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

161–170 of 176 posts

Re: Make product worse, get money

#161

Post by loloquwowndueo »

catigula wrote: post #59
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I constructed a direct falsification of the implicit premise, that capital allocation inherently produces good outcomes for individuals by competing well in the market. Whether or not you agree with my “perfect information” assertion is beside the point, it’s more so the trivial observation that really bad things sell really well.

I guess what’s happening here is that I’m too dumb to understand basically anything you write :( sorry.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#162

Post by lolc »

nirui wrote: post #109
SeanAnderson wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

It's not really that weird. People who uses dating apps are on a very specific mission (to get laid, a.k.a "to meet more interesting people"). They'll optimize their profile to specifically archive that goal. TikTok accepts wider range of interest-based (instead of goal-based) contents, and have much wider demographic spread. On that platform, you show more aspect of you and your life to your viewers, and that create…

I read the comment about Tinder and Tiktok being in competition differently: To me they said that both Tinder and Tiktok are in competition over eyeballs.

Meaning for example that if Tinder shows me profiles I find less attractive, I'm more likely to churn to Tiktok. So Tinder will show me profiles of people I have no hope of meeting, to keep me engaged nonetheless.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#163

Post by Jweb_Guru »

decimalenough wrote: post #87
andriamanitra wrote: post #67

The article misses the most important factor: the customers have no way of knowing they would be getting a better product or extra 25 millimeters of leg room if they paid 3% more. The higher prices could just as well be for completely unrelated reasons (greed, inefficiency, ...). No one is going around measuring and documenting every single difference between products and services, and, even if someone did, almost no…

> Customers have no way of knowing they would be getting a better product or extra 25 millimeters of leg room if they paid 3% more. If you search on Google Flights, the seat pitch is clearly displayed, or you can use third party tools like Seatmaps. But many people use airline sites directly, don't understand or care, or as the article correctly asserts, care more about the price than anything else.

Or maybe consumers do not want to (because it doesn't make economic sense for them, or because they don't want to spend every second of their free time optimizing) spend a significant amount of their time doing this kind of research before every purchase decision? I have never understood this argument that as long as information is technically available companies should be absolved of meeting some minimum level of baseline quality. You're also describing an industry that's unusually transparent (in part because there are not that many models of planes); for a lot of online goods there is absolutely no reasonable way you can know what a particular brand will be like before you buy.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#164

Post by brnaftr361 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #110
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Healthy food, grown naturally, not sprayed with chemicals, harvested in the last week, is just not a cost-effective plan for them. It's not just "not cost-effective", it's not technically feasible. Do you want to grow enough food to feed maybe a couple of dozen people and spend every waking minute doing it, or do you want to scale out to feed everyone including the vast majority of the population who do no useful w…

Not only that but there is no real evidence that organic food is better for you. Even from an environmental perspective the arguments are dubious. The yields on organic food are much lower which means you need more land under production, land that could have been left to the wilderness.

Isn't yield relative? Take a bell pepper for instance, perhaps one grown in x soil another in y, the nutrient contents will vary even if one is clonal.

There have been some rumblings about the nutrient qualities of certain food goods. You also hear about European vs. American vs. garden-grown in terms of qualitative differences. I've even seen it quantitated, indeed there was a documentary surrounding this [0]. There's a researcher that took historical records of micronutrient measures and compared them against modern cultivars, finding a decline in the per-volume contents.

I think it begs several questions about modern practices in agriculture beyond increased volume yield which is too often in the limelight. It just reminds me of Pika, which is associated with micronutrient deficiencies.

[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjAqzam0fU

Re: Make product worse, get money

#166

Post by mettamage »

TechnicolorByte wrote: post #138
mettamage wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other problem is that making a really effective dating app is just hard. It's fundamentally difficult to help people find compatible partners, especially without in-person contact. That's compounded by cultural and demographic issues. It doesn't matter how well your app is designed when there's a massive imbalance in genders! Really true. Most of dating seems to be dominated by that people want to be comfortabl…

Can you expand on what types of uncomfortableness you faced and what you mean by effort (to the point of bewildering people)? Curious what worked for you. Not sure if you just mean you forced yourself to go on a million dates and were super selective.

