381–390 of 495 posts
You, as a user of a dating app, are forever in a Nash Equilibrium with the dating app. When you find the love of your life, you delete the app forever. Therefore, everything the app does to help you find that person works directly against their own goals (user growth, “engagement”. subscriptions).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im tempted to make a service where you "deposit" some fee to subscribe, I then return part of the deposit to you on a monthly basis UNTIL you find a match on the site. If/once you find a match, I keep the rest. That should align goals for both the company and the partner seeker. EDIT: I'll be getting interest from the remainder your payment every month, as part of my profit scheme.
I like the alignment of incentives here, but "match" would have to be defined better. If it's a literal match (mutual like) it would effectively be a per-pay-like and wouldn't work. Maybe something along the lines of "matched, chatted, met, stopped using the app for X period of time"?
For every month that you use the app to a certain degree (number of viewed profiles, page loads or whatnot) I will give you back 1/nth (1/12th) of your deposit. If you don't use it enough, then I'll "keep" that month's budget as a subscription payment. The idea is that once you match with someone, you will stop using the app, and the rest of the money will slowly go to me.
I am convinced it could be a good model, of course as with everything, there are several things to be solved before making it a sound business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why was OP flagged and mass reported? You had a sensible reply but now most can’t even see the discussion. Dang really needs to get this place back on track
It's back now, so I think it shows the system working. Controversial posts like this one used to just die and disappear forever but now with "vouch" option some things deserving come back to life. Not perfect obviously, but on the right track IMHO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve been married since before Tinder so never used it. But I think the “Dating App problem” is something of a head scratcher. The reason the apps all have problems is because Dating is the problem. It’s hard. Always has been. Finding a lifelong partner, very hard. I might be wrong but these types of conversations about how bad the apps are make me think y’all are expecting some sort of technological easy button. It…
The problem is not dating, the problem is visibility. If you have tons of dates with tons of people you'll end up with someone who aligns with you (also will help you to learn what you really like) but these apps, as funny as it sounds, make you invisible by oversaturation. The amount of people is so huge that you spend less than a few seconds to decide if you want to match or not with someone and you never know abou…
The fact it’s a dating app, just means you have some expectations. You expect you may get a date. But you may not. You expect those other people are real profiles. They may not be. You expect those people that you do match with actual intend to have a conversation/go on a date. They may not have that intention.
If I’ve learned anything from the younger-than-me generations, they like having Likes. It’s attention. It’s meaningless by most measures but gives them some endorphins or something. I’ll probably never get it fully but I can completely see how people would have a Tinder profile for no reason other than to get a confidence boost when they got a Like/Match. I realize that’s a broad stoke but I continue to observe it over and over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always wondered if online dating selects HARD (relatively to in-person invites) for looks. I don't look very pretty but when I was on the (IRL) dating scene I could get probably half the women I talked to out on a date if I really tried. Being fairly ugly I tried tender and OkCupid for a year or two and was lucky to have someone accept once every few months and I had a 100% no-show rate where the counterparty ba…
For men it selects hard for height. Looks are secondary if you pass the magic threshold.
I don't get it. Why does no government anywhere run a non-profit dating site from tax-payer money when this is becoming the most popular way people are meeting? All the options people have are using toxic apps which entire business model is to undermine the self-esteem of young men and scamming them out of their money. And then people wonder where the mental health problems and mass shootings come from. I really don'…
> Why does no government anywhere run a non-profit dating site from tax-payer money Because its outside the scope & role of the government? > I really don't understand how this stuff is still not regulated anywhere This is a common theme I see in alot of discussions about everything. Do not confuse regulation with enforcement. Any regulation that is not enforced is useless, or it is used selectively (a.k.a "corruptio…
I don't get it. Why does no government anywhere run a non-profit dating site from tax-payer money when this is becoming the most popular way people are meeting? All the options people have are using toxic apps which entire business model is to undermine the self-esteem of young men and scamming them out of their money. And then people wonder where the mental health problems and mass shootings come from. I really don'…
Well how about we start a non-profit dating app? I was just wondering how much it could cost to run the backend with todays cloud services. With what Tinder is charging for boosts and subscriptions I feel like they're raking it in. But I've never developed and deployed a fully cloud based app, just used a bunch of their services off and on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder if there is an alternative business model which would put users and the business on the same side. Hookup apps. Apps for non-monogamous people. You're looking for repeat customers. The only other way is paying when the couple gets into something long-term, but the fee would probably be higher than people want.
Heterosexual non-monogamy is difficult for those people who aren't, let's say, conventionally attractive. The people I knew who could pull it off didn't really need an app!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds good in theory, but consider two dating apps: one with hockey stick user growth and high retention, and another with stagnant growth but high user churn. Which one would get the VC dollars? The story you tell would present itself in metrics as the latter app (high churn).
This here is the crux of the problem: approaching everything with the "would someone think of the VCs" mindset. Can we for once build something good and useful, and leave the greedy gamblers out of it?