3 ms·

25 years of products being honed for shareholder value, instead of customer or user value. We may be at peak consumer tolerance for anti-pattern, in-app purchas

25 years of products being honed for shareholder value, instead of customer or user value. We may be at peak consumer tolerance for anti-pattern, in-app purchase, subscription-model, ad-packed, data-siphoning, dopamine driven, gated experiences.

OnlineGladiator 3y ago
> We may be at peak consumer tolerance for anti-pattern, in-app purchase, subscription-model, ad-packed, data-siphoning, dopamine driven, gated experiences. As much as I want this to be true, I think this sentiment is really only popular on tech-savvy forums like HN. Most people don't use ad blockers, and I've had people get mad at me when I suggest that they do (directly in response to something where they are complaining about ads).
- tough 3y ago
  > and I've had people get mad at me when I suggest that they do. lol that's a new one, why?
  - NikolaNovak 3y ago
    Not the op but I have that experience frequently. These are perceived as geeky needy techie things that are not for normal people (sprinkle quotations as needed). It's the same as people getting upset at suggestion to add lock of some sort to their phone (face, fingerprint, whatever) or backup their phone. After some pondering I think it's peoples' insecurity misfiring. They use these complicated layered and potentially risky and dangerous pieces of technology, aware they don't fully understand them, that they work as magic that could stop any moment. Trying to understand and secure them is a massive rabbit hole. So I think there's kind of a rejection to go down that hole or acknowledge the problem or, most of all, face the vulnerability and exposure. My 100 Croatian lipa fwiw :-)
    - tough 3y ago
      I can see it at which point I just install it for them, tell them how it works and how to disable if it gets and the way and move on. But you gotta have a very good relationship with someone to just do that I guess
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - OnlineGladiator 3y ago
    Ultimately it boils down to "it should just work" but to be more specific one person said "I shouldn't have to do anything different!" and directed their anger towards me instead of the ads they were previously complaining about. People that aren't tech-savvy don't want to think about tech any more than they already do. Having to understand something new about tech is just another problem to them. I'm not saying that as an insult - just an observation.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
    I’ve had someone say they want to support the content, which I understand. If only they knew how their data was being abused.
bozhark 3y ago
AAA video game industry sure seems to be pushing this idea with the past years of broken, unfinished, beta projects being released as complete products.
hyperpape 3y ago
This is a perfect example of how "shareholder value" is a thought-terminating cliche. Twitter was previously a public company, which was beholden to shareholders, and aimed to try and increase its stock price (as far as "shareholder value" actually means anything, this is basically it). I wouldn't praise previous management (the company wasn't profitable), but they were not a complete dumpster fire. Then Twitter was bought out, and taken private, removing the obligation to "shareholder value." The ensuing dumpster fire is one that will be marveled at for years. I'm not saying public corporations are better than private, or that "shareholder value" is a good slogan. I'm just saying that your comment is every bit as irrelevant as the porn spam that's clogging Twitter these days. (Thanks for fixing the spam problem, y'all!).
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > Then Twitter was bought out, and taken private, removing the obligation to "shareholder value." Does it really though? Private shareholders are still shareholders. It replaces a diffuse duty to keep a bunch of public-shareholders happen with a possibly-more-direct "do what I say or be replaced tomorrow." > "shareholder value" is a thought-terminating cliche I think when people use it dismissively, it's not really about shareholders per se, but about one that are focused on short-term growth at the expense of long-term growth or a sustainable business model.
  - hyperpape 3y ago
    If your point is that both old Twitter and new Twitter have people who have put money into it, and expect to not lose their money, you are correct. I would still recommend not using the word “shareholder value” for the concept. It’s just…having a business that you don’t want to lose money? Some people do dislike the concept of business, but I don’t think they should talk about “shareholder value”, they should just attack capitalism. In any case, it’s still irrelevant to a discussion of Twitter. The old management was also expected to turn a profit, but somehow avoided Elon’s string of silly ideas.
- B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago
  > not a complete dumpster fire. I never liked Twitter, don't have accounts, etc. To me this "dumpster fire" talk sounds like just sour grapes.

