24 ms·

> Once Marl opens your app, you have about 1.3 seconds to catch his attention with a shiny image or triggering headline, otherwise he’ll swipe back to TikTok an

> Once Marl opens your app, you have about 1.3 seconds to catch his attention with a shiny image or triggering headline, otherwise he’ll swipe back to TikTok and never open your app again. If this were true, the app probably wasn't worth having in the first place. An app that actually does something Marl needs, or enables him to do something he wants to do doesn't need to catch his attention with shiny things. The thing that will hook Marl is accomplishing what he set out to do, and generally that should be possible without spending a bunch of time customizing settings, but having sensible defaults doesn't mean those options/settings aren't valuable. Marl doesn't need to change, and it'd be a shame if he (most users) were forced to tinker with a bunch of settings and change a bunch of defaults to do the things they want. Flexibility and customization is still important for the folks who need that though and useful software that does a good job offering that while also having sane defaults have an opportunity to be popular with everybody.

PeterisP 3y ago
If the app actually does something Marl needs or enables him to do something he wants to do, then that's great, but all that means Marl simply isn't the marginal user for that app that the article is talking about, he's a core user of it - and there exists some other user, let's call him Narl, who has slightly different needs than Marl, doesn't really need that app, but would use it if you catch his attention in those 1.3 seconds, so he actually is the marginal user for that app. And if the app does the things you want for Marl, then, as the article states, it makes all economic sense to make the app worse for Marl to catch Narl. Marl will use it anyway (since for him the app was worth having in the first place), but your effort will make a difference in getting Narl. And if you can make the app really good for Narl as well, that doesn't change anything, because there always will be another marginal user, and there is a financial motivation to add all the shiny bullshit (at the expense of everyone else) to catch that marginal user.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > it makes all economic sense to make the app worse for Marl to catch Narl. Marl will use it anyway (since for him the app was worth having in the first place), but your effort will make a difference in getting Narl. I guess you're right. Marl wouldn't be a marginal user. The economic sense of attracting the marginal user Narl still only holds true to a point. Make the app bad enough by appealing to Narl and you'll lose Marl to a competing app that doesn't suck as bad. Narl is fickle, doesn't really need the app, and will be easily tempted to move on to other apps. Not a great long term investment. Marl needs the app and as long as it does what he needs without pissing him off the app has got a user they can profit from. It seems very shortsighted to drive away your core users to temporarily attract the less interested marginal ones. Thankfully, I can't think of many apps that have gotten worse by aggressively targeting the Narls of the world. When apps get worse, it's usually greed that gets in the way. Anti-features that even narl hates, but which stuffs the developer's pockets with cash.

PeterisP 3y ago

If the app actually does something Marl needs or enables him to do something he wants to do, then that's great, but all that means Marl simply isn't the marginal user for that app that the article is talking about, he's a core user of it - and there exists some other user, let's call him Narl, who has slightly different needs than Marl, doesn't really need that app, but would use it if you catch his attention in those 1.3 seconds, so he actually is the marginal user for that app. And if the app does the things you want for Marl, then, as the article states, it makes all economic sense to make the app worse for Marl to catch Narl. Marl will use it anyway (since for him the app was worth having in the first place), but your effort will make a difference in getting Narl. And if you can make the app really good for Narl as well, that doesn't change anything, because there always will be another marginal user, and there is a financial motivation to add all the shiny bullshit (at the expense of everyone else) to catch that marginal user.

autoexec 3y ago
> it makes all economic sense to make the app worse for Marl to catch Narl. Marl will use it anyway (since for him the app was worth having in the first place), but your effort will make a difference in getting Narl. I guess you're right. Marl wouldn't be a marginal user. The economic sense of attracting the marginal user Narl still only holds true to a point. Make the app bad enough by appealing to Narl and you'll lose Marl to a competing app that doesn't suck as bad. Narl is fickle, doesn't really need the app, and will be easily tempted to move on to other apps. Not a great long term investment. Marl needs the app and as long as it does what he needs without pissing him off the app has got a user they can profit from. It seems very shortsighted to drive away your core users to temporarily attract the less interested marginal ones. Thankfully, I can't think of many apps that have gotten worse by aggressively targeting the Narls of the world. When apps get worse, it's usually greed that gets in the way. Anti-features that even narl hates, but which stuffs the developer's pockets with cash.