The Tyranny of the Marginal User
nothinghuman.substack.com
The Tyranny of the Marginal User
1–10 of 840 posts
Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User
#2[deleted]
Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User
#3I wonder whether the flattening of product depth is a unique founder effect, or is destined to happen due to the eventual formation of monopolies?
Take photo sharing as an example.
Early Flickr was amazing. It had tons of features - great varied groups of all types, a huge licensed image search system, great tags, etc. I joined regional groups, and also criticism groups for street photos, etc. Their comment system wasn't just text, it had annotations and they were doing interesting things with geolocation, too.
Then yahoo killed it and now Instagram rules, with fewer features, more addiction and less depth. Flickr had addiction loops too but that wasn't the main focus.
What causes this shrinking of product space?
Is it that the first companies to get mindshare have more product-exploration power than later entries? So if the early companies are creative, they can expand the product space a lot, and uniquely have time to do so. If so, we can just blame yahoo for ruining Flickr, and they actually had a chance.
Alternatively, maybe at late stages competition is so high you'll always get the extreme focus on the best DAU maximizing loops? And eventual monopoly with a small product.
Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User
#4I would like more info on the factors hinted at in the article:
The effect of buying and closing innovative potential competitors?
Product design distortion due to companies being valued by unreal factors, so most of the market is acting on partly false data (raw MAU rather than sophisticated analysis of likely actually meaningful paying DAU)
Actual errors due to not measuring user sentiment: failing to build long term value since the life cycle of users from new-> user-> advocate -> generational aligned customer is not understood at all. In this thesis, most companies profit model is just wrong on long term time scales. They're actually burning the goodwill of potential dedicated customers in return for flat growth and revenue. This is Google to me; they have no way to detect that I've gone from loving to hating their products over the last ten years, since I spend as much as ever. But I'm looking for any way to jump to another product.
In the end I still don't know. Am I just wrong that Google isn't suffering from me hating them? It feels so true that if they respected power users more it would be so beneficial to them, but in a hard to measure way. Recruiting, advocacy, lobbying, let alone bug fixes, wanting to work there. It could be that the hate they receive doesn't hurt them. But I think a certain type of person will always exist, who wants to love and respect the groups they're associated with, beyond just realized profit. I would jump at the chance to associate with a company which makes 50% as much money as google, but which I can still admire and feel aligned with. And long term it seems people will try to form societies and economies where companies can be viewed as actually aligned. So day to day google does fine, but maybe they're not pricing in the rare negative effects of existing in a less loved state?
Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User
#5I wonder whether the flattening of product depth is a unique founder effect, or is destined to happen due to the eventual formation of monopolies? Take photo sharing as an example. Early Flickr was amazing. It had tons of features - great varied groups of all types, a huge licensed image search system, great tags, etc. I joined regional groups, and also criticism groups for street photos, etc. Their comment system wa…
Are products becoming less sophisticated because users are getting dumber/lazier, or are users getting dumber/lazier because products are becoming less sophisticated?
Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User
#6> Here’s what I’ve been able to piece together about the marginal user. Let’s call him Marl. The first thing you need to know about Marl is that he has the attention span of a goldfish on acid. Once Marl opens your app, you have about 1.3 seconds to catch his attention with a shiny image or triggering headline, otherwise he’ll swipe back to TikTok and never open your app again.
This is hilarious and sad because it feels too accurate. Damnit Marl, please for the sake of us power user minority, please change.
Alternatively and more seriously, I do hope to see markets emerge that target power users. I'm not optimistic though. Open source seems like the only real hope there.
Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User
#7I wonder whether the flattening of product depth is a unique founder effect, or is destined to happen due to the eventual formation of monopolies? Take photo sharing as an example. Early Flickr was amazing. It had tons of features - great varied groups of all types, a huge licensed image search system, great tags, etc. I joined regional groups, and also criticism groups for street photos, etc. Their comment system wa…
It's probably safe to claim that part of it (and what likely killed Flickr) is that the original owners are usually more able to make coherent product features and explorations. They built something in the field because they knew something about the field.
Once they're bought up by some other company, in particular any conglomerate, it gets worked on by a bunch of people who are experts at building products in general, not experts in that product's field. So they naturally try stuff that is less of a fit for the field it was originally targeted at... and potentially a better fit for "can make any money at all", I'm not trying to claim the new owners are all idiots. Just that the driving interests and expertise have shifted from what originally made it compelling, and that'll nearly always become less coherent as a product. At least until they have fully rebuilt it in their image.
And then purchasers in the same field can sometimes escape this "now built by generalists" trap. Sometimes.
Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User
#8> OKCupid, like the other acquisitions of Match.com
The article seems to just glance over this crucial fact.
Online dating sites have gotten worse because the Match Group monopolizes them. There's hardly any competition. Same with Google Search. Monopolies suck. They start out good, in order to attract all of the users, and then once they've acquired all of the users, they turn to unchecked profit maximization and stop caring about the users.
It should be called the tyranny of the monopoly, not the the tyranny of the marginal user.
Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User
#9I wonder whether the flattening of product depth is a unique founder effect, or is destined to happen due to the eventual formation of monopolies? Take photo sharing as an example. Early Flickr was amazing. It had tons of features - great varied groups of all types, a huge licensed image search system, great tags, etc. I joined regional groups, and also criticism groups for street photos, etc. Their comment system wa…
Are products becoming less sophisticated because users are getting dumber/lazier, or are users getting dumber/lazier because products are becoming less sophisticated?
IMHO it's both. There will always be the possiblity of gaining more users by dumbing down the app, but the more things dumb down in general the dumber people get. It's a positive feedback loop.
Re: The Tyranny of the Marginal User
#10> Here’s what I’ve been able to piece together about the marginal user. Let’s call him Marl. The first thing you need to know about Marl is that he has the attention span of a goldfish on acid. Once Marl opens your app, you have about 1.3 seconds to catch his attention with a shiny image or triggering headline, otherwise he’ll swipe back to TikTok and never open your app again. This is hilarious and sad because it fe…
> We’ve all been Marl at one time or another - half consciously scrolling in bed, in line at the airport with the announcements blaring, reflexively opening our phones to distract ourselves from a painful memory.