4 ms·

I am not disagreeing that they shouldn't focus on their web app, too, but I assume they look at how often the mobile app is used versus web app and are just pri

I am not disagreeing that they shouldn't focus on their web app, too, but I assume they look at how often the mobile app is used versus web app and are just prioritizing for user base. If more people used web, I'm sure it would get more love.

hansvm 4y ago
They really need to look at counterfactuals though - if our webapp were better how many people would use it. The fact that a mediocre site with a better alternative (the app and competitors) doesn't get much traffic should hardly play into the calculation at all.
- kredd 4y ago
  Unlike HN users, supermajority of population is perfectly fine downloading and using an app. I would even say, opening a browser, going to a website, potentially logging in is more friction than “sliding down and typing doordash to open the app”.
  - danuker 4y ago
    Convenience is the most effective way to get people to abandon software freedom.
    - kredd 4y ago
      You care about software freedom, I do, but end users? Not really. When you’re in business of trying to increase your revenue, largely focusing on theoretical-ethical issues while your competition doesn’t will just drive you out of business. That’s probably when the legislation needs to come into play to even out the field. Whether that needs to be legislated is a different question though.
  - hansvm 4y ago
    That's fine. I don't have a horse in the app vs website race. What's important to note though is that you are doing the thing I'm preaching. Hammering the idea home: - The (probabilistic) consequences of your actions are what determine the success of your business. E.g., given <improve shitty website> we <won't increase sales>. - Current usage metrics matter for time allocation only insofar as they serve the former point. It's fine to say that users like apps therefore you don't need a decent website. What's not fine is the post I responded to -- the shitty site doesn't have users, so we won't improve it. That's a dangerous thought pattern because it silently substitutes something easily measured for the value you need and tends to cause people to conflate the two. (maybe the author was thinking something more nuanced, but as written it's still a good opportunity to highlight the issue)
    - kredd 4y ago
      If we add another metric into our decision-making - the percentage of users that have already downloaded the app and stagnating user growth (realistically, it has slowed down since most of people have already either ordered a take out or decided they never will), it doesn’t make sense to add resources into improving a UX that wouldn’t even grow. Generally I agree with you, but when we focus on specific business use case, it’s harder to convince the stakeholders to work on projects that obviously have lower user engagement.
nicoburns 4y ago
More likely it's just a different team of people building it, and one cares more about performance than the other.

hansvm 4y ago

They really need to look at counterfactuals though - if our webapp were better how many people would use it. The fact that a mediocre site with a better alternative (the app and competitors) doesn't get much traffic should hardly play into the calculation at all.

kredd 4y ago
Unlike HN users, supermajority of population is perfectly fine downloading and using an app. I would even say, opening a browser, going to a website, potentially logging in is more friction than “sliding down and typing doordash to open the app”.
- danuker 4y ago
  Convenience is the most effective way to get people to abandon software freedom.
  - kredd 4y ago
    You care about software freedom, I do, but end users? Not really. When you’re in business of trying to increase your revenue, largely focusing on theoretical-ethical issues while your competition doesn’t will just drive you out of business. That’s probably when the legislation needs to come into play to even out the field. Whether that needs to be legislated is a different question though.
- hansvm 4y ago
  That's fine. I don't have a horse in the app vs website race. What's important to note though is that you are doing the thing I'm preaching. Hammering the idea home: - The (probabilistic) consequences of your actions are what determine the success of your business. E.g., given <improve shitty website> we <won't increase sales>. - Current usage metrics matter for time allocation only insofar as they serve the former point. It's fine to say that users like apps therefore you don't need a decent website. What's not fine is the post I responded to -- the shitty site doesn't have users, so we won't improve it. That's a dangerous thought pattern because it silently substitutes something easily measured for the value you need and tends to cause people to conflate the two. (maybe the author was thinking something more nuanced, but as written it's still a good opportunity to highlight the issue)
  - kredd 4y ago
    If we add another metric into our decision-making - the percentage of users that have already downloaded the app and stagnating user growth (realistically, it has slowed down since most of people have already either ordered a take out or decided they never will), it doesn’t make sense to add resources into improving a UX that wouldn’t even grow. Generally I agree with you, but when we focus on specific business use case, it’s harder to convince the stakeholders to work on projects that obviously have lower user engagement.

nicoburns 4y ago

More likely it's just a different team of people building it, and one cares more about performance than the other.