I think I've met (or trying to meet) 5000 to 10000 women over my lifetime. I've been on 100 dates at least. While I was in relationships, I tried my best and hardest and tried to get it down to a science when the breakup would come as to why that is the case.

Oh, and learning to be playful by unleashing my inner silly goose.

For relationships, what works for me:

* Similar personalities. I can now intuitively see people who have a similar HEXACO to me in 2 minutes. Note, not everyone that has a similar HEXACO to me I can see, but a subset of them. I've never been wrong (I only did this twice). I'm high in openness, and it's easy to see other people high in openness. Then seeing how the other dimensions fall out is quite predictable.

* Same coping style

* Secure attachment style

* Ability to be reasonable, pragmatic and emotionally intelligent in ways that I characterize those terms

Re: Make product worse, get money

#167

Post by mettamage »

perfmode wrote: post #137
mettamage wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other problem is that making a really effective dating app is just hard. It's fundamentally difficult to help people find compatible partners, especially without in-person contact. That's compounded by cultural and demographic issues. It doesn't matter how well your app is designed when there's a massive imbalance in genders! Really true. Most of dating seems to be dominated by that people want to be comfortabl…

How did you meet your wife?

On Tinder, after autoswiping 100k to 200K profiles :')

I wish I had the exact stats but I just got some crappy JS code from some Github website, edited it a bit and within 10 minutes the swiper was swiping. I'd then go meticulously go through every "match" (looking at photo's, reading the bio's, all of it) because if you only have around 250 "matches" each month (for each 50K women I swiped right on auto pilot), you can actually take the time. I unmatched a lot of them and was left with my real matches.

I met her in Valencia. She was on vacation and I was digital nomadding at the time. She asked me on a date and I was really tired and really didn't want to go because of it. But I remember thinking "you have to shoot all your shots and take all your chances." I'm so happy I did, she made me forget I was tired in a heartbeat and we were goofing around for the whole 3 hours, to the point where I realized I hadn't even asked one normal question and didn't know much about her haha (and vice versa). I love conversations like that, just fun vibes.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#168

Post by strken »

nkrisc wrote: post #143
strken wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point was that, yeah, auto manufacturers are incentivised to make unsafe cars...but in real life, they make safe(ish) ones. Pizza restaurants are incentivised to use the cheapest ingredients possible...but in real life, they have stopped somewhere above the absolute lowest quality. How can this be? Pointing out one incentive is not a complete argument without an understanding of the broader dynamics. Auto…

Auto makers make safe(ish) cars because they are legally required to.

That's exactly what I meant when I wrote "Auto manufacturers are incentivised much more strongly and in the opposite direction to make safe(ish) cars".

Out of curiousity, what incentive did you think that sentence meant? Should I have explained exactly which incentives led to airbags and ABS?

Re: Make product worse, get money

#169

Post by sundarurfriend »

mettamage wrote: post #166
TechnicolorByte wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on what types of uncomfortableness you faced and what you mean by effort (to the point of bewildering people)? Curious what worked for you. Not sure if you just mean you forced yourself to go on a million dates and were super selective.

I think I've met (or trying to meet) 5000 to 10000 women over my lifetime. I've been on 100 dates at least. While I was in relationships, I tried my best and hardest and tried to get it down to a science when the breakup would come as to why that is the case. Oh, and learning to be playful by unleashing my inner silly goose. For relationships, what works for me: * Similar personalities. I can now intuitively see peop…

> I can now intuitively see people who have a similar HEXACO to me in 2 minutes.

Is that a good thing in a partner? I can see the case for similar openness, but with extraversion and emotionality, for eg., in my experience you probably want someone on the opposite side of the scale to balance things out and have complementary strengths and weaknesses that make life easier for the both of you.

Re: Make product worse, get money

#170

Post by yen223 »

zahlman wrote: post #74
andriamanitra wrote: post #67

The article misses the most important factor: the customers have no way of knowing they would be getting a better product or extra 25 millimeters of leg room if they paid 3% more. The higher prices could just as well be for completely unrelated reasons (greed, inefficiency, ...). No one is going around measuring and documenting every single difference between products and services, and, even if someone did, almost no…

This is an example of the "information asymmetry" point.

Is it information asymmetry if I only read half the article?
Post reply on HN