[HN Gopher] Want a killer product? Become more opinionated
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Want a killer product? Become more opinionated
        
       Author : adilaijaz
       Score  : 249 points
       Date   : 2021-06-02 20:47 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (adilaijaz.medium.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (adilaijaz.medium.com)
        
       | some1else wrote:
       | Regarding the "paste without formatting by default" opinion:
       | 
       | - Pasting a body of text with multiple headlines between two
       | documents would require using a special paste command that
       | explicitly preserves formatting.
       | 
       | - Some benefits of "convention over configuration" are only
       | present if you stick to your existing conventions. Millions of
       | people are already used to explicitly pasting without formatting.
       | 
       | Other remarks:
       | 
       | - Opinions need to be informed by facts and customer-facing
       | research.
       | 
       | - There is room for divergent (Yes AND) thinking, as well as
       | convergent (Just say no) thinking in product design. See "Double
       | Diamond"[1].
       | 
       | 1:
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Diamond_(design_process...
        
         | hexa22 wrote:
         | There are certainly two use cases here. One is pasting complex
         | blocks where you want the whole thing to copy over. And the
         | other is copying text out of an email or website where you want
         | it treated as dumb text.
         | 
         | Word actually offers a solution with the "paste without
         | formatting" but it's lost behind the million features of word.
        
           | some1else wrote:
           | > Word actually offers a solution with the "paste without
           | formatting" but it's lost behind the million features of
           | word.
           | 
           | Yes. The Tweet was advocating for making that the default
           | paste logic.
        
         | HermanMartinus wrote:
         | As an anecdote, Bear Blog https://bearblog.dev was created for
         | a very specific kind of person and has been cracking along well
         | because of it.
        
       | adilaijaz wrote:
       | Product conventions create an opinionated product; opinionated
       | product creates user delight; user delight creates business
       | success.
        
       | jhunter1016 wrote:
       | If you are chasing RFPs, propose and build everything that checks
       | all the boxes. If you are a product company and building for
       | people who will hopefully love your product, it's your job to
       | understand the customers, understand the data, and build the
       | right solution rather than building ALL the solutions.
        
         | a4isms wrote:
         | Some where in the mythical "Business 101" course is the lesson
         | that you can either find a customer and figure out what they
         | need (customer-focus), or find a need and figure out which
         | customers have that need (product-focus).
         | 
         | This dynamic is everywhere: Apple has customers, they look at
         | what their customers need, and do various product extensions
         | (like streaming games) to fill their needs.
         | 
         | Whereas many vendors on the Apple platform do the reverse: They
         | fill just one need, and arrange their marketing to find the
         | customers with that need across all ecosystems.
         | 
         | Things get interesting in "Business 201," where a company with
         | product focus builds up enough goodwill with their customers
         | that they switch strategies and become customer-focused.
         | 
         | Which is also Apple's story, going from being a microcomputer
         | specialist to a device specialist to a services behemoth. It's
         | now about filling more needs for existing customers.
        
           | cma wrote:
           | It is more honest to say Apple breaks things like streaming
           | games to fulfill business needs of locking out or taxing
           | third party providers of it and making their own. Not to
           | fulfill cusomer needs: blocking it hurt customers.
        
             | CharlesW wrote:
             | How you feel about this completely legitimate, but it
             | simply means that you are not the customer they're serving.
        
           | JohnStrangeII wrote:
           | Some companies just create new needs out of thin air and even
           | manage to replace better technologies with inferior ones.
           | It's mostly a matter of marketing.
           | 
           | If you want, many companies sell prestige, lifestyle ideas,
           | and grand illusions. It's perfect from a business perspective
           | because the customers will always remain dissatisfied in the
           | end, no matter how much they buy.
        
         | arbuge wrote:
         | This goes some way to explaining why municipal and government
         | software is such an unusable pile of crap for the most part.
        
           | MattGaiser wrote:
           | Former municipal software engineer, that built a product to
           | serve other municipalities.
           | 
           | That, and nobody pushes back on what they order as you can
           | just bill them more. We had governments move single buttons
           | (literally, they wanted the stock application, but with one
           | particular button on the right instead of the left), get to
           | use a paint bucket to set colours throughout the application
           | (not a theme, but customise by button), want different fonts,
           | want the order of items in a table swapped, etc.
           | 
           | They tend to get whatever they want, whether or not what they
           | spec out leads to a messy pile.
        
