5 ms·
> We are moving past the “Airbnb for dogs” era and into the “build a better quantum computer” era. I disagree. Most software still sucks for the average user.
by slimsag 2y ago
> We are moving past the “Airbnb for dogs” era and into the “build a better quantum computer” era.
I disagree. Most software still sucks for the average user.
Every app comes with its own nickel-and-dime subscription fee. You want to make a photo collage of your dog? That's $10/mo for PHOTO COLLAGE PRO, thanks.
You want to have a nice team-wide issue tracker / project planner? That's $12/user/mo, and contact our sales team if you need data security.
Using our free tier? No problem, please enjoy as we use our /alternative means/ to monetize you. Feel free to watch this ad while you chew on whatever that means.
..all this to say, there is still very much an opportunity for a software race-to-the-bottom, where people provide equal or better value to users, for equal or less monies. Pick any business, and you can do this too, as long as it is not a market where the leader is operating at a loss for dominance and as long as your execution is good enough.
- autonomousErwin 2y ago> Most software still sucks for the average user. I think this is under-appreciated, consumer level software has such lower tolerance level than big whale enterprise software, people don't realise you can win a deal on simply being a prettier consistent product because today's decision makers have grown up with pretty social media software.
- code_biologist 2y agoHeh, I think this is exactly why MS Teams hasn't taken that much business from Slack.
- TeaBrain 2y agoSlack may not have lost existing business, but they have fallen far behind Team's market share.
- bsder 2y ago> Most software still sucks for the average user. > Every app comes with its own nickel-and-dime subscription fee. Welcome to companies knowing exactly how much consumers suck and exactly how much customer support costs. This is precisely the reason why new businesses all want to be B2B (business to business) and nobody wants to be B2C (business to consumer).
- slimsag 2y agoSelling to businesses is an easier way to make large profits in general, definitely. A single sale can be worth millions, and you have fewer stakeholders that you have to convince - especially if you already have contacts in those businesses or can get introductions easily. Selling to consumers means each one will judge and pay only for the value they see from your product; which means everything hinges on your product's value to many individual users, rather than a small group of stakeholders looking for a very specific set of benefits (ones you can often build for as they ask for it!) One major reason B2C companies charge a subscription fee is because they need to show to investors that the product provides customer lifetime value: not a one-off value-add, and that there is a grow-able user base locked in to the product.
- fragmede 2y agoHow do you compete with free? Unless you're running a charity, you have to make money somehow eventually. That's there are no mainstream paid competitors to Facebook says (investors believe) theres not a large intersection of users who care about privacy and customers willing to pay a sustainable fee to run such a service. So we're left with Facebook/similar, or hosting open source clones.
- slimsag 2y agoYou cannot compete with free, unless their experience is so bad that people are willing to throw money at the problem to have it be better. Most of the time, that isn't the case. 'Facebook that values your privacy' is not a value proposition that most people care to pay money for. 'Photoshop but [cheaper, free-with-ads, without an Adobe subscription]' is an area where people have successfully built businesses, however.
- vouaobrasil 2y agoThe problem is that we are making life harder and harder for people to do things for free, due to the privatization of everything. With more commons, people are more likely to create high-quality things for free.