3 ms·
> You might as well say, having users is very very rarely a contributor to success. These two things are not even remotely the same thing. Having users is a p
by SgtBastard 4y ago
> You might as well say, having users is very very rarely a contributor to success.
These two things are not even remotely the same thing.
Having users is a path to monetisation but having a high performant app no one uses is not.
In fact, if you have users despite performance, it suggests you have a home run product that can be optimised for performance.
Again, you can’t optimise your way to user growth.
- _heimdall 4y ago> Having users is a path to monetisation but having a high performant app no one uses is not. These two things are also not the same. You start with "having users" and assume they're willing to pay and will stick around. You compare that to "having a high performance app no one uses" - explicitly limiting the scenario with an unrelated caveat that no one uses it. A better comparison would look only at having users vs. a high performance app, which has too little information, or having users that aren't willing to pay vs. a high performance app that no one uses, which leave you in the same boat.
- SgtBastard 4y agoFriend, your nitpicks here are of something I didn’t say. I said explicitly “path to monetisation” not “assume they’ll pay and stick around”. I hope you’ll agree that it’s easier to find a subset of users that will pay when your superset of all users is large vs a super(?)set of zero.