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

The dating app paradox

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#201

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

margalabargala wrote: post #167
hibikir wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been a lot of discussion about this. My favorite argument there is that there's a big difference between what makes a dating app profitable, and what makes it good at finding people long term relationships. Not unlike how Amazon is far better off showing you ads in a search than giving you the best matching item that you probably want. The features that make an app crappier are what makes it sticky and lucrat…

This actually opens up a lot of opportunities. With the existing hegemony of Match, a new company doesn't actually need to worry about becoming profitable; if they can be good enough at matchmaking that they start to catch on, then they can rely on a buyout from Match. Much like how a decade ago, "getting bought by Google" was the business plan of a lot of companies, many of which did get acquired by google.

This probably works once. I'm sure Match's buyout terms will include a non-compete agreement, so you can't keep repeating this trick until they run out of buyout money.

Re: The dating app paradox

#202

Post by benced »

not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

idk is Bumble a lot better? I don't think it is and now they've added ads that have a timer to skip. The fundamentals of this market makes me think dating apps are destined to be trash.

Re: The dating app paradox

#203

Post by interstice »

not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

Sounds like a whole cottage industry could take advantage of this and repeatedly build competitor apps.

How is this not an issue? Non competes?

Re: The dating app paradox

#204

Post by mattmaroon »

alistairSH wrote: post #72
mattmaroon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, a lot of people are concerned about the low birth rate, and a good online dating app might be helpful. And a not-for-profit model might actually be the best way to accomplish that. I am neither sure that the common claim of why online dating is broken is true, nor that a government-run app is a good idea. Im just sure the “our government is incompetent and corrupt” argument is drastically oversubscribed to. You…

I get the impression the birth rate is a function of cost, not opportunity. Sample bias ahead: My friends are mostly married. Those that have zero or one child did so because of the cost (both in real dollars, opportunity cost, and general pain-in-the-ass of raising children in the US today), not the inability to find a suitable mate.

Well sure, it’s not a total solution by any means, but there are people (including myself) who want kids but never had them because they didn’t find the right person with which to do so.

One only needs to increase the birth rate by about 25% to get back to population growth, so good online dating could probably make a meaningful impact. I am sure things like free health care and child care would be much better but they’d also be much more expensive, a decent online dating app could easily be at least budget neutral.

Re: The dating app paradox

#205

Post by passwordoops »

not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

And you've just described how business works since the 1980s. Welcome to "market efficiency"

Re: The dating app paradox

#206

Post by webel0 »

interstice wrote: post #203
not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

Sounds like a whole cottage industry could take advantage of this and repeatedly build competitor apps. How is this not an issue? Non competes?

A dating app is a two sided market. And those are hard to get going. You need a lot of marketing, for one.

Re: The dating app paradox

#207

Post by passwordoops »

PaulHoule wrote: post #129
not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

They ought to get some kind of restraining order against Match that prevents them from acquiring any more companies.

The laws already exist, and have existed for nearly 100 years. Federal policy has been to ignore them since the 1980s in favor of "efficiency"

Re: The dating app paradox

#208

Post by thriftwy »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #188
skrbjc wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children. It's immensely important for the success of a nation and it's odd that the majority of how people meet now is through data apps and that there is no oversight over these at all. They have every incentive to match you with someone you are more likely to have a short term relationship than match you w…

It is socially corrosive. However, "family values" have traditionally been framed as a conservative value in the USA/UK/AUS at least. So, how do we move "love and human relationships" back into a progressive position in a time when entrenched power profits from lonliness and division?

[flagged]

Re: The dating app paradox

#209

Post by StillBored »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #188
skrbjc wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children. It's immensely important for the success of a nation and it's odd that the majority of how people meet now is through data apps and that there is no oversight over these at all. They have every incentive to match you with someone you are more likely to have a short term relationship than match you w…

It is socially corrosive. However, "family values" have traditionally been framed as a conservative value in the USA/UK/AUS at least. So, how do we move "love and human relationships" back into a progressive position in a time when entrenched power profits from lonliness and division?

Well, in the USA, for the past at least 50 years, "family values" means "fundamentalist Christian" rather than supporting families/childrearing/parenting/etc. This is why "family values" politicians are usually against family leave, prenatal programs, early childhood programs, or well any social programs designed to support poor families

Re: The dating app paradox

#210

Post by lukas099 »

thegrim33 wrote: post #155
not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

In a free market, if such a company's products are crappy, as you propose, then that means there's an opportunity for anyone that wants to make profit to provide an app that isn't crappy; they'd get rewarded for it. The question shouldn't be "how do we stop this company", it should be, "why aren't people providing competing, non-crappy, apps?". Let's fix the root issue rather than proposing regulation to regulate a p…

There is a market failure though. Big apps bought enough competition to reach a critical mass where startups can't overcome the network effect.

Side advice: never use the words "free market" in an argument, you get dismissed immediately because people are instantly compelled to think of reasons that it isn't a free market.

Post reply on HN