5 ms·

That messages transition several months ago was one of the worst things they have ever done (and they have done a lot of poor updates). Sucks that it still fee

That messages transition several months ago was one of the worst things they have ever done (and they have done a lot of poor updates). Sucks that it still feels like a necessary evil just due to its user base. I continue to have conflicted feelings on paying for xtra. I hate it, but it's such a horrible experience without it.

tokioyoyo 2y ago
Time for the HN people to get together and build a superior product? I think we could do better.
- init2null 2y ago
  That can only work when there's a commitment to treat customers well. Otherwise, it's just a user base waiting to be sold to the highest bidder. And that's most likely a dating giant that will use the brand in an attempt to milk profit from the users in the least pleasant way possible. It isn't a technical problem.
  - tokioyoyo 2y ago
    Frankly, given our demography, we can probably bootstrap the app and focus on minimizing the costs as much as we can. Then try to scale it accordingly with a focus on salaries, rather than investor payouts. It does sound possible in my head, other than grassroots marketing. Would need some people who has some experience in growing the customer base though. So yeah, treating the customer base with respect would be a priority.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  Honestly I am not sure it will matter, there are better services out there but many people don't switch over for one reason or another. Many just because they don't want too, or don't want to manage more than 1 app. We also see several new apps spring up and just never gain traction. It has developed a stronghold because most still use it, and that likely just isn't changing anytime soon.
  - tokioyoyo 2y ago
    To my understanding, everyone uses X because everyone else is on X. Give them the opportunity that you can see almost unlimited people on the grid, manage spam, and pic sharing, it might be possible. The last 2 aren’t easy problems to solve though. Getting the first few thousand users isn’t easy either, but practically free and not user hostile UX, would make a lot of people consider it.
    - nerdjon 2y ago
      Right that’s largely the issue. If enough people don’t use it, than people will just download it and see that no one uses it and never open it again. Really the only other app with a serious enough use is Scruff. By nearly every metric it is a better app and does some really good things. But even being on both and basically bouncing between the 2 most of my conversations end up on Grindr. There is another web app that has gained serious traction for offering a… unique value proposition but I am purposefully not going to name it here so someone doesn’t look it up and see something they don’t want to see. (I will just say there is a reason it’s a web app instead of an actual app)
      - tokioyoyo 2y ago
        I am pretty sure we all know the web app you're talking about. It's gaining traction, but because of the direct nature of it, I don't see it becoming as big as Grindr. With regards to Scruff, I agree, and I'm not sure why it hasn't gotten the same attention as the former. Maybe the type of people it tries to attract? I still think, if there was an app that was completely free, and optimized for cost reduction with very unobtrusive ads, it could get somewhere. Right now the pricing levels are atrocious, and there's a scratch for the people to stop using it because of it, in addition to hostile UX.
- consteval 2y ago
  The value of dating software products is not the product at all. It's the people on it. Undoubtably, there are numerous apps/sites that are better engineered, with a better user experience, than Grindr. In fact, some are very popular, like Tinder and Hinge. But they don't swallow up Grindr, because Grindr is still the place with the most gay men. The value of the app is 90% in that. There is SOME merit to it, too. Certainly, being closeted is easier on Grindr versus Tinder/Hinge, and that might describe the majority of gay men. Grindr also gives the user much, much more control and information. You don't have to swipe, you can just approach, like you're at a bar.

tokioyoyo 2y ago

Time for the HN people to get together and build a superior product? I think we could do better.

init2null 2y ago
That can only work when there's a commitment to treat customers well. Otherwise, it's just a user base waiting to be sold to the highest bidder. And that's most likely a dating giant that will use the brand in an attempt to milk profit from the users in the least pleasant way possible. It isn't a technical problem.
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
  Frankly, given our demography, we can probably bootstrap the app and focus on minimizing the costs as much as we can. Then try to scale it accordingly with a focus on salaries, rather than investor payouts. It does sound possible in my head, other than grassroots marketing. Would need some people who has some experience in growing the customer base though. So yeah, treating the customer base with respect would be a priority.
nerdjon 2y ago
Honestly I am not sure it will matter, there are better services out there but many people don't switch over for one reason or another. Many just because they don't want too, or don't want to manage more than 1 app. We also see several new apps spring up and just never gain traction. It has developed a stronghold because most still use it, and that likely just isn't changing anytime soon.
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
  To my understanding, everyone uses X because everyone else is on X. Give them the opportunity that you can see almost unlimited people on the grid, manage spam, and pic sharing, it might be possible. The last 2 aren’t easy problems to solve though. Getting the first few thousand users isn’t easy either, but practically free and not user hostile UX, would make a lot of people consider it.
  - nerdjon 2y ago
    Right that’s largely the issue. If enough people don’t use it, than people will just download it and see that no one uses it and never open it again. Really the only other app with a serious enough use is Scruff. By nearly every metric it is a better app and does some really good things. But even being on both and basically bouncing between the 2 most of my conversations end up on Grindr. There is another web app that has gained serious traction for offering a… unique value proposition but I am purposefully not going to name it here so someone doesn’t look it up and see something they don’t want to see. (I will just say there is a reason it’s a web app instead of an actual app)
    - tokioyoyo 2y ago
      I am pretty sure we all know the web app you're talking about. It's gaining traction, but because of the direct nature of it, I don't see it becoming as big as Grindr. With regards to Scruff, I agree, and I'm not sure why it hasn't gotten the same attention as the former. Maybe the type of people it tries to attract? I still think, if there was an app that was completely free, and optimized for cost reduction with very unobtrusive ads, it could get somewhere. Right now the pricing levels are atrocious, and there's a scratch for the people to stop using it because of it, in addition to hostile UX.
consteval 2y ago
The value of dating software products is not the product at all. It's the people on it. Undoubtably, there are numerous apps/sites that are better engineered, with a better user experience, than Grindr. In fact, some are very popular, like Tinder and Hinge. But they don't swallow up Grindr, because Grindr is still the place with the most gay men. The value of the app is 90% in that. There is SOME merit to it, too. Certainly, being closeted is easier on Grindr versus Tinder/Hinge, and that might describe the majority of gay men. Grindr also gives the user much, much more control and information. You don't have to swipe, you can just approach, like you're at a bar.