11 ms·

We've been talking about taste for a year now as it relates to AI, so I'm going to counterpoint it: if competitors can reproduce your features, UX, and visual d

by madrox 2mo ago

We've been talking about taste for a year now as it relates to AI, so I'm going to counterpoint it: if competitors can reproduce your features, UX, and visual decisions within days, your taste is not really an advantage. How many apps implemented pull down to refresh once one person did it? How many people even remember (or care) whose taste spawned that UX pattern? [1] AI is not inaugurating an age of taste. It is shortening the half-life of taste and commoditizing software. What happens when software features, UX, and visual fidelity aren't competitive advantages anymore? If you ask me, it looks like business did in the 90s. We'll probably see the return of department store software in the next few years. 1: for the record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull-to-refresh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull-to-refresh

derangedHorse 2mo ago
It's not about being the only person doing it, it's about choosing to include it. Many don't know what works and what doesn't. Being able to discern a set of features that are cohesive to a smooth experience is taste. Innovating and establishing oneself as the first person to deliver those experiences is a moat in itself.
- nullbio 2mo ago
  Competitors can reproduce your discernment as well, it's the sum of your product and can be equally cloned. So how is this a moat?
  - dingaling 2mo ago
    Because reproduction is reactive. If an organisation only clones others' style then they'll always be behind the curve and will be widely recognised to be derivative and lacking their own 'taste'. Look how long it takes Chinese brands to transition from being clones to establishing their own corporate image.
dmarcos 2mo ago
Also Microsoft couldn’t match Apple taste with effectively all resources in the world. And they really tried. True taste is interesting because is more like a worldview, a modus operandi, a continuous process… those are harder to replicate.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- MetaWhirledPeas 2mo ago
  Funny you mention Apple because they are proof that taste can be king. Yeah they also kidnap their users into their ecosystem and make smart business decisions, but what really differentiates them is taste. And Microsoft is sort of the counterpoint. There's more than one way to succeed I guess.
  - kazinator 2mo ago
    Or, used to be proof.
  - pjmlp 2mo ago
    Apple's taste during the 1990's almost killed the company.
    - imhoguy 2mo ago
      Because let's admit it, later it was a taste of one guy who got another "chance" or the company got a "chance" to be lead by him. Now as he is gone the company still carries that taste legacy with better or worse results.
    - Earw0rm 2mo ago
      It's not that the machines were ugly or badly designed (albeit not as good as the 80s heyday), but they were unable to compete on price/performance and OS tech stack, and that in turn was making them uncompetitive in application support, which would likely have killed them. It's an interesting alt history - who would have won with no Apple around? I reckon we'd all own a lot more Sony and Nokia gear, it's possible the Cambrian explosion of weird featurephone form factors would have carried on a lot longer, perhaps the black rectangle form factor would never have won out.
kaizenb 2mo ago
"What happens when software features, UX, and visual fidelity aren't competitive advantages anymore?" This is the question I've been thinking about. All can be copied very easily and in scale these days.
- phito 2mo ago
  It was always easy to copy software (but yes, even easier now). The hard part is competing with the software that you're copying. Software does not exist in a vacuum. They usually have an already established user base, relationships with partner businesses, more domain knowledge due to having to actually think about the problems they are solving and so on. You can start by copying but at some point you'll have to differentiate, and you might not be able to do so if you don't understand how your sloppy vibe-copied software works.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  Ironically given how much hate I have seen for them, this is what patents are for. Invent something novel, get patent, you have exclusive economic rights to that for however long the patent lasts.
- remify 2mo ago
  Copying means you have a valid target. I'd argue that a well thought UX isn't easy to copy in the first place because it's not something that can easily be put into word. It's the same for a lot of things, I have some clothes that I love because of their, design, quality and more ... something intangible that I have hard time describing and that can easily be explained with: It was done with taste.
discardable_dan 2mo ago
Imagine if artists were embracing AI the same way coders were being forced to. All that would be left there is taste, and your argument applies as readily there as well.
kazinator 2mo ago
Dumbest idea ever. You are composing some text in a form, or filling in fields. You want to scroll up just a little to see something out of the viewport. Oops, your little swipe is misinterpreted as a refresh gesture: the input is gone.
- BlueTemplar 2mo ago
  Yeah, it's infuriating when poorly implemented.
  - kazinator 2mo ago
    I think it's impossible for it not to be poorly implemented because the gesture is inherently ambiguous (or becomes so when you overload it). I think what "poorly implemented" actually means for touch screen gestures is to be lacking the customizability to reassign or disable infuriating behaviors. Gesture configurability is nonnegotiable: when implementing gestures, have the configuration system in place first and make sure every single behavior is tied to a preference.
chanux 2mo ago
Loren Brichter [1] Never thought of finding out who until you mentioned! What a small but fantastic contribution! Thanks Loren!! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull-to-refresh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull-to-refresh
- chanux 2mo ago
  PS: Think about the next evolution of it, the auto refresh (from the great apps Instagram and LinkedIn). Did I use the word evolution right?
  - _luci_ 2mo ago
    Id argue that auto refresh is more a successor than an evolution!
thn-gap 2mo ago
I found this post yesterday on this exact same topic. As someone who is interested in the space of creating visual things and its design choices, it's a bit disheartening to see the current situation, and brings you to the point of "why even try doing anything anymore" rather than just follow the copywagon. I feel this will be a similar effect to the current slowdown of hiring of juniors: you're killing the pipeline of future seniors that lead development. https://xcancel.com/shadcn/status/2085163855408214356 https://xcancel.com/shadcn/status/2085163855408214356
broodbucket 2mo ago
That's not really what I think of when I think of taste in software development. I think of taste more in the sense of how to go about architecting something, what problems are worth solving, what technologies should be used, how to structure the code and documentation, how the APIs should function, what the scope of the thing should be, knowing what to do and what not to do, yada yada. That's all taste and LLMs suck at it (noting that taste is very subjective).
- camdenreslink 2mo ago
  Agreed, considering "taste" to only mean UX or aesthetics is taking things too literally in my opinion.
uludag 2mo ago
I think the point is without taste you wouldn't even know what things should be copied out of the countless competitors. How would you even know in the first place if a competitor did a particular thing tastefully without a good sense of taste yourself? Also, there are a lot of areas where taste will absolutely reign supreme (and has been), especially anything related to media or entertainment (books, articles, videos, games, music, etc.)
pizzly 2mo ago
I can see a possible future where taste is automated. If you can effortlessly make 1000s of iterations then you can test it on real people 1000s of times. The ones that do better you keep. Another possible future is that taste is not automated but its not part of the designer's job (if designers still exist). Instead some AI will generate 1000 of iterations and people will be employed to evaluate 100s of software UI each day for taste. These will be taste farms if you like. These people full time job will be saying yes or no. Other possible futures also exist.
- lackoftactics 2mo ago
  That’s interesting there was creativity experiment results proving that could be true. https://austinkleon.com/2020/12/10/quantity-leads-to-quality-the-origin-of-a-parable/ https://austinkleon.com/2020/12/10/quantity-leads-to-quality...
datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
Couldn’t disagree more. AI is a button that you press and magically get results. The ability to judge the quality of those results is “taste”. Anyone can push the button, but not everyone can discern whether the result is a good one or not. That skill is either learned or to some extent inherent in one’s abilities. My example I’ve been thinking about is: what will be the first new, big programming language in the age of LLMs? Theoretically, anyone could go out and make it right now. The skills and expertise required are well-encoded within all of the frontier models. The thing is, without taste, the language devolves to a useless state rather quickly. On smaller scales, I’ve seen this with API design and even object oriented design. I’ve also seen it in AI generated images and music: devoid of taste, and numbingly facile and generic. Edit: not to toot my own horn, but “numbingly facile and generic” funny enough is probably a phrase that an LLM would never create without significant prompting to refine writing style.

