Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny because Word 6 is often praised as perfect balance. Or maybe I read wrong
Users were unhappy when it came out.
That's because they couldn't think how worse it would be
Users hate change
211–220 of 315 posts
Re: Users hate change
#212Two related stories. At one point way back in the day, eBay wanted to change the background color of the main page from yellow to white. They didn't just make the change one day, instead they slowly changed the hex code every couple of days so the change was gradual. When it was complete, some people would say stuff like, "Hey, didn't the background used to be yellow, when did that change?". When I worked at reddit I…
Wow. From where I'm sitting it seems like Reddit went to the ends of the earth to make users happy during periods of change, and wound up with a prevailingly negative reputation (in its own community) for its efforts. Was that the impression internally as well?
Hah. Yes, we felt the same. We would make every effort to make change painless, and people would complain violently. It didn't help that our website was the perfect platform for complaining about change to your favorite website.
But at the end of the day we knew it was usually just a vocal minority, and when that wasn't the case, we would roll the changes back or make further changes to address feedback.
Over time we learned it was better to release new stuff as beta and let people self select if they want to use it (hence the continued existence of old.reddit.com).
Re: Users hate change
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Subscription model is actually way better if you don't want to end up with feature bloat. Because you actually get money from users even if you only ever fix bugs and improve performance. If you freeze your features you will soon arrive at a point where everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops.
"everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops." That's... how it should work. You don't get to hook into their wallets for time and all eternity. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. ... and then you go do something else! That is the prec…
Only open source allows for this by default.
Re: Users hate change
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, I’m totally against subscription software because I resent having to pay again and again for the same product just to be able to use it a month later. What ever happened to making a product, selling it once to the customer, who then gets to use it as they wish for as long as it works? Why does everything have to be a recurring revenue stream? Because you have software engineers who need something t…
Honestly? Because no software is free from bugs and there will always be a need for support. The difference between single sale and subscription can be life or death for a company, its products, and its support. But if you don't feel that a subscription to a service adds value, please don't buy it and voice your concern to the developers. Especially if they're a small shop. That said, subscriptions can be canceled. F…
I bought Office 2007 around the time of its release because a client didn't like whatever word processor I was using. I've used Office 2007 ever since and absolutely have no need for any feature additions. And there were no bugs that affected my use. Why would I subscribe to the current overly bloated Office? Why should I?
Re: Users hate change
#215My pet theory is that every software product has a "peak version". Before that peak version, the product is not yet in a complete state, and it is fairly obvious, both for the developer and user, what features are missing. Once the peak version is reached, new features are not added because they improve the product, but to justify selling the product again to existing customers, and to 'keep the team busy'. Instead o…
Subscription model is actually way better if you don't want to end up with feature bloat. Because you actually get money from users even if you only ever fix bugs and improve performance. If you freeze your features you will soon arrive at a point where everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops.
SaaS means all customers get our new features and on our schedule, not theirs (note: we sell a SaaS). We would never freeze an old "version" because that would cost us too much to maintain (edit: we do freeze in short term, we don't in long term).
We still add "bloat" features because we are trying to sell to new customers. On the flip side, customers do get new features that are useful to them without the price of their subscription changing.
If we froze features, and only fixed bugs (and browser compatibility), customers would eventually drift away over the long term because they do need some new features.
Re: Users hate change
#216My pet theory is that every software product has a "peak version". Before that peak version, the product is not yet in a complete state, and it is fairly obvious, both for the developer and user, what features are missing. Once the peak version is reached, new features are not added because they improve the product, but to justify selling the product again to existing customers, and to 'keep the team busy'. Instead o…
[deleted]
Re: Users hate change
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The difference between single sale and subscription can be life or death for a company, its products, and its support. Oh come on. Companies have been in business selling stuff for the longest time. It wasn't exactly wrecking capitalism before subscriptions became the normality in the last decade.
It's been wrecking software companies for decades. Name one consumer software company from the 1980's that still exists, besides Microsoft. In software, monopolies, consolidation, and integration are the name of the game. In contrast, I can easily name dozens of companies in other fields that have been around for 50 years or more, including some small ones that have stayed small yet successful.
Gimpel Software [0] (PC Lint) has been around since 1984 or so they claim.
Lugaru Software [1] (Epsilon Editor) has been around since 1984
There are more but...
Re: Users hate change
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
"everybody who wanted your software bought it and then the revenue stops." That's... how it should work. You don't get to hook into their wallets for time and all eternity. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. everybody who wanted your bought it and then the revenue stops. ... and then you go do something else! That is the prec…
Except that revenue stream ends before the "fix bugs and improve performance" step. People buy based on screenshots/demos/trials/reviews, and those don't expose the deep bugs you run into 3 months later when doing real work. Shovels break, light bulbs burn out. Then you go buy another one, and there's a good chance it's better than the earlier one. The manufacturer keeps working to improve the quality, and people kee…
> Shovels break, light bulbs burn out. Then you go buy another one, and there's a good chance it's better than the earlier one.
Not in my experience. Almost always the new ones are improved only in one respect: profitability. Generally this means they have used cheaper components, lowered the cost a bit, and made an inferior product. Ok. End of tangent.
Re: Users hate change
#219Two related stories. At one point way back in the day, eBay wanted to change the background color of the main page from yellow to white. They didn't just make the change one day, instead they slowly changed the hex code every couple of days so the change was gradual. When it was complete, some people would say stuff like, "Hey, didn't the background used to be yellow, when did that change?". When I worked at reddit I…
Wow. From where I'm sitting it seems like Reddit went to the ends of the earth to make users happy during periods of change, and wound up with a prevailingly negative reputation (in its own community) for its efforts. Was that the impression internally as well?
Reddit's UX was perfect from a (my) user point of view in like 2011. Everything added or changed since then has been either unnecessary stuff that nobody asked for, adding social network features that aren't what reddit was originally meant for, or a way to better serve ads.
The only thing reddit needed was to improve the mobile experience, which they kinda did, except they have tons of annoying dark patterns in it to push you towards the app.
Re: Users hate change
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To me, it feels like the author is incapable of empathising with a larger user base than himself and only thinks about his benefit and how the changes affect him and how he uses the product. I disagree. "Users hate change" is a meme that's generally accepted in the industry; the post applies empathy to dig into the reasons why it seems that "users hate change". > Customers have the ultimate power: voting with their…
"Users hate change" is it a meme? If your favorite what ever changed, do you like it? Or do you immediately go what is this? Regardless if it was good/needed. There is obvious parts where a change may be good or needed, and those are easier to accept. But if you deem X to be good enough does a change that increases the ability to do Y speed by like 5% really matter if it changes everything. No. "Voting with your wall…
"Voting with your wallet" always matters. Doesn't matter if it's free or not. It always matters.
Do you understand how discouraging the network effect is on free products? Any social media app that breaks out is quickly bought by the big players and they reset the score again.