Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Users You Don’t Want

themacro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 188 posts

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#11

Post by mwseibel »

nostrademons wrote: post #7

The "Uber for babysitters" example is interesting, because Uber's current $50B+ business is exactly the "users they didn't want". They started out as a black car service, where rich people (and it was envisioned only as a service for rich people) could hail a limo, completely legally. And according to this video [1], the reason they moved down-market into "ridesharing for everyone" was because they were getting C&Ds…

I totally agree with you that often times your first set of users aren't the users you end up serving at scale. There are so many examples of this that they are hard to count. What is great about your example is that Uber made a strategic decision to open up to a new user base. Pivoting and serving new users/usecases is totally okay. Where startups get in trouble is when they move from niche usecase to niche usecase blindly based on a customer request.

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#12

Post by Retric »

nostrademons wrote: post #10
Animats wrote: post #4

That's a good argument against "accessibility". You're probably not getting significant revenue from the screen-reader people.

The benefits of accessibility are largely PR-related: nobody wants to be the company that makes blind peoples' lives more difficult. There may be ADA-compliance issues as well when you get big enough. That said, accessibility is something you do when you're a big company. When you're a startup, work on making it useful to the easy customers, and then only once you have something that lots of screen-reader people want…

Accessibility like scalability is far easer to bake in at the start than patch on at the end. However, punting until you start to gain traction is not a terrible idea.

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#13

Post by quwert95 »

>In the case of Justin.tv, pivoting to serve video gamers was the right move. Our video game broadcasters always represented a small but consistent group of users. It tooks us 4-5 years to realize how important they were.

This stuck out at me as an avid Twitch user/follower (and sometimes a streamer). I think they need to re-realize this.

The pivot result (extra effort and focus in Twitch) is being re-pivoted with the introduction of more general-content streams, like Creative, Music, and Social Eating:

https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Creative https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Music https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Social%20Eating

And then there are the streams that push the limit:

https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Poker https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Games%20%2B%20Demos

I wonder why they didn't say 'No' to the users that these streams provide for, and revive/rebuild Justin.tv.

Edit: Formatting...?

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#14

Post by Pinatubo »

> Now, what happens if someone with an infant or developmentally challenged teenager signs up? Their needs present an entirely new set of problems, problems that could be solved by a startup but not necessarily by ours. Remember you don’t have to pivot your business because a customer needs something that you don’t offer.

Meanwhile on Tumblr:

"Startup says they don't want developmentally disabled people as customers."

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#15

Post by jkestner »

nostrademons wrote: post #10
Animats wrote: post #4

That's a good argument against "accessibility". You're probably not getting significant revenue from the screen-reader people.

The benefits of accessibility are largely PR-related: nobody wants to be the company that makes blind peoples' lives more difficult. There may be ADA-compliance issues as well when you get big enough. That said, accessibility is something you do when you're a big company. When you're a startup, work on making it useful to the easy customers, and then only once you have something that lots of screen-reader people want…

Even if you can't directly monetize the golden rule, a lot of accessibility work is super-simple thanks to the toolmakers giving it forethought. You can get to 80% of it in an iOS app by just making sure you've got descriptive text for each UI element in the storyboard. The few blind customers we've gotten as a result (some of whom helped enable it) have been extremely enthusiastic, which made my day.

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#16

Post by ryandrake »

Been through this at medium sized companies struggling to sell. This kind of customer is alluring but poisonous. Company: We sell Product X! Toxic Customer: I don't want Product X, I want Product Y. If you're willing to bolt Product Y onto one of your menus I will pay you this stack of money for it! Company: $$$!

Bam! The company just went from being a product company to a custom engineering service. You will have to drag Product Y along with your product forever as a big lump of technical debt. After a few repeat iterations of the above, you will have a franken-product with random features hanging off of all ends, confusing to general users and impossible to maintain.

If you're a Product X company and one customer wants Product Y, stand your ground and tell them to go find Product Y somewhere else. If tons of customers want Product Y, maybe pivot and become a Product Y company and ditch Product X.

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#18

Post by peterhartree »

mwseibel wrote: post #2

Hey folks - slightly different piece today - trying to get away from investor/fundraising posts as of late. Would love your thoughts/comments/questions. I'll check in a couple times over the course of the day.

I enjoyed the piece, thanks Michael.

Sorry for the boring feedback, but the post feels like it needs a bit more proofreading. Some of the syntax is a little confusing and I noticed a couple of definite typos:

> So what should to you?

Should be:

> So what should you do?

And:

> Does this user represent an even better opportunity for you to grow your business.

Should be:

> Does this user represent an even better opportunity for you to grow your business?

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#19

Post by pc86 »

the_watcher wrote: post #9
Animats wrote: post #4

That's a good argument against "accessibility". You're probably not getting significant revenue from the screen-reader people.

The issue here is that you open yourself up to lawsuits under the ADA.

To be clear there has only been a single case where a website was found to be financially liable for lack of accessibility (in CA). Jurisdiction certainly covers most startups, but it's a single state. For the other ~88% of Americans there is no relevant case law on the subject.

If you run a website in North Carolina with $15k MRR accessibility is likely a waste of your time unless you're in a niche that is in some way related.

Re: Users You Don’t Want

#20

Post by GuiA »

> Now, what happens if someone with an infant or developmentally challenged teenager signs up? Their needs present an entirely new set of problems, problems that could be solved by a startup but not necessarily by ours. Remember you don’t have to pivot your business because a customer needs something that you don’t offer.

If you open a restaurant, you bet that there are certain building codes you'll have to follow in order to accommodate e.g. people with disabilities.

Right now, as the article points out, it's not something that most tech companies have to worry about unless they choose to, but perhaps it should be.

As startups disrupt entire industries with little regard for the existing legislation, entire niche of users could find themselves marginalized. For instance, hotels have to build a number of accommodations for people with mobility problems. Airbnbs don't. What happens to that segment of the population when/if Airbnb completely kills off hotels in a particular geographic location?

The web is already hell when it comes to accessibility concerns; and it seems like tech companies with a foot in the real world are just carrying this trend over. This is what people mean when they talk about the need for inclusiveness when designing tech products and companies; otherwise, you're just building a world where parents of developmentally challenged teenagers are even more excluded than they already were.

I agree with the core point of the article, but the example chosen to illustrate it couldn't be worse. Yes, it isn't your responsibility to solve everything for everyone, but that doesn't mean you can just choose to ignore the social contract altogether.

Post reply on HN