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

The Experience Economy

cdixon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: The Experience Economy

#11

Post by demian »

> It is no coincidence that interaction design is replacing technical prowess as the primary competency at startups. People who create great experiences will be the most valuable to startups, and startups that create great experiences will be the most valuable to users.

Interaction design is not replacing technical prowess. Interaction design is actually increasing the need for technical prowess.

Now, creating a product that is technologically funcional and fulfills business needs is not enough. It must also fit with the overall user experience strategy.

Re: The Experience Economy

#12

Post by apinstein »

ajessup wrote: post #10

I like Chris' writing, but putting aside from the (pretty > prowess)? argument, I don't feel he has correctly mapped cause to effect here. The reason that UX has become more critical for certain classes of software is because (a) consumers rather than business have become the predominant driver of spending for desktop computers over the last 15 years, and (b) because the web and app stores removed distribution and sa…

In Crossing the Chasm, Geoffrey Moore elucidates the critical fact that when selling a product whose economic buyer and end user are not the same person, you must sell differently to succeed. He is right and there's a reason that book is like a bible for tech entrepreneurs.

That said, this fact of life when selling to enterprises is what caused me to permanently exit the enterprise software space. Success requires you to make crappy software.

Fortunately the SaaS-ification of enterprise has allowed the enterprise world to mitigate this problem by allowing the actual end users of products to also be the economic buyer through their monthly budget.

I consider SaaS delivery to be a wonderful financial innovation. I agree with parent that this change isn't due to macro changes in buyers but rather innovations in pricing and channel which align incentives in a positive way.

I encourage all of us HN'ers to continually challenge ourselves to find innovative ways to align incentives for maximum value creation. It's good for society and tends to be even better for profits.

Re: The Experience Economy

#13

Post by moocow01 »

I think there is a valid argument somewhere here but a lot of the points are based on things that can not be taken as fact. For example, the point about people moving to urban cores is a story that has been reiterated by just about every city mayor but when looking at statistics its not entirely clear that that is what is actually occurring... in fact it seems it may be the opposite http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0406jkwc.html

Re: The Experience Economy

#14

Post by [deleted] »

benatkin wrote: post #5

This blog post seems a bit lazy, and lacking in true references (a link is better than nothing but still isn't a great way to cite a source). It raises a good point, but I'd much rather read an article or book that used proper references and made a stronger point. I think the book that kawera linked to might do that.

[deleted]

Re: The Experience Economy

#16

Post by charlieflowers »

Here's the honest reaction my brain had as I read the article: "What a load of horseshit."

I wanted to write something much more civil and detailed about why I think the article is weak. But then I realized there's a lot of value in just sharing the honest, immediate gut reaction. Yes, it's harsh, but you don't often get that kind of honesty.

(And I am aware of the studies that show experiences make us happier than things -- and I agree with them. That's not where the horseshit is).

Re: The Experience Economy

#17

Post by ojbyrne »

The whole first paragraph purports to describe the "developed world," after wwII then proceeds to describe conditions specific to the US. Britain, for example, had food rationing until 1954.

Re: The Experience Economy

#18

Post by redwood »

ojbyrne wrote: post #17

The whole first paragraph purports to describe the "developed world," after wwII then proceeds to describe conditions specific to the US. Britain, for example, had food rationing until 1954.

Great point... 5 billion people are awaiting the products economy

Re: The Experience Economy

#19

Post by twelvechairs »

moocow01 wrote: post #13

I think there is a valid argument somewhere here but a lot of the points are based on things that can not be taken as fact. For example, the point about people moving to urban cores is a story that has been reiterated by just about every city mayor but when looking at statistics its not entirely clear that that is what is actually occurring... in fact it seems it may be the opposite http://www.city-journal.org/2011/e…

Your link skirts the issue somewhat (though so does the OP).

The real change that has taken place in cities has not been 'more people in the [designated 100 years ago] city area'. It would be pretty much impossible for most of New York city's 'growth' to happen in the city area (at least, without removing planning regulations entirely). Demand is going up massively though. The inner-city 'slums' of the 20thC are very definitely not coming back and have been replaced by areas of affluence, which are pretty unaffordable to live in for most of the population.

The suburbs are changing too. People are using 'local centres' more, and paying more to be close to a nice one. So even the suburbs are less 'suburban' than they used to be.

Re: The Experience Economy

#20

Post by plessthanpt05 »

point taken, though to say,

"The emphasis on experiences also helps explain other large trends like the migration to cities. Cities have always offered the trade-off of fewer goods and less space in exchange for better experiences."

...is just false & i certainly don't agree with this assertion -- to each is own, but i live in a small town in the mountains and it's pretty rad. i love city life just the same, but the reason most people have moved to cities is because that's where higher paying jobs typically are located. this essay makes way too many assumptions.

Post reply on HN