←back to thread

1525 points saeedesmaili | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
cjs_ac ◴[] No.43652999[source]
For any given thing or category of thing, a tiny minority of the human population will be enthusiasts of that thing, but those enthusiasts will have an outsize effect in determining everyone else's taste for that thing. For example, very few people have any real interest in driving a car at 200 MPH, but Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Porsches are widely understood as desirable cars, because the people who are into cars like those marques.

If you're designing a consumer-oriented web service like Netflix or Spotify or Instagram, you will probably add in some user analytics service, and use the insights from that analysis to inform future development. However, that analysis will aggregate its results over all your users, and won't pick out the enthusiasts, who will shape discourse and public opinion about your service. Consequently, your results will be dominated by people who don't really have an opinion, and just take whatever they're given.

Think about web browsers. The first popular browser was Netscape Navigator; then, Internet Explorer came onto the scene. Mozilla Firefox clawed back a fair chunk of market share, and then Google Chrome came along and ate everyone's lunch. In all of these changes, most of the userbase didn't really care what browser they were using: the change was driven by enthusiasts recommending the latest and greatest to their less-technically-inclined friends and family.

So if you develop your product by following your analytics, you'll inevitably converge on something that just shoves content into the faces of an indiscriminating userbase, because that's what the median user of any given service wants. (This isn't to say that most people are tasteless blobs; I think everyone is a connoisseur of something, it's just that for any given individual, that something probably isn't your product.) But who knows - maybe that really is the most profitable way to run a tech business.

replies(43): >>43653102 #>>43653133 #>>43653161 #>>43653213 #>>43653214 #>>43653232 #>>43653255 #>>43653258 #>>43653326 #>>43653448 #>>43653455 #>>43653565 #>>43653604 #>>43653636 #>>43653811 #>>43653827 #>>43653845 #>>43654022 #>>43654156 #>>43654245 #>>43654301 #>>43654312 #>>43654338 #>>43654357 #>>43654677 #>>43654723 #>>43655344 #>>43655627 #>>43655701 #>>43655913 #>>43656046 #>>43656072 #>>43656178 #>>43656340 #>>43656803 #>>43657011 #>>43657050 #>>43657261 #>>43657715 #>>43663848 #>>43664249 #>>43668575 #>>43680835 #
1. tlogan ◴[] No.43653565[source]
> But who knows - maybe that really

> is the most profitable way to run a tech business.

Yes, I agree. This does seem to be the most profitable model for running a tech business: maximizing user engagement or increasing the time users spend on the platform. Whether that’s achieved through intentionally convoluted UI or by aggressively surfacing certain content, the end goal remains the same.

That said, I don’t think there’s much room left for significant innovation in video streaming interfaces. The core challenge continues to be content — whoever offers the best or most compelling library wins. UI changes might tweak engagement metrics by a few percentage points, but they’re marginal compared to the impact of strong content.

At the end of the day, if there’s a great movie or series to watch, people will show up. If the content isn’t there, no amount of clever interface design will convince someone to spend 30 minutes on something they’re not actually interested in.