4 ms·
Because Good UX cost development time that has to be paid by someone. Nothing can compete with the lock-in and network effect these megacorps have. We have four
by dtx1 3y ago
Because Good UX cost development time that has to be paid by someone. Nothing can compete with the lock-in and network effect these megacorps have. We have four choices to deal with that:
* Close your eyes, cry about bad UX and continue to be treated like literal cattle by them.
* Push for legislation that forces these services to be paid only thus making competition on the grounds of how they treat their users possible again
* Collectively decide to use and finance free, federated, semi-selfhosted open alternatives (see crying about bad UX on that front)
* Stop using them at all
And even youtube premium is just paying to be a cattle. Youtube has enormous lock-in power already and I can't even count the amount of fuckups, anti-consumer features and violations of their users and "partners" they have commited.
I am done regarding the petty complaints of the cattle users that don't want to understand, can't be bothered to consider the effects they have.
- filoleg 3y ago> Good UX cost development time that has to be paid by someone There is a difference between "we would like to make UX better, but we don't have resources at the moment" and "the [obnoxious monstrosity of a] UX we already have is perfect, and if someone is confused by it, then they are an idiot and should just get good". Just like in that infamous dropbox HN post discussion, people were railing Drew for "who would even want to use this, you can just trivially set up an rsync cron job on your linux server" (which is an argument about UX quality), not for megacorp lock-in or competitors lacking the same resources.