4 ms·

> No, it's not for you... This is key. Companies pushing apps is not for your benefit. It's so they can further monetize you right under your nose and with you

> No, it's not for you... This is key. Companies pushing apps is not for your benefit. It's so they can further monetize you right under your nose and with your full permission by accepting their EULA. This is just a furtherance of the if you don't pay for the product you are the product.

charcircuit 1y ago
Companies still have to provide value for them to attract users. It's cynical to only look at the value the company gets and ignoring the value users and advertisers get.
- immibis 1y ago
  Companies have to provide the perception of providing value.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  I argue that this decade shows you do not have to provide value. You capture the market yester-decade and then you can hold the users hostage as you do any and everything to appeal to shareholders and advertisers. This is indeed a short term strategy, but tech companies right now are thinking very short term.
  - notyourwork 1y ago
    Agreed, this is post-capture monetization.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    How do you hold users hostage without providing them value?
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      Nostalgia, network effects, and boiling thr frog. Then you build on that with business incentives; you may not like Facebook, but you need to advertise there because that's where everyone is. Basically, you rely on goodwill from yester-year and slowly ad in intrusive stuff that users adjust to. Thars enshittification in its raw essence. Admittedly, this mostly works because the general user is not "active" and will not take the time to migrate unless something absolutely scandalous happens. For them, it's easier putting up with ads than trying to log into an ad free substitute.
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        Nostalgia changes how people perceive value. Network effects is about how exponential value can be gained from linear user growth. Boiling the frog us about slowly doing things to avoid changing how people perceive value. None of these are a sign a product has no value. No one would advertise with Facebook if there was no value from purchasing ad space. The billions of dollars people spend is evidence there is value there for advertisers. >will not take the time to migrate Sure, people don't actively seek to maximize the value they receive, but that doesn't mean what they are currently getting value from doesn't have value.
        thfuran 1y ago
        > None of these are a sign a product has no value. You described the majority of those as being about the perception of value rather than value. >No one would advertise with Facebook if there was no value from purchasing ad space. The billions of dollars people spend is evidence there is value there for advertisers No one is disputing that the advertisers are getting value. The pursuit of advertiser value at the expense of users is the complaint.
        charcircuit 1y ago
        >You described the majority of those as being about the perception of value rather than value. Which is why they weren't useful to bring up.
    - arthurbrown 1y ago
      Monopoly, network effect
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        Like the other posters you are giving reasons why people will not switch to alternatives, but you are failing to argue why people are stuck using an app that provides no value.
        dylan604 1y ago
        for one, it's a nice little icon on the desktop of their device. you click it, and it launches the very thing you are looking to do. a browser means you have to click to open the browser. then you have to type the specific URL which is already something way more demanding than clicking the single icon even if they do remember the URL. for another, devs are definitely making the web experience subpar which has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. most websites are just adverts for their apps if they function at all any more. loading a website on mobile is even worse than desktop as they pester you with "it's better in the app" pop ups. people find browsing an app store much easier than browsing the web. in fact, do people browse the web at all any more. search is shit now, so discovery by search is not what it used to be. click through from search is also plummeting as "search assistant" type responses means no reason to click through to sites. how many more reasons do you need?
        charcircuit 1y ago
        >how many more reasons do you need? One. Because I don't believe one exists. The reasons you gave of it looking nice and accomplishing something the user wants to do provide value to the user.
- II2II 1y ago
  Take Reddit, which is one of the few sites mentioned here that I use. At least initially, the value provided is getting rid of the constant prompts to load the site in the Reddit app. Even though I use old.reddit.com, which doesn't have those prompts, there are times when it redirects me to the new website automatically. Does it offer value beyond getting rid of those messages? Perhaps, but I doubt that it is the type of value that I would be looking for.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    How about the value of being able to talk to people who share the same hobby you do. Or the value of being able to see a community made wiki about some topic you are trying to learn about. Even being able to see cat pictures is valuable to people.
    - thfuran 1y ago
      You can do that on the website.
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        I never claimed it doesn't.
        thfuran 1y ago
        Then what was your claim?
        charcircuit 1y ago
        That the mobile app is providing value to people. So companies paying to make the app are also providing value to people.
        dylan604 1y ago
        if the website already provides the value, there is no need for the app. instead, they cripple the website to push people to the app. why? it is more profitable for the company because of the data they can get from the app. doesn't matter if the UX is worse for the user. they only need to make it just usable enough
thfuran 1y ago
We have moved beyond that. Even if you pay, you’re usually still the product.
- dylan604 1y ago
  moving beyond is usually what happens when something is furtheranced
  - bornfreddy 1y ago
    It is - from the company point of view.
    - dylan604 1y ago
      Isn’t that precisely the point with this thread? It’s all from the company’s perspective. They’ve just gaslit the users into thinking it is from the user’s perspective.

