Live data from Hacker News

Make product worse, get money

dynomight.net

41–50 of 176 posts

Re: Make product worse, get money

#41
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The perfect information consumer knows Tik Tok doom scrolling, while pleasurable in the short term, actually hurts them in the long term, so that is, of course, a very unpopular application.

I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

I think they are making a point about how very few, if any, consumers have "perfect information". I'm _guessing_ they are trying to say that even if you have a better product it doesn't matter but I'm not 100% sure and I'm not completely sure on how that fits in with your original comment. Maybe saying that even if you optimize for safety that people won't take that into account?

Their comment itself is making a sarcastic statement about how few consumers there are with "perfect information" given TikTok's user-base (the same could be said for Temu or even Amazon). To be fair, I agree with their statement by itself, I'm having more trouble fitting its message into this thread.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#42
post #5

>Cars: “The thing about automakers is that making cars safe is expensive. So they have an incentive to make unsafe cars.” It took a lot of wrangling to get them to be safe. They were coffins on wheels for decades.

And yet, car companies are still incentivized to make unsafe cars, at least in the US.

Bigger vehicles are more profitable, easier to advertise (for features and/or as a status symbol), suffer less emissions regulation. They also are more likely to kill pedestrians or occupants of other cars, and do significantly more damage to anything else they hit.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People are explicitly not buying Tesla because of Musk and his politics. What do you call that if not a boycott?

Re: Make product worse, get money

#44
> it’s why Subway sandwiches are so soggy

I have NEVER had any such problem. Subway puts what you want on the sandwich. You tell them directly. You watch them make it. If you ask for soggy things on your sandwich, it will be soggy.

I do not ask for soggy things on my sandwich. That is why I have never eaten a soggy subway sandwich, EVER.

I did have a fairly loud argument with one - only one - of their sandwich artists ONCE, who refused to microwave the bacon (add bacon to any sandwich for $0.50) before putting it on sandwich, per STANDARD SUBWAY PRACTICE. I finally walked out on the dirty bastard, but I did not file a formal complaint with Subway mgmt. I am a busy person. Maybe next time. Perhaps the sandwich would've also been soggy, had I agreed to uncooked bacon, which I will NEVER do, but I don't know why that would make it soggier.

But I digress: Soggy sandwiches have specific reasons. Wanting a cheaper sandwich is not one of them. Bacon will make your sandwich slightly crispier, if that helps. It also tastes EXCELLENT.

EDIT: To be clear, it is important to be SPECIFIC about how much of something you want. The average sandwich artist has a tendency to dump the contents of an entire bottle of a given condiment on your sandwich, which I admit, could cause sogginess. This is because they think they are doing you a favor. I often use bold & dramatic hand gestures while bent over slightly, face pressed against the glass enclosure of the sandwich-making zone. "STOP! RIGHT THERE!" I will yell, several times, if necessary. Then again, I assume everyone knows this. Or else now you do.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#45
post #9

>Why doesn’t someone else create a competing app that’s better and thereby steal all their business? How do I know if the competing app is actually better? I mean, this was the advertising angle for eHarmony about a decade ago - that it was much better than competitors at actually turning matches into marriages. But this claim was found to be misleading, and they were advised to stop using it. Could a potential custo…

This is addressed in the "information asymmetry" section of the article.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#46
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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...

Sure, it is going up. For now.

And the die-hards will put up with just about anything. But not everyone is a diehard. On the margin, people who might have watched the game some night will find it too much of a hassle or expense and skip it. And if they do so enough times, they'll get into other patterns and stop caring as much about the team, or the sport, and so on.

What we're talking about here is elasticity of demand. For some people and some things, the short-term demand is very inelastic. But in the long term, it's not. And maybe the people making these decisions have better models of that than I do and they're going to continue to raise revenue with customer-hostile choices. But maybe they just don't care what happens past the next quarter or two and years or decades from now it will be clear they fucked up.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#48
>Why doesn’t someone else create a competing app that’s better and thereby steal all their business?

Oh, they do. But Match Groups buys it and either:

a) they get to cover certain niche of the market they weren't monetizing (Indiamatch, Chispa, Ldsplanet...)

b) they leave it to die so people move to other apps (Like OKCupid, the only app I know that has less features with every update)

Just check their brands [0]: Match, Tinder, Hinge, OKCupid, Plenty of fish, Our time, The League...

--

  0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group#Dating_services_owned

Re: Make product worse, get money

#49

> 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…

I would add that there is psychology at play as well. Someone might scoff at a $200 ticket, thinking it's ridiculous to pay that much, even if you could then eat at the venue for $20.

But they'll pay $100 for a ticket, feeling it's reasonable, and then end spending $120 on concessions and beer anyway. The smells, sights, atmosphere and wanting to "just enjoy it" are compelling forces to reach for your wallet IMHO.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#50
Regarding dating apps, anyone participating should look up the old OKCupid blog posts. The guys who launched OKCupid were data nerds and they published some scathing conclusions. Oddly enough, those posts were taken down right after Match.com bought them.

I've read that Japanese companies focus on making great products and diversifying in order to expand. This is why Yamaha, for example, makes pianos and motorcycles. I believe that American companies hyper-focus on particular markets and try to squeeze every penny that they can out of them. Combined with the short-sightedness of quarterly targets and a lack of competition through things like regulatory capture, there's less incentive to create great products.

Post reply on HN