platforms look busy not because they're showing relevant information, but because they're hacked together over years by people that previously relied on in-person traders and phone call support (and except for Vanguard, arguably scamming users via active trading fees). It's a mess of legacy systems and UI that doesn't have to get better because there aren't that many players and it's a hard market for competitors to enter. HavenMoney (acquired by CreditKarma) had an approach to this I really liked, they basically did best practices for most people. Index funds, emergency savings, 401k handling - all automated. Something like this by default that also had a trading platform would be great. It'd also be cool if it always compared a user's active trading to what would have happened if they left their funds in a total market index.
- outworlder 6y ago
  We are not exactly disagreeing :) The established companies can still be disrupted by great execution. There is potential there. Robinhood can still do great by having an elegant interface AND showing relevant data. Show the greeks, even if that means they will have to come up with fancier indicators. For instance, Delta. Show me probability of profit instead, right in the list, as it is derived from delta. Show theta, even if you have to come up with a cartoon graphic to illustrate time decay. Show a flame when IV is high. Suggest other strategies if the trade looks bad. Don't show that something is up 1500% just because there were no bids previously. And so on. Not trying to plug tastyworks, but their desktop interface is leaps and bounds ahead of what Robinhood does on either platform, and it is easier to understand too. What they have NOT figured out is how to get the same experience on mobile. If Robinhood can figure that out, everyone else is in for a bad day (even with their horrible fills). > HavenMoney (acquired by CreditKarma) had an approach to this I really liked, they basically did best practices for most people. Index funds, emergency savings, 401k handling - all automated. This is great. Automated investing is the way to go - and can be surprisingly difficult to do. There are platforms that do similar things, at least for index funds, such as Betterment. But they tend to have higher fees than Vanguard.