             | mgkimsal wrote:
             | > as you can just bill them more
             | 
             | I've done a bit of municipal work, and had the opposite
             | experience - there's almost always a fixed budget, and
             | while people may ask for loads of changes, no one ever had
             | authority to authorize a single dollar more for the
             | project.
             | 
             | It probably depends on the project and more likely the
             | people involved, but "you can bill them more" isn't a given
             | in all situations.
        
               | throwawayboise wrote:
               | Depends on the municipality. Small ones don't have a lot
               | of flexibility. Big ones (Chicago, etc.) have lots of
               | wiggle room especially if you're willing to kick back
               | some of it to an aldermans's preferred subcontractors,
               | etc.
        
           | throwawayboise wrote:
           | I'll be honest, because most people who work for
           | municipalities and other governments are not the best and
           | brightest, and they will ask for a lot of stuff "because
           | that's how we do it on paper" or other similar reasons,
           | without much critical thinking.
        
       | js8 wrote:
       | My company is somehow big on
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_thinking, and I feel like
       | the lack of product/engineering people being opinionated is one
       | of its main flaws.
        
       | bullen wrote:
       | I still prefer Ant to Maven because with Ant it does what I tell
       | it to do and nothing more.
       | 
       | Maven is too slow and I cannot change it.
        
       | anon_christian wrote:
       | "Opinionativeness is the lust of conquering" Augustine
        
       | hermannj314 wrote:
       | Amazon recently turned on support for Amazon Sidewalk on all of
       | their hardware in my home (convention) and decided it was fine to
       | do this because I could opt out (configuration).
       | 
       | That decision was the final straw for me. Every Amazon device is
       | now unplugged, Prime membership and Amazon music canceled, no
       | longer shopping on their site.
       | 
       | Doing what is "easy for the average user" is not sufficient for
       | me, some configurations should be off by default. I shouldn't
       | have to constantly worry that a remote code change could turn my
       | hardware into a new source of revenue for you while I am on
       | vacation at the beach.
        
         | pranau wrote:
         | Can someone explain why there's so much outrage against Amazon
         | Sidewalk when it's doing a similar thing to Apple's Find
         | My/AirTags which was met with almost universal praise?
        
           | newbie578 wrote:
           | Easy, Apple has a cult following, Amazon doesn't.
        
           | teekert wrote:
           | I wouldn't like if I would specifically keep my Samsung Smart
           | TV offline because Samsung themselves advice not to talk
           | about sensitive things in front of the telly [0], and then
           | finding out that it did go online, via my neighbor's helpful
           | Alexa... No thank you.
           | 
           | [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31296188
        
             | pranau wrote:
             | Are there any indications that the Sidewalk network can be
             | used to relay other than device control information?
        
               | teekert wrote:
               | Maybe not, but as always it comes down to trust. And I
               | trust Apple to be more diligent with my iPhone's AirTag
               | locating capabilities than Amazon is with their ability
               | to help any device get online.
               | 
               | Amazon makes things cheap and easy but not always in ways
               | agree with.
               | 
               | As a counter Example, Canonical got some critique with
               | their "telemetry in the installer", but if you ask me,
               | they did it in the nicest way possible: They told
               | everyone that they want some data to focus developers'
               | efforts where it counts and they let me inspect the json
               | object I was about to send them, so I trust them and sent
               | it to them with a smile.
        
               | pranau wrote:
               | Thanks, that makes sense. Eventually, it does come down
               | to trust then. I was under the impression that there was
               | a technical reason as to why Amazon Sidewalk is worse
               | than Find My.
        
               | smoldesu wrote:
               | In all fairness, there are several ways to transmit
               | arbitrary information on the AirTag protocol. The overall
               | reason why people trust Apple with Airtags/Find My is
               | because they're too big to fail. Everyone has already
               | come to terms with the fact that iCloud owns their
               | photos, iTunes owns their music... what's the difference
               | if they also have your location data?
        