by madrox 2mo ago

derangedHorse 2mo ago

It's not about being the only person doing it, it's about choosing to include it. Many don't know what works and what doesn't. Being able to discern a set of features that are cohesive to a smooth experience is taste. Innovating and establishing oneself as the first person to deliver those experiences is a moat in itself.

nullbio 2mo ago
Competitors can reproduce your discernment as well, it's the sum of your product and can be equally cloned. So how is this a moat?
- dingaling 2mo ago
  Because reproduction is reactive. If an organisation only clones others' style then they'll always be behind the curve and will be widely recognised to be derivative and lacking their own 'taste'. Look how long it takes Chinese brands to transition from being clones to establishing their own corporate image.

dmarcos 2mo ago

Also Microsoft couldn’t match Apple taste with effectively all resources in the world. And they really tried. True taste is interesting because is more like a worldview, a modus operandi, a continuous process… those are harder to replicate.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
MetaWhirledPeas 2mo ago
Funny you mention Apple because they are proof that taste can be king. Yeah they also kidnap their users into their ecosystem and make smart business decisions, but what really differentiates them is taste. And Microsoft is sort of the counterpoint. There's more than one way to succeed I guess.
- kazinator 2mo ago
  Or, used to be proof.
- pjmlp 2mo ago
  Apple's taste during the 1990's almost killed the company.
  - imhoguy 2mo ago
    Because let's admit it, later it was a taste of one guy who got another "chance" or the company got a "chance" to be lead by him. Now as he is gone the company still carries that taste legacy with better or worse results.
  - Earw0rm 2mo ago
    It's not that the machines were ugly or badly designed (albeit not as good as the 80s heyday), but they were unable to compete on price/performance and OS tech stack, and that in turn was making them uncompetitive in application support, which would likely have killed them. It's an interesting alt history - who would have won with no Apple around? I reckon we'd all own a lot more Sony and Nokia gear, it's possible the Cambrian explosion of weird featurephone form factors would have carried on a lot longer, perhaps the black rectangle form factor would never have won out.

kaizenb 2mo ago

"What happens when software features, UX, and visual fidelity aren't competitive advantages anymore?" This is the question I've been thinking about. All can be copied very easily and in scale these days.

