36 ms·

You are assuming there is zero opportunity cost in learning to use the software better. Perhaps further increasing my efficiency with this software is not as im

You are assuming there is zero opportunity cost in learning to use the software better. Perhaps further increasing my efficiency with this software is not as impactful as spending my time on something else. This also assumes that the time you invest in learning the software will be offset by productivity gains, which seems extremely unlikely for the majority of users assuming the software is non-trivial. There is also risk associated with learning the software. What if you begin to learn it and then for some reason you stop using it? You've just wasted a whole lot of time.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
All three of your points are covered by my base assumption: software used repeatedly. Any opportunity cost is consumed by the fact you're using this software all the time. For the same reason, productivity gains compound, and there is little risk of switching any time soon (also this is the kind of experience that tends to generalize well).
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  Repeatedly != all the time. You can repeatedly use software (I.e. daily, monthly, yearly) for short periods of time or for specific tasks. That doesn't mean you'll be using it all the time though. I think most users fall into this category rather than people who use it "all the time". A lot of the time people just use software to get the job done and aren't engrossed in using it. If I can improve my efficiency/revenue/whatever metric more by leveraging something other than this software, why would I waste my time learning how to use the software better?
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    > You can repeatedly use software (I.e. daily, monthly, yearly) for short periods of time or for specific tasks. That doesn't mean you'll be using it all the time though. Yes, and perhaps I should've clarified that I meant "repeatedly" as in "couple hours or more a week, on average". With an important caveat that software which is used "for short periods of time or for specific tasks" by some people all too often is also used all the time by other people. E.g. I use Word or Blender for about an hour a month on average, but there are many people who spend eight hours a day, five days a week in front of them. It's bad if you handicap the former for the sake of the latter. > A lot of the time people just use software to get the job done and aren't engrossed in using it. The difference I'm trying to focus on here: if you're using the software once, to do one-off job, there's no point in you investing into learning it. But if you're using the software to do a job done on a regular basis, you'll eventually start looking for ways to spend less time doing that job. It's nice if software offers such ways, and guides you towards them. > If I can improve my efficiency/revenue/whatever metric more by leveraging something other than this software, why would I waste my time learning how to use the software better? Fair. I'm explicitly talking about situations where you can't. You have a job to do, this is the software that lets you get it done. If you can use different software to do it faster, then of course you should use it.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

All three of your points are covered by my base assumption: software used repeatedly. Any opportunity cost is consumed by the fact you're using this software all the time. For the same reason, productivity gains compound, and there is little risk of switching any time soon (also this is the kind of experience that tends to generalize well).

ZephyrBlu 6y ago
Repeatedly != all the time. You can repeatedly use software (I.e. daily, monthly, yearly) for short periods of time or for specific tasks. That doesn't mean you'll be using it all the time though. I think most users fall into this category rather than people who use it "all the time". A lot of the time people just use software to get the job done and aren't engrossed in using it. If I can improve my efficiency/revenue/whatever metric more by leveraging something other than this software, why would I waste my time learning how to use the software better?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > You can repeatedly use software (I.e. daily, monthly, yearly) for short periods of time or for specific tasks. That doesn't mean you'll be using it all the time though. Yes, and perhaps I should've clarified that I meant "repeatedly" as in "couple hours or more a week, on average". With an important caveat that software which is used "for short periods of time or for specific tasks" by some people all too often is also used all the time by other people. E.g. I use Word or Blender for about an hour a month on average, but there are many people who spend eight hours a day, five days a week in front of them. It's bad if you handicap the former for the sake of the latter. > A lot of the time people just use software to get the job done and aren't engrossed in using it. The difference I'm trying to focus on here: if you're using the software once, to do one-off job, there's no point in you investing into learning it. But if you're using the software to do a job done on a regular basis, you'll eventually start looking for ways to spend less time doing that job. It's nice if software offers such ways, and guides you towards them. > If I can improve my efficiency/revenue/whatever metric more by leveraging something other than this software, why would I waste my time learning how to use the software better? Fair. I'm explicitly talking about situations where you can't. You have a job to do, this is the software that lets you get it done. If you can use different software to do it faster, then of course you should use it.