4 ms·

> I love it as a customer. There's a lot of excitement when new changes come out, and I want them right now!... > When I see someone who claims not to like wh

> I love it as a customer. There's a lot of excitement when new changes come out, and I want them right now!... > When I see someone who claims not to like when software gets frequent updates, I ask myself: "Do you even like software? I thought new functionality was supposed to be exciting!" I personally see resistance to change as a generally negative personality trait (obviously, there are limits, not all change is good change), and I think that's why I don't understand the romantic nostalgia for the days when we'd buy a piece of software in a box off of a shelf. You seem to be thinking about this through the lens of computer games, which is probably not the right one to bring the problem into focus (then you pile on a bunch of personal judgement, which is frankly irritating). Also, why should anyone "like software" (as a broad category)? That seems like putting the cart before the horse. I use software because it solves a problem I want solved (ideally with minimal effort); I don't find problems just to put software to use because I "like software." You don't seem to realize that "update" does not necessarily mean "improvement". Often an update is actually a regression to the user (most obviously because of bugs, but more perniciously through annoying changes like unnecessary UX redesigns or dropping features). I'm not "excited" when my workflows get broken or having my knowledge invalidated (e.g. changes that force me to waste effort re-learning how to do things I already knew how to do). The nostalgia about buying software in a box off a shelf is nostalgia for having problems that stay solved. If that software worked, it would almost certainly continue to work until you made the decision to change something. Not anymore.

dangus 4y ago
I think it’s easy to exaggerate how often updates are regressions, because the ones that don’t turn out so well are going to sit in our memory more strongly than all the other ones that worked fine. It’s like if you go to Starbucks every day, and in 20 visits your coffee was prepared correctly. Then on the 21st visit, something was messed up. Which experience would be most memorable? The one where they messed up, not the 20 other experiences where everything was fine. Most updates to most software are made in good faith. Companies (at least, the ones not in a complete monopoly) don’t try to scam their customers, they want to keep you happy so you keep buying. They’re not trying to mess up your workflow. And this is why resistance to change is such an unattractive trait to me: if you’re learning every day like you’re supposed to, having to re-learn something shouldn’t be such a big deal, and it’s not like most software updates are going to just completely change how everything works (especially when they’re frequent and incremental). I think boxed software is actually worse in this regard. I always hated having to shell out a bunch of money all at once for the next version and then go through a more jarring migration process, because each update contained years of changes all at once. Arguably, Microsoft’s ribbon interface in Office would never had happened if Office 365 existed at the time. They needed a big visual change they could show off in screenshots to stimulate discrete sales. Apple managed to do something as extreme as changing the underlying file system of my computer with a routine update, no clean install or data migration required. If I wasn’t a tech enthusiast, I would have had no idea it even happened! Can you imagine how mind-blowing it would have been if we could have had that experience in 1998? For most people in the 90s, upgrading your OS meant buying an entirely new computer because it was just that difficult. I’d personally rather not sit around being bitter and cynical about things being different now, maximizing the bad and minimizing the good.

dangus 4y ago

I think it’s easy to exaggerate how often updates are regressions, because the ones that don’t turn out so well are going to sit in our memory more strongly than all the other ones that worked fine. It’s like if you go to Starbucks every day, and in 20 visits your coffee was prepared correctly. Then on the 21st visit, something was messed up. Which experience would be most memorable? The one where they messed up, not the 20 other experiences where everything was fine. Most updates to most software are made in good faith. Companies (at least, the ones not in a complete monopoly) don’t try to scam their customers, they want to keep you happy so you keep buying. They’re not trying to mess up your workflow. And this is why resistance to change is such an unattractive trait to me: if you’re learning every day like you’re supposed to, having to re-learn something shouldn’t be such a big deal, and it’s not like most software updates are going to just completely change how everything works (especially when they’re frequent and incremental). I think boxed software is actually worse in this regard. I always hated having to shell out a bunch of money all at once for the next version and then go through a more jarring migration process, because each update contained years of changes all at once. Arguably, Microsoft’s ribbon interface in Office would never had happened if Office 365 existed at the time. They needed a big visual change they could show off in screenshots to stimulate discrete sales. Apple managed to do something as extreme as changing the underlying file system of my computer with a routine update, no clean install or data migration required. If I wasn’t a tech enthusiast, I would have had no idea it even happened! Can you imagine how mind-blowing it would have been if we could have had that experience in 1998? For most people in the 90s, upgrading your OS meant buying an entirely new computer because it was just that difficult. I’d personally rather not sit around being bitter and cynical about things being different now, maximizing the bad and minimizing the good.