               | giobox wrote:
               | I agree with this, but I'd add that if you have already
               | trusted Amazon enough to purchase and run 24/7 with full
               | access to your home network their remotely controlled and
               | configured internet microphone, drawing the line at this
               | feature seems a little odd to me.
               | 
               | If you own an Echo device and used it prior to this
               | feature you had already granted a large degree (relative
               | to this feature) of trust to Amazon anyway. It reminds me
               | a little of people who swear they will never use an Echo
               | device due to concerns about eavesdropping but happily
               | carry an internet microphone equiped smartphone
               | everywhere.
        
               | robotshmobot wrote:
               | Sometimes people just need a final straw.
        
               | ClumsyPilot wrote:
               | Ofcouras not, they will just add it next week and you
               | will have 2 hours to opt out
               | 
               | We need laws against this shit
        
             | Spivak wrote:
             | I mean is this any different than a rogue appliance
             | connecting to your neighbors open Wi-Fi or just partnering
             | with a cellular network?
        
             | ClumsyPilot wrote:
             | Thank you fpr letting me know. This is incredulous - 1984
             | where tv watches you, has come, without communism, and
             | noone has noticed.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | 0xffff2 wrote:
           | I'll grant that the outrage against Sidewalk does seem to be
           | worse, but there are at least some of us who dislike both. I
           | have Find My turned off on my iPhone.
        
           | wyager wrote:
           | The airtags model is completely different. Much more
           | restricted, secure, and private.
        
           | shkkmo wrote:
           | > Apple's Find My/AirTags which was met with almost universal
           | praise
           | 
           | That wasn't my impression. I saw plenty of criticism on HN.
        
           | np- wrote:
           | 1) A big thing is trust - people trust Apple to keep their
           | data secure much more than they trust Amazon, especially when
           | you contrast both company's main business model.
           | 
           | 2) Apple's "Find My" was pitched first and foremost as a
           | feature and benefit for the user. And the value proposition
           | was very clear and useful from day 1. You can find your lost
           | phone even in a place there is no signal. Now with Airtags
           | you can find any device. It's easy to imagine a horror story
           | where you lose your $1000 phone in a basement bar or drop it
           | in a parking garage somewhere. Apple in general has better
           | PR.
           | 
           | 3) No one's losing their Alexa device. I mean for 99.99% of
           | users it's never moving once it's placed. So what's the point
           | of this feature? It's just pure revenue gain for Amazon with
           | like zero benefit to the average user. They want to use our
           | wifi purely for their benefit? Come on. I know there is Tile
           | functionality, but it's still creepy - you're using my _home_
           | as a tracking beacon? At least when it's my phone, I'm on the
           | move and could be anywhere.
           | 
           | Just to expand a bit on the last point - the way Apple's
           | "Find my" works is that the only information shared is that
           | there was an iPhone at some location and crossed paths with a
           | lost item at that location. The way Amazon's Tile will work
           | is that a lost item is crossing paths with an "anonymous
           | beacon" which happens to reside in a very specific location.
           | 
           | In Apple's implementation, there is almost no way to
           | personally identify whose iPhone made the detection. In
           | Amazon's case, it's trivial to identify it - it's the beacon
           | that's at the same place all the time, which happens to be
           | your house.
        
           | kuu wrote:
           | I guess some of the reasons are that Sidewalk is:
           | 
           | - For a product that was already owned and did not need it
           | until now
           | 
           | - Activated by default, as optional opt-out instead of opt-in
        
             | geoah wrote:
             | Isn't it the same with airtags? Your iphone will forward
             | data about other people's airtags as long as you have
             | upgraded to the latest ios. You can opt-out, but you need
             | to know about it first. Same deal I think with sidewalk.
        
               | [deleted]
        
               | andrei_says_ wrote:
               | You're right, it is.
               | 
               | I think it comes down to trust and a track record of
               | commitment to privacy.
               | 
               | Also IMO apple handled the PR for airtags very well.
        
