3 ms·
>will deliver its users a worse product for the sake of few more dollars Its hard - we don't know if its a "few" more dollars, the article and facebook doesn't
by nemothekid 13y ago
>will deliver its users a worse product for the sake of few more dollars
Its hard - we don't know if its a "few" more dollars, the article and facebook doesn't share this info. If it possibly meant that each user was spending half as much time on facebook, which could possibly meant half as much revenue for the company - what choice do you have?
As a product manager, are you willing to graze half of company because a new feature that is pretty, but costs the company a fortune?
Arguably there are those who have considered the iPhone a worse product because of its locked down nature. Does Apple deliver a worse product for the sake of a "few more dollars?" Even then you have to consider is the App Store ecosystem, the relatively high quality of iPhone Apps, and ease-of-use-through-handcuffs just worth a few more dollars?
- oneeyedpigeon 13y agoOf course, you have to take into account advertising performance. I don't have any figures to back this up, but I haven't seen any to the contrary so I'm going to hypothesise that ads on a really nice site that people enjoy using are going to do better than on a site that's horrible and pisses people off. Plus, the former gives people more spare time to click ads and buy stuff. I don't think the 'more time viewing pages with ads on = more money' is the full story.