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

Users hate change

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 315 posts

Re: Users hate change

#171

Post by 3xblah »

flohofwoe wrote: post #5

My pet theory is that every software product has a "peak version". Before that peak version, the product is not yet in a complete state, and it is fairly obvious, both for the developer and user, what features are missing. Once the peak version is reached, new features are not added because they improve the product, but to justify selling the product again to existing customers, and to 'keep the team busy'. Instead o…

This commment and the OP seem to suggest that if users were in control, they would not change things. They would not add features. They would subscribe to the idea that software is "finished" (save for bug fixes).

Can we agree that, realistically, generally users are not in control of the software development process, despite any organisational structures that appear to let users drive it.

Re: Users hate change

#172

Post by la_barba »

mehrdadn wrote: post #153
la_barba wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of small companies that were selling shrink-wrapped software have shuttered down - for various reasons no doubt, but the effect of a steady revenue stream on any business cannot be dismissed. Most of the software I use is either free, under some kind of subscription, or has a large corporate brand/vendor behind it. What about you?

What's so special about software here? > the effect of a steady revenue stream on any business cannot be dismissed Really? The effect of a steady revenue stream on any consumers can't be dismissed either, so how about we have those businesses pay us first? Then we can pay them back for their software. Is this how logic works? An effect can't be dismissed, therefore everyone else must dance to produce that effect?

As a consumer, you are free to engage with a business of your choice. Likewise, a business is free to adopt a business model of their choice. That is the only "logic" at play here.

Re: Users hate change

#173

Post by Largah »

nofunsir wrote: post #168
yoz-y wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subscription model is actually way better if you don't want to end up with feature bloat. Because you actually get money from users even if you only ever fix bugs and improve performance. If you freeze your features you will soon arrive at a point where everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops.

"everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops." That's... how it should work. You don't get to hook into their wallets for time and all eternity. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. ... and then you go do something else! That is the prec…

the difference being that if your shovel breaks or is redesigned, you have to buy a new one. with software, updates and new features are expected to be free to a certain extent, so other means of monetization are necessary.

Re: Users hate change

#174

Post by lars_francke »

nofunsir wrote: post #168
yoz-y wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subscription model is actually way better if you don't want to end up with feature bloat. Because you actually get money from users even if you only ever fix bugs and improve performance. If you freeze your features you will soon arrive at a point where everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops.

"everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops." That's... how it should work. You don't get to hook into their wallets for time and all eternity. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. ... and then you go do something else! That is the prec…

I agree with your examples but I think a piece of software is different because users expect it to change over time.

New Mac OS version? Users want to support it. Found a bug in a library uses? Users expect to get a fixed version etc.

And while as a software user/buyer myself I like the idea of paying once and be done with it I kinda understand why people need recurring income if they keep on working on a piece of software even if it's just "minor" things.

Re: Users hate change

#175

Post by mehrdadn »

la_barba wrote: post #172
mehrdadn wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so special about software here? > the effect of a steady revenue stream on any business cannot be dismissed Really? The effect of a steady revenue stream on any consumers can't be dismissed either, so how about we have those businesses pay us first? Then we can pay them back for their software. Is this how logic works? An effect can't be dismissed, therefore everyone else must dance to produce that effect?

As a consumer, you are free to engage with a business of your choice. Likewise, a business is free to adopt a business model of their choice. That is the only "logic" at play here.

> As a consumer, you are free to engage with a business of your choice. Likewise, a business is free to adopt a business model of their choice. That is the only "logic" at play here.

So the logic behind "this model is objectively bad and means life or death for a company" was "well, it's a free country, so if you don't like it, go somewhere else"?

Re: Users hate change

#176

Post by Stratoscope »

8ytecoder wrote: post #161
ryandrake wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, I’m totally against subscription software because I resent having to pay again and again for the same product just to be able to use it a month later. What ever happened to making a product, selling it once to the customer, who then gets to use it as they wish for as long as it works? Why does everything have to be a recurring revenue stream? Because you have software engineers who need something t…

I like the jetbrains model. You can always stop paying whenever you want and you get to own whatever last version you hold.

That's not exactly how the JetBrains perpetual fallback license works. You don't get a license for the last version you used under your subscription. You get a license for the version you had 12 months before you ended your subscription.

If you buy an annual subscription, you are paying for 12 months up front, so you immediately get a fallback license for the version that is available at the time you start or renew the subscription.

If you buy a monthly subscription, then after you've paid for 12 months you get a fallback license for the version that was available at the beginning of your subscription. If you then keep your subscription active and later cancel, you get a fallback license for the version that was available 12 months before you canceled.

https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207240845-What...

Re: Users hate change

#177

Post by ocdtrekkie »

nofunsir wrote: post #168
yoz-y wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subscription model is actually way better if you don't want to end up with feature bloat. Because you actually get money from users even if you only ever fix bugs and improve performance. If you freeze your features you will soon arrive at a point where everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops.

"everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops." That's... how it should work. You don't get to hook into their wallets for time and all eternity. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. ... and then you go do something else! That is the prec…

The light bulb example is ironic, because the life of light bulbs was artificially shortened to ensure people had to keep buying them regularly.

Re: Users hate change

#178

Post by Faark »

nemacol wrote: post #11
tmikaeld wrote: post #4

I just think of Microsoft when I read these. Every time they change something in Windows, they never take the old thing away but instead keep both. Which means there's a myriad of ways to get to the control panel. And there's multiple variants of the control panel UI... Outlook is another good example, there's 3 different UI's where we can add/remove accounts. Result: New users use the new (default) UI, old users use…

The real kick in the beans from MS is the new UI lacks anything beyond basic functionality in the new UI. For example, Win10 (1803) Mouse settings you can modify: Left/Right handed, Scroll Wheel lines, Scroll inactive windows when you hover. For every other change you have to click "Additional mouse options" and are taken to the old UI. MS Win10, and to a lesser extent Server 2016-19 has increased the number of click…

Totally agree. Their UI seems to be made only with ease of use of the most common case in mind, not spearing a single thought for power users. My preferred example is getting WLAN details before connecting. No way to do this with Win10s UI.

I totally understand mobile phones having having barely any space available. Even desktop optimizing for common use cases. But there got to be a limit on how much you dumb down your software.

Re: Users hate change

#179

Post by dubcanada »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #16
Rainymood wrote: post #10

I love how the author shouts from the rooftops the following >This argument is both incredibly entitled and terribly egocentric (...) While this whole post reeks with entitlement and egocentrism - but from his perspective, so that is OK! To me, it feels like the author is incapable of empathising with a larger user base than himself and only thinks about his benefit and how the changes affect him and how he uses the…

> To me, it feels like the author is incapable of empathising with a larger user base than himself and only thinks about his benefit and how the changes affect him and how he uses the product. I disagree. "Users hate change" is a meme that's generally accepted in the industry; the post applies empathy to dig into the reasons why it seems that "users hate change". > Customers have the ultimate power: voting with their…

"Users hate change" is it a meme?

If your favorite what ever changed, do you like it? Or do you immediately go what is this? Regardless if it was good/needed.

There is obvious parts where a change may be good or needed, and those are easier to accept. But if you deem X to be good enough does a change that increases the ability to do Y speed by like 5% really matter if it changes everything. No.

"Voting with your wallet" always matters. Doesn't matter if it's free or not. It always matters. If half of anyones customers stopped using the product because of a redesign, they would consider alternatives. The problem is people complain and stay, and 5 weeks later they are used to it and don't care anymore until the next change.

Re: Users hate change

#180

Post by x0x0 »

dataflow wrote: post #137
holy_city wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly? Because no software is free from bugs and there will always be a need for support. The difference between single sale and subscription can be life or death for a company, its products, and its support. But if you don't feel that a subscription to a service adds value, please don't buy it and voice your concern to the developers. Especially if they're a small shop. That said, subscriptions can be canceled. F…

> The difference between single sale and subscription can be life or death for a company, its products, and its support. Oh come on. Companies have been in business selling stuff for the longest time. It wasn't exactly wrecking capitalism before subscriptions became the normality in the last decade.

Expectations have increased in multiple dimensions.

1 - Users have been trained by Apple and Google to expect endless upgrades for $2. When I grew up, Eudora, an email client, retailed for $100-ish, with an incremental $50 for ugprades every couple years. You can make a living on the latter pricing, but require hugely popular software for the former.

1a - as software has moved to mobile devices and web, the OS updates more often. ios does annual releases, android does the same, and chrome has a 6-week-ish update cycle. There's simply more thrashing, and it's no longer good enough to ship to a copy of Windows that updates every 4 years.

2 - There is a lot less end-user only software that just runs on a users device. It's far more common for software to require running servers to provide part of the service, and/or to code against apis that regularly change and require ongoing updates.

I'm aware no eng is owed a living, but if they can't make a living, the software becomes unavailable: either not written or not maintained.

see eg Sketch's rationale for not building an ipad app. https://www.designernews.co/comments/173706 quoted in case the link disappears:

> We don't have plans for an iPad pro version at the moment. Yes, it has a beautiful screen, but there's more to consider, such as how to adapt the UI for touch without compromising the experience.

>But the biggest problem is the platform. Apps on iOS sell for unsustainably low prices due to the lack of trials. We cannot port Sketch to the iPad if we have no reasonable expectation of earning back on our investment. Maintaining an application on two different platforms and provide one of them for a 10th of it's value won't work, and iPad volumes are low enough to disqualify the "make it up in volume" argument.

Post reply on HN