             | pranau wrote:
             | I don't own an Amazon smart device and I don't think I ever
             | will so I cannot comment on whether there is actually a
             | need for a feature like Sidewalk.
             | 
             | Find My is also opt-out instead of opt-in
        
               | risyachka wrote:
               | The funny thing is - if Apple made Find My opt-in - most
               | users would chose not to use their device for Find My,
               | though it benefits them all and hardly has a downside.
               | 
               | The sheer fact of asking the user to opt-in automatically
               | decreases opt-in rate a lot (like a LOT), even if that
               | tech is super good. It is way easier to dismiss a dialog
               | than to think what it even does.
        
         | risyachka wrote:
         | Just curious - has there been an opt-in rate more than at least
         | 30% in anything at all? Literally any tech or feature.
        
         | dathinab wrote:
         | I would argue there is a difference between "being opinionated
         | about how to implement a use-case" + "being opinionated about
         | focusing on a small set of use-cases" and "forcing new use-
         | cases on the user".
         | 
         | The article is about the former, Amazon Sidewalk about the
         | later.
         | 
         | Also nothing while being opinionated can be very use-full for
         | product design there is no reason why people can't be
         | opinionated in a "bad" way.
         | 
         | What this article is about, and what most people mean when they
         | say you should be more opinionated is that you should not be to
         | generic, that you should focus on your core use-case and from a
         | companies POV that is always a good idea IMHO. At least as long
         | as you core use-case is the use-case people by your software
         | for.
        
           | cbsmith wrote:
           | "forcing" isn't the right word though. They do have an opt-
           | out. Making it an opt-out vs. an opt-in is very much "the
           | former".
        
             | dathinab wrote:
             | Given that most people won't even know what is happening
             | without their consent it's not that different from forcing.
             | 
             | Opt-out is NOT consent, consent requires you do know about
             | it, at least somewhat understand it and then "say yes".
             | Opt-out it's more like forcing with a way to defend
             | yourself.
        
               | cbsmith wrote:
               | I didn't say that opt-out is consent... and no opt-out is
               | opt-out, and forcing is forcing.
               | 
               | Can you imagine how silly it would sound to talk about
               | all the "forcing" that MacOS and Windows do that you can
               | change by going in to settings and changing it? Indeed,
               | Apple has famously made tons of decisions for their users
               | about what the reasonable defaults might be, and is
               | _praised_ for this; no one calls it _forcing_.
               | 
               | I get it. I don't like the defaults either. That doesn't
               | mean you can just slap on whatever word has negative
               | connotations and say that's what is happening.
        
           | j45 wrote:
           | Default opt in to all changes could be Amazon's self
           | interested and opinionated position.
           | 
           | The comment above can also be an opinionated response as
           | well.
           | 
           | Saying a company is client centric, but then not.. can be a
           | mixed signal. There is plenty of brainpower to allow
           | customers to tailor and optimize their experience so are less
           | likely to leave, especially influential power users.
        
           | akiselev wrote:
           | _> What this article is about, and what most people mean when
           | they say you should be more opinionated is that you should
           | not be to generic, that you should focus on your core use-
           | case and from a companies POV that is always a good idea
           | IMHO. At least as long as you core use-case is the use-case
           | people by your software for._
           | 
           | Nowadays I think the problem isn't a lack of opinions but
           | people's opinions chasing messy (it not outright useless)
           | data and feedback without a vision for what the product is.
           | They become so obsessed about whether they could _[implement
           | this feature /expand to more markets/get more big
           | clients/earn more revenue]_ according to X data ( _" because
           | SCIENCE!"_) that they never stop to think whether they
           | should.
           | 
           | IMO that's how opinionated people help build great products:
           | by stopping cargo culting, scope creep, and desperate
           | measures of all kinds that are backed by bad data. That
           | doesn't mean that they know exactly what their team should be
           | working on next sprint, but they do care enough to shut down
           | attempts from other departments that would degrade the
           | product, even if that means passing up short term gains that
           | look good on paper due to customer feedback or usage data.
        
         | SubiculumCode wrote:
         | I just cancelled my Prime as well. Too far. And I don't even
         | have their hardware.
        
         | pier25 wrote:
         | I've never understood this Amazon Sidewalk thing.
         | 
         | The vast majority of people already have internet at home and
         | phone plans.
         | 
         | Also, what's in it for Amazon? How does it profit from
         | something like this?
        
