←back to thread

721 points ralusek | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ryandrake ◴[] No.41870217[source]
I'm making some big assumptions about Adobe's product ideation process, but: This seems like the "right" way to approach developing AI products: Find a user need that can't easily be solved with traditional methods and algorithms, decide that AI is appropriate for that thing, and then build an AI system to solve it.

Rather than what many BigTech companies are currently doing: "Wall Street says we need to 'Use AI Somehow'. Let's invest in AI and Find Things To Do with AI. Later, we'll worry about somehow matching these things with user needs."

replies(15): >>41870304 #>>41870341 #>>41870369 #>>41870422 #>>41870672 #>>41870780 #>>41870851 #>>41870929 #>>41871322 #>>41871724 #>>41871915 #>>41871961 #>>41872523 #>>41872850 #>>41873162 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.41870929[source]
This feels extremely ungenerous to the Big Tech companies.

What's wrong with trying out 100 different AI features across your product suite, and then seeing which ones "stick"? You figure out the 10 that users find really valuable, another 10 that will be super-valuable with improvement, and eventually drop the other 80.

Especially when if Microsoft tries something and Google doesn't, that suddenly gives Microsoft a huge lead in a particular product, and Google is left behind because they didn't experiment enough. Because you're right -- Google investors wouldn't like that, and would be totally justified.

The fact is, it's often hard to tell which features users will find valuable in advance. And when being 6 or 12 months late to the party can be the difference between your product maintaining its competitive lead vs. going the way of WordPerfect or Lotus 123 -- then the smart, rational, strategic thing to do is to build as many features as possible around the technology, and then see what works.

I would suggest that if Adobe is being slower with rolling out AI features, it might be more because of their extreme monopoly position in a lot of their products, thanks to the stickiness of their file formats. That they simply don't need to compete as much, which is bad.

replies(4): >>41870984 #>>41871014 #>>41871026 #>>41871104 #
coliveira ◴[] No.41871014[source]
So it's ok for all of us to become lab rats for these companies?
replies(1): >>41871041 #
1. crazygringo ◴[] No.41871041[source]
Every consumer is a "lab rat" for every company at all times, if that's how you want to think about it.

Each of our decisions to buy or not buy a product, to use or not use a feature, influences the future design of our products.

And thank goodness, because that's the process by which products improve. It's capitalism at work.

Mature technologies don't need as much experimentation because they're mature. But whenever you get new technologies, yes all these new applications battle each other out in the market in a kind of survival-of-the-fittest. If you want to call consumers "lab rats", I guess that's your choice.

But the point is -- yes, it's not only OK -- it's something to be celebrated!

replies(1): >>41873522 #
2. coliveira ◴[] No.41873522[source]
You might be ok with being a lab rat, but most people are not. People buy products to satisfy their needs, not to participate in somebody else's experiment. Given the option (in the absence of monopoly) they will search for another company that treats them correctly.
replies(1): >>41875198 #
3. jryle70 ◴[] No.41875198[source]
> People buy products to satisfy their needs

People buy products for the novelty all the time. Sometimes they are disappointed with what they got, sometimes they discover new things. Take this very feature being discussed. How many people need it if Adobe released it today? How many would like what they see and decide to buy or renew?

> Given the option (in the absence of monopoly) they will search for another company that treats them correctly.

Are we still talking about product features?