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

Make product worse, get money

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 176 posts

Re: Make product worse, get money

#31

Post by projektfu »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #13
Analemma_ wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a first approximation, boycotts never work. The concept exists as an opiate and sop make you think you have power as a consumer and that regulations are unnecessary, but it's a mirage.

Tesla sales tell a different story. The people who were all for Tesla are fleeing and when he had his brief moment of MAGA alignment, it didn’t help because most of them didn’t have the money and/or desire to buy an EV. Tesla is having sells issues world wide due to a large part because of Musk. Another recent example how fast Disney turned around and bought Kimmel back after people started cancelling Disney+ subscri…

Tesla is suffering not so much a boycott as a brand failure. The car is sold as a status symbol among a certain group, and they tanked that status. It wasn't a boycott so much as an own goal.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#32

Post by SeanAnderson »

tikhonj wrote: post #16

All of the pizza examples are about reducing cost . The argument about dating apps is about increasing retention . The dynamics are qualitatively different. The argument with pizza is more like "people like salty, fatty food, so pizza places are incentivized to make their pizza less healthy so that people come back more often"... which is exactly what happens! So why doesn't a legitimately healthy restaurant come alo…

> Tinder competes with Tiktok more than it competes with other dating apps.

is a crazy remark, but I think you're right. We're living in weird time!

Re: Make product worse, get money

#33

Post by projektfu »

chankstein38 wrote: post #2

This is why I fail to see the value in boycotts at this point. Anything that I boycott will be cancelled out probably 10 fold by people happy to buy from that place still or just required. Like I'm not willing to pay certain prices for things like I fly less because the experience is worse than it should be, by a lot and I can't handle paying 10x more for the business class option. So I'm just stuck doing it. And the…

The average "boycott" is not even organized, has no particular goal, and is just meant to make the boycotter feel morally superior. I bet Starbucks execs giggle every time they hear about the next boycott. The people calling for the boycott probably haven't been in a Starbucks in 15 years, and they don't have any intention of becoming regular customers if they do.

Thinking of boycotts that have worked in the past, they generally had specific demands and a plan to resume normal consumption when those demands were met. The Gallo wine boycott in the 70s was successful. The workers had a clear case, simple demands, a desire to negotiate, and a call to boycott one specific winery until they came to the table. When they did, the boycott was lifted and the majority of boycotters went back to consuming the wine.

On the other hand, if I decided to boycott Gallo wine, they wouldn't notice, because I don't think I've bought a bottle of Gallo in my life, and I haven't given a good reason to do it for other people to join me.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#34

Post by LorenPechtel »

robrtsql wrote: post #11

I don't think comparing the dating app to a pizza restaurant makes the dating app argument fall apart. The difference is that even a satisfied customer will get hungry again, so it's possible to provide a really good experience and still have that customer come back. A dating app is unique (or, at least in a different category) in that the best possible outcome for the user (assuming monogamy) is that the user delete…

More fundamentally--if a good product keeps a customer coming back for more there's an incentive to provide a good product. If a happy customer doesn't have any reason to come back there's no value in creating a happy customer.

Note that "come back" needs to be interpreted broadly. For example, a Osprey backpack--lifetime warranty against most anything, doesn't look like there's any space for repeat customers. But--those of us who would buy something like that very well might want different sizes. And I would certainly recommend them to others who were in the market for a serious backpack. (And, yes, they do honor the warranty--had a buckle snap, I sent them pictures, they offered to repair it, or ship me the part and I do it myself. Took the latter option, a few days later I had a strap and buckle that I threaded through my pack, good as new other than the color didn't match.)