charcircuit 1y ago

Companies still have to provide value for them to attract users. It's cynical to only look at the value the company gets and ignoring the value users and advertisers get.

immibis 1y ago
Companies have to provide the perception of providing value.
johnnyanmac 1y ago
I argue that this decade shows you do not have to provide value. You capture the market yester-decade and then you can hold the users hostage as you do any and everything to appeal to shareholders and advertisers. This is indeed a short term strategy, but tech companies right now are thinking very short term.
- notyourwork 1y ago
  Agreed, this is post-capture monetization.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  How do you hold users hostage without providing them value?
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    Nostalgia, network effects, and boiling thr frog. Then you build on that with business incentives; you may not like Facebook, but you need to advertise there because that's where everyone is. Basically, you rely on goodwill from yester-year and slowly ad in intrusive stuff that users adjust to. Thars enshittification in its raw essence. Admittedly, this mostly works because the general user is not "active" and will not take the time to migrate unless something absolutely scandalous happens. For them, it's easier putting up with ads than trying to log into an ad free substitute.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      Nostalgia changes how people perceive value. Network effects is about how exponential value can be gained from linear user growth. Boiling the frog us about slowly doing things to avoid changing how people perceive value. None of these are a sign a product has no value. No one would advertise with Facebook if there was no value from purchasing ad space. The billions of dollars people spend is evidence there is value there for advertisers. >will not take the time to migrate Sure, people don't actively seek to maximize the value they receive, but that doesn't mean what they are currently getting value from doesn't have value.
      - thfuran 1y ago
        > None of these are a sign a product has no value. You described the majority of those as being about the perception of value rather than value. >No one would advertise with Facebook if there was no value from purchasing ad space. The billions of dollars people spend is evidence there is value there for advertisers No one is disputing that the advertisers are getting value. The pursuit of advertiser value at the expense of users is the complaint.
        charcircuit 1y ago
        >You described the majority of those as being about the perception of value rather than value. Which is why they weren't useful to bring up.
  - arthurbrown 1y ago
    Monopoly, network effect
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      Like the other posters you are giving reasons why people will not switch to alternatives, but you are failing to argue why people are stuck using an app that provides no value.
      - dylan604 1y ago
        for one, it's a nice little icon on the desktop of their device. you click it, and it launches the very thing you are looking to do. a browser means you have to click to open the browser. then you have to type the specific URL which is already something way more demanding than clicking the single icon even if they do remember the URL. for another, devs are definitely making the web experience subpar which has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. most websites are just adverts for their apps if they function at all any more. loading a website on mobile is even worse than desktop as they pester you with "it's better in the app" pop ups. people find browsing an app store much easier than browsing the web. in fact, do people browse the web at all any more. search is shit now, so discovery by search is not what it used to be. click through from search is also plummeting as "search assistant" type responses means no reason to click through to sites. how many more reasons do you need?
        charcircuit 1y ago
        >how many more reasons do you need? One. Because I don't believe one exists. The reasons you gave of it looking nice and accomplishing something the user wants to do provide value to the user.
II2II 1y ago
Take Reddit, which is one of the few sites mentioned here that I use. At least initially, the value provided is getting rid of the constant prompts to load the site in the Reddit app. Even though I use old.reddit.com, which doesn't have those prompts, there are times when it redirects me to the new website automatically. Does it offer value beyond getting rid of those messages? Perhaps, but I doubt that it is the type of value that I would be looking for.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  How about the value of being able to talk to people who share the same hobby you do. Or the value of being able to see a community made wiki about some topic you are trying to learn about. Even being able to see cat pictures is valuable to people.
  - thfuran 1y ago
    You can do that on the website.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      I never claimed it doesn't.
      - thfuran 1y ago
        Then what was your claim?
        charcircuit 1y ago
        That the mobile app is providing value to people. So companies paying to make the app are also providing value to people.
        dylan604 1y ago
        if the website already provides the value, there is no need for the app. instead, they cripple the website to push people to the app. why? it is more profitable for the company because of the data they can get from the app. doesn't matter if the UX is worse for the user. they only need to make it just usable enough

thfuran 1y ago

We have moved beyond that. Even if you pay, you’re usually still the product.

dylan604 1y ago
moving beyond is usually what happens when something is furtheranced
- bornfreddy 1y ago
  It is - from the company point of view.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    Isn’t that precisely the point with this thread? It’s all from the company’s perspective. They’ve just gaslit the users into thinking it is from the user’s perspective.