3 ms·
The problem from an economic standpoint, and the article alludes to this, is that a lot of these platforms just aren’t profitable at stage 4. They might be ubiq
by zerbinxx 3y ago
The problem from an economic standpoint, and the article alludes to this, is that a lot of these platforms just aren’t profitable at stage 4. They might be ubiquitous, well loved by users, and have next to no meaningful competition, but if the money isn’t there they will be under the gun to iterate until it is. And even if it is the fear has been, and continues to be, that unless you’re becoming even more profitable each quarter by siphoning off excess value from your network that you’re basically failing at your basic function as a public company. I’m not sure I can think of a good example of this, Google used to be it, but they’ve gone so downhill in the last 10 years.
- ryandrake 3y agoI don't think you can feature-cram your way to profitability. If you have a great product with loyal, paying users, and are still not profitable, then maybe the product isn't the problem. Jamming chat into your product is not going to make you profitable. Adding annoying notifications is not going to make you profitable. Moving all the buttons around to make a new UI is not going to make you profitable. Marketing has the four P's. Software companies seem to just focus on changing one P (the most expensive and disruptive to change) and hoping for a miracle.
- zerbinxx 3y agoThe thing is, a product that users love and a product that generates profits are frequently not the same product. You need to add more feature-cram to be profitable, and users hate feature-cram.