Re: Make product worse, get money

#35

Post by NebulaStorm456 »

The principal-agent problem is a conflict of interest that occurs when an agent (e.g., an employee) acts on behalf of a principal (e.g., an owner) but pursues their own goals instead of the principal's. This arises from an information asymmetry, where the agent knows more about their actions and their motivations than the principal, and it can lead to agents not acting in the best interest of the principal, even at a cost to the principal.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#36

Post by immibis »

ianferrel wrote: post #24
starkparker wrote: post #17

> Why is food so expensive at sporting events? ... why don’t venues sell water for $2 and raise ticket prices instead? I don’t know. Probably something complicated, like that expensive food allows you to extract extra money from rich people without losing business from non-rich people. Because there's at least two additional parties to concession revenues beyond the venue operator: the home team, who often takes up t…

>Everyone benefits from it except the consumer, who's the only party who can't choose. But of course they can choose. They can choose to not go to those events and venues and do other things with their time. And I expect that pro sports will look back on these moves and realize that they cannibalized their future fan growth for higher revenues today. I go to fewer pro sports games than I might otherwise both because…

This is the same pro sports industry that already stops you watching matches on TV once a week, spreads them over several different streaming platforms so you pay several times, and is currently trying to make it so you can't watch matches on devices that can sideload apps. Apparently, their revenue has only been going up, even with all these shitty things already happening...

Re: Make product worse, get money

#37

Post by CrzyLngPwd »

tikhonj wrote: post #16

All of the pizza examples are about reducing cost . The argument about dating apps is about increasing retention . The dynamics are qualitatively different. The argument with pizza is more like "people like salty, fatty food, so pizza places are incentivized to make their pizza less healthy so that people come back more often"... which is exactly what happens! So why doesn't a legitimately healthy restaurant come alo…

It isn't just restaurants, but also supermarkets.

They don't produce food; they produce shareholder wealth. That's their goal.

Healthy food, grown naturally, not sprayed with chemicals, harvested in the last week, is just not a cost-effective plan for them.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#38

Post by beeflet »

beloch wrote: post #18

Make product worse, get money, go out of business. It's interesting that this article uses the restaurant industry as an example, because it is rife with examples of restaurants that debut to acclaim, enshittify their offerings, and then go out of business as their clientele evaporates. How many software products have gone the same route? How many were initially good, bolted on too many unwanted features, ignored the…

Is google really a monopoly? You can just use another search engine or email provider.

I would say it has a good moat in the minds of consumers, but not a good moat in reality.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#39

Post by vkou »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #37
tikhonj wrote: post #16

All of the pizza examples are about reducing cost . The argument about dating apps is about increasing retention . The dynamics are qualitatively different. The argument with pizza is more like "people like salty, fatty food, so pizza places are incentivized to make their pizza less healthy so that people come back more often"... which is exactly what happens! So why doesn't a legitimately healthy restaurant come alo…

It isn't just restaurants, but also supermarkets. They don't produce food; they produce shareholder wealth. That's their goal. Healthy food, grown naturally, not sprayed with chemicals, harvested in the last week, is just not a cost-effective plan for them.

> Healthy food, grown naturally, not sprayed with chemicals, harvested in the last week, is just not a cost-effective plan for them.

It's also not a cost-effective plan for most shoppers who have enough other expenses in their lives that they can't afford their food doubling in price.

Most of us are stuck in globally-horrible local maximums, and we aren't going to get out of them without some external push.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#40

Post by LorenPechtel »

beloch wrote: post #27
beloch wrote: post #18

Make product worse, get money, go out of business. It's interesting that this article uses the restaurant industry as an example, because it is rife with examples of restaurants that debut to acclaim, enshittify their offerings, and then go out of business as their clientele evaporates. How many software products have gone the same route? How many were initially good, bolted on too many unwanted features, ignored the…

As for dating apps... The great thing about the dating app biz is that the competition is universally awful at providing good matches that lead to long term relationships. The same goes for pro match-makers, speed-dating events, etc.. It's a hard problem to predict what makes two people click together, even if you get them to meet face to face. These companies aren't enshittifying their products to make money. They w…

No. The problem is that catering to the hookup market is more profitable. Any company that actually makes a good dating app gets bought out because their data is worth more than they are. Look at the market, it's actually almost a monopoly last I knew.
Post reply on HN