phito 2mo ago
It was always easy to copy software (but yes, even easier now). The hard part is competing with the software that you're copying. Software does not exist in a vacuum. They usually have an already established user base, relationships with partner businesses, more domain knowledge due to having to actually think about the problems they are solving and so on. You can start by copying but at some point you'll have to differentiate, and you might not be able to do so if you don't understand how your sloppy vibe-copied software works.
ben_w 2mo ago
Ironically given how much hate I have seen for them, this is what patents are for. Invent something novel, get patent, you have exclusive economic rights to that for however long the patent lasts.
remify 2mo ago
Copying means you have a valid target. I'd argue that a well thought UX isn't easy to copy in the first place because it's not something that can easily be put into word. It's the same for a lot of things, I have some clothes that I love because of their, design, quality and more ... something intangible that I have hard time describing and that can easily be explained with: It was done with taste.

discardable_dan 2mo ago

Imagine if artists were embracing AI the same way coders were being forced to. All that would be left there is taste, and your argument applies as readily there as well.

kazinator 2mo ago

Dumbest idea ever. You are composing some text in a form, or filling in fields. You want to scroll up just a little to see something out of the viewport. Oops, your little swipe is misinterpreted as a refresh gesture: the input is gone.

BlueTemplar 2mo ago
Yeah, it's infuriating when poorly implemented.
- kazinator 2mo ago
  I think it's impossible for it not to be poorly implemented because the gesture is inherently ambiguous (or becomes so when you overload it). I think what "poorly implemented" actually means for touch screen gestures is to be lacking the customizability to reassign or disable infuriating behaviors. Gesture configurability is nonnegotiable: when implementing gestures, have the configuration system in place first and make sure every single behavior is tied to a preference.

chanux 2mo ago

Loren Brichter [1] Never thought of finding out who until you mentioned! What a small but fantastic contribution! Thanks Loren!! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull-to-refresh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull-to-refresh

chanux 2mo ago
PS: Think about the next evolution of it, the auto refresh (from the great apps Instagram and LinkedIn). Did I use the word evolution right?
- _luci_ 2mo ago
  Id argue that auto refresh is more a successor than an evolution!

thn-gap 2mo ago

I found this post yesterday on this exact same topic. As someone who is interested in the space of creating visual things and its design choices, it's a bit disheartening to see the current situation, and brings you to the point of "why even try doing anything anymore" rather than just follow the copywagon. I feel this will be a similar effect to the current slowdown of hiring of juniors: you're killing the pipeline of future seniors that lead development. https://xcancel.com/shadcn/status/2085163855408214356 https://xcancel.com/shadcn/status/2085163855408214356

broodbucket 2mo ago

That's not really what I think of when I think of taste in software development. I think of taste more in the sense of how to go about architecting something, what problems are worth solving, what technologies should be used, how to structure the code and documentation, how the APIs should function, what the scope of the thing should be, knowing what to do and what not to do, yada yada. That's all taste and LLMs suck at it (noting that taste is very subjective).

camdenreslink 2mo ago
Agreed, considering "taste" to only mean UX or aesthetics is taking things too literally in my opinion.

uludag 2mo ago

I think the point is without taste you wouldn't even know what things should be copied out of the countless competitors. How would you even know in the first place if a competitor did a particular thing tastefully without a good sense of taste yourself? Also, there are a lot of areas where taste will absolutely reign supreme (and has been), especially anything related to media or entertainment (books, articles, videos, games, music, etc.)

pizzly 2mo ago

I can see a possible future where taste is automated. If you can effortlessly make 1000s of iterations then you can test it on real people 1000s of times. The ones that do better you keep. Another possible future is that taste is not automated but its not part of the designer's job (if designers still exist). Instead some AI will generate 1000 of iterations and people will be employed to evaluate 100s of software UI each day for taste. These will be taste farms if you like. These people full time job will be saying yes or no. Other possible futures also exist.

lackoftactics 2mo ago
That’s interesting there was creativity experiment results proving that could be true. https://austinkleon.com/2020/12/10/quantity-leads-to-quality-the-origin-of-a-parable/ https://austinkleon.com/2020/12/10/quantity-leads-to-quality...

datsci_est_2015 2mo ago

Couldn’t disagree more. AI is a button that you press and magically get results. The ability to judge the quality of those results is “taste”. Anyone can push the button, but not everyone can discern whether the result is a good one or not. That skill is either learned or to some extent inherent in one’s abilities. My example I’ve been thinking about is: what will be the first new, big programming language in the age of LLMs? Theoretically, anyone could go out and make it right now. The skills and expertise required are well-encoded within all of the frontier models. The thing is, without taste, the language devolves to a useless state rather quickly. On smaller scales, I’ve seen this with API design and even object oriented design. I’ve also seen it in AI generated images and music: devoid of taste, and numbingly facile and generic. Edit: not to toot my own horn, but “numbingly facile and generic” funny enough is probably a phrase that an LLM would never create without significant prompting to refine writing style.