OnlineGladiator 3y ago

> We may be at peak consumer tolerance for anti-pattern, in-app purchase, subscription-model, ad-packed, data-siphoning, dopamine driven, gated experiences. As much as I want this to be true, I think this sentiment is really only popular on tech-savvy forums like HN. Most people don't use ad blockers, and I've had people get mad at me when I suggest that they do (directly in response to something where they are complaining about ads).

tough 3y ago
> and I've had people get mad at me when I suggest that they do. lol that's a new one, why?
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  Not the op but I have that experience frequently. These are perceived as geeky needy techie things that are not for normal people (sprinkle quotations as needed). It's the same as people getting upset at suggestion to add lock of some sort to their phone (face, fingerprint, whatever) or backup their phone. After some pondering I think it's peoples' insecurity misfiring. They use these complicated layered and potentially risky and dangerous pieces of technology, aware they don't fully understand them, that they work as magic that could stop any moment. Trying to understand and secure them is a massive rabbit hole. So I think there's kind of a rejection to go down that hole or acknowledge the problem or, most of all, face the vulnerability and exposure. My 100 Croatian lipa fwiw :-)
  - tough 3y ago
    I can see it at which point I just install it for them, tell them how it works and how to disable if it gets and the way and move on. But you gotta have a very good relationship with someone to just do that I guess
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- OnlineGladiator 3y ago
  Ultimately it boils down to "it should just work" but to be more specific one person said "I shouldn't have to do anything different!" and directed their anger towards me instead of the ads they were previously complaining about. People that aren't tech-savvy don't want to think about tech any more than they already do. Having to understand something new about tech is just another problem to them. I'm not saying that as an insult - just an observation.
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
  I’ve had someone say they want to support the content, which I understand. If only they knew how their data was being abused.

bozhark 3y ago

AAA video game industry sure seems to be pushing this idea with the past years of broken, unfinished, beta projects being released as complete products.

hyperpape 3y ago

This is a perfect example of how "shareholder value" is a thought-terminating cliche. Twitter was previously a public company, which was beholden to shareholders, and aimed to try and increase its stock price (as far as "shareholder value" actually means anything, this is basically it). I wouldn't praise previous management (the company wasn't profitable), but they were not a complete dumpster fire. Then Twitter was bought out, and taken private, removing the obligation to "shareholder value." The ensuing dumpster fire is one that will be marveled at for years. I'm not saying public corporations are better than private, or that "shareholder value" is a good slogan. I'm just saying that your comment is every bit as irrelevant as the porn spam that's clogging Twitter these days. (Thanks for fixing the spam problem, y'all!).

Terr_ 3y ago
> Then Twitter was bought out, and taken private, removing the obligation to "shareholder value." Does it really though? Private shareholders are still shareholders. It replaces a diffuse duty to keep a bunch of public-shareholders happen with a possibly-more-direct "do what I say or be replaced tomorrow." > "shareholder value" is a thought-terminating cliche I think when people use it dismissively, it's not really about shareholders per se, but about one that are focused on short-term growth at the expense of long-term growth or a sustainable business model.
- hyperpape 3y ago
  If your point is that both old Twitter and new Twitter have people who have put money into it, and expect to not lose their money, you are correct. I would still recommend not using the word “shareholder value” for the concept. It’s just…having a business that you don’t want to lose money? Some people do dislike the concept of business, but I don’t think they should talk about “shareholder value”, they should just attack capitalism. In any case, it’s still irrelevant to a discussion of Twitter. The old management was also expected to turn a profit, but somehow avoided Elon’s string of silly ideas.
B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago
> not a complete dumpster fire. I never liked Twitter, don't have accounts, etc. To me this "dumpster fire" talk sounds like just sour grapes.