Users hate change • Hacker News Board

Re: Users hate change

#231

Post by jeremyjh » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #129

jeremyjh wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was never an issue because in the old model you only provide support for one year, and sell an annual maintenance plan at 20% of original price to continue it.

People balked at that too, though. It was widely perceived as a "money milking" scheme.

Consumers complained, sure but most businesses understand that it costs money to provide services. If a software vendor had no plan for funding maintenance that would be perceived as a supplier risk because it’s unsustainable.

Re: Users hate change

#232

Post by mrob » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #177

nofunsir wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Or more charitably, the life of light bulbs was artificially shortened to avoid a race to the bottom with long-lasting but inefficient bulbs. Hot-running incandescent bulbs emit more of their radiation in the visible spectrum instead of infrared, but they burn out quicker. Colder-running light bulbs last longer, and that's obvious to consumers, but power bills aren't itemized so they're less likely to notice the wasted energy. The actions of the Phoebus cartel were arguable in the interests of consumers.

Re: Users hate change

#233

Post by skybrian » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

This is why products are different than services. You don't own a service, and if they want to change it, that's their business.

Re: Users hate change

#234

Post by Zenst » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

I know I hate change, though some changes that I loath initially, can and do grow on me. Though there are always some that do not. But as a whole, most change is good. Just that initial impact and we go from an autonomous interaction from various queues to having a new layout, sequence, feature or even font. Those put us off out pace and for want of another way of putting it - mess with your mojo. Over time, we adjust, some changes quicker than others, other changes take longer. Few never at all take. But then we all have those, and if enough users still dislike those changes, they tend to get rolled-back, but not all.

I will also add another tangent to this:

We tend to overlike change we create or instigate.

Re: Users hate change

#235

Post by baybal2 » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

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…

> Instead of really improving the product, features become checkboxes on the roadmap. Which eventually results in degrading the quality of the product, it becomes bloated, the UX becomes confusing (especially to new users), and existing features start to suffer because the "maintenance surface" becomes bigger and bigger

I side with you 100% on that

The meme about software being an act of non-stop bicycle reinvention has never been more true to life than it is now

Re: Users hate change

#236

Post by lonelappde » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

nofunsir wrote: post #207

ken wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that revenue stream ends before the "fix bugs and improve performance" step. People buy based on screenshots/demos/trials/reviews, and those don't expose the deep bugs you run into 3 months later when doing real work. Shovels break, light bulbs burn out. Then you go buy another one, and there's a good chance it's better than the earlier one. The manufacturer keeps working to improve the quality, and people kee…

"Buy a software" is vastly different from "Buy a software license" Problem being, makers are now prohibiting you from owning your . From fixing your . From changing your so you don't need to buy . Now with forced updates, you're now literally prohibited from keeping the shovel you have and like!

You are using as though you haven't noticed the physical product companies are all racing to lock up their products in rent-seeking license agreements.

Re: Users hate change

#237

Post by la_barba » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 10:47 PM UTC

iguy wrote: post #227

la_barba wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I could sell it on my website and keep 100% of the sales? Modern operating systems seem to think any binary is malware these days. Windows ads a NTFS metadata tag to any file thats downloaded online and will throw up scary looking warnings when you try to run it. And the security folks spent years writing columns telling people not to download "random" binaries from the internet. So now we download "random" bin…

Maybe I the buyer am willing to pay 150% in the store compared to on your website. I need to find my credit card, to trust one more random website with it... I have certainly decided not to buy things for this reason. And if I don't know too much about you, then I'll take all the sandboxing I can get, and happily pay a premium for that too. And of course you only get 100% if you have zero fraud, zero hassles, no fees…

Fair enough, yes the convenience factor can drive more sales which is mutually beneficial, I'll give you that. But the OS can still put you in control and let you run things inside a sandbox. Its the 30% money grab that I was complaining about because the app store provides no assurances on anything, and so we are pretty much back to square one. Its still a "random" binary off the internet. And for a basic sanity check, you can scan the hash to determine if its a known malware.

I think its just the same bullshit as Walmart and Target selling toxic toys and then shifting blame onto the original supplier. Not sure what happened to the lawsuit though..

Agree to your second point on fraud/hassles,etc...

Re: Users hate change

#238

Post by lonelappde » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 10:48 PM UTC

WA wrote: post #210

nofunsir wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

This is a bit naive. Software and especially apps these days are more a stream of updates (like Netflix) than a v1.0 you buy once. Updates are expected from users (and app stores). Example: A customer bought your app on iOS 9. It worked perfectly fine. You wrote it once, because you couldn’t expect more revenue from existing customers. It stopped working on iOS 11, because 32-bit support was ended on Apple’s side. Of…

What's wrong with charging for upgrades? I buy a computer with Mac 9 and some programs, and when I want Mac 10. I buy upgrades.

Re: Users hate change

#239

Post by brianpgordon » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 10:49 PM UTC

infinity0 wrote: post #116

At Google years ago, the UX designers coined the term "change aversion" and used it in exactly this arrogant way that this article is talking about. They even used this concept to dismiss the empirical results of UX experiments that they themselves conducted with regular users, that indicated this effect. Lol how do I science? This resulted in lots of internal memes mocking these UX designers. Totally agree with ever…

Does anyone know if this organizational dissonance still exists at Google? I'd really like to think that there are Googlers on the inside who appropriately appalled by GMail. With the latest redesign I literally decided that it was worth $5/mo of my money to pay Fastmail so that I wouldn't have to endure GMail anymore.

Re: Users hate change

#240

Post by brianpgordon » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 10:51 PM UTC

qrbLPHiKpiux wrote: post #2

I did not like the change from old reddit to new reddit. Remember Digg v 1.0 to 2.0 and how it made it sink?

You can still run old Reddit! It works the same as always. Props to them for acknowledging the cantankerousness of their older users and continuing to support the classic design. I think Reddit would implode with nerd rage if they just dropped it given the state of the new design a couple of years ago.