           | kersplody wrote:
           | It enables Amazon devices to transparently connect to amazon
           | with near zero user configuration as long as the device is
           | within range of an authorized AP or another sidewalk device
           | owned by anyone. This makes Amazon devices to "just work" in
           | more places and most users will love it because they don't
           | know and/or don't care about the privacy and network security
           | implications.
        
           | radicaldreamer wrote:
           | It uses much longer range radios (900 mhz range) to blanket
           | areas where most home routers don't reach.
           | 
           | Comcast does the same thing but with standard Wifi with their
           | routers, with some hidden SSIDs you can't opt out of (Xfinity
           | Home etc.)
        
         | SergeAx wrote:
         | > easy for the average user
         | 
         | Turns out you are not average user. I am quite sure that
         | Amazon's profit from Sidewalk will shadow losses from you and
         | other leavers by couple magnitudes.
        
         | Torwald wrote:
         | What grates me with these situations is that they have my data,
         | which is one thing, but I don't have access to that data!
        
           | hosteur wrote:
           | In eu you do as per gdpr
        
           | criddell wrote:
           | What grates me is that I can't turn it off by saying "Alexa,
           | turnoff sidewalk". They make you go into the app and dig for
           | it. IMHO, you should be able to access all of the settings
           | via voice.
        
         | dgb23 wrote:
         | > I shouldn't have to constantly worry that a remote code
         | change could turn my hardware into a new source of revenue for
         | you while I am on vacation at the beach.
         | 
         | This is it. It actually induces some kind of anxiety and mild
         | paranoia.
         | 
         | We can also very easily support companies that don't treat
         | their customers this way, or their workers, or business
         | partners...
        
           | fnimick wrote:
           | Unfortunately, companies that don't extract maximum revenue
           | from their customers/workers get outcompeted and put out of
           | business by those that do.
        
             | chrischattin wrote:
             | Treating customers, suppliers, and employees with fairness,
             | dignity, and respect is a competitive ADVANTAGE in the long
             | term. You might make a quick buck in the short term doing
             | otherwise, but you'll lose out over the long term.
        
             | dgb23 wrote:
             | I hear that often but is it really true?
             | 
             | There seem to be tons of companies, typically small to
             | medium ones, who provide quality services and products and
             | have earned the trust of their customers, workers and
             | partners over the years without screwing them over left and
             | right. Some of them additionally have higher standards in
             | regards to environmental issues on top of all of this.
             | 
             | Nobody is perfect, but I don't think it is required to be a
             | bully to find and keep a sustainable market niche.
             | 
             | Overall this behavior is harmful, partly because it puts
             | people into positions where they have overwhelming levels
             | of power and influence. My personal opinion is that this
             | leads to an unreasonable amount of responsibility and an
             | unhealthy detachment or distance from affected people.
        
         | loudtieblahblah wrote:
         | I feel like, supporting them or not with their store, it was
         | always a no-brainer to not purchase smart, cloud connected
         | doorbells and wire-tape speakers and litter my house with them.
         | 
         | I kinda hate my Roku even having a microphone button and my kid
         | figuring out how to use it.
         | 
         | We're crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed, ripe for
         | corporate/state abuse and we already have history and
         | experience about the usage of tech being grown to continually
         | spy on people one nudge at a time, that we shouldn't be fooled
         | by this stuff.
         | 
         | but here we are, plenty of smart, educated, technical people
         | who know that history, salivating at MOAR GADGETS THAT DO
         | STUFFS.
        
         | cma wrote:
         | Can you opt out of Apple's similar thing for airtags?
        
           | lotsofpulp wrote:
           | Yes.
           | 
           | https://www.macworld.com/article/347243/how-to-opt-out-of-
           | th...
        
             | cma wrote:
             | So both are opt out. Which one is worse?
        
               | pdpi wrote:
               | The one that lets my neighbour look up kiddy porn over my
               | connection.
        
               | jon-wood wrote:
               | I get the anger about Sidewalk, but this is absolutely
               | not a thing you can do with it.
               | 
               | Sidewalk isn't a wifi network that people can just
               | connect to, it's a LoRa radio. A low bandwidth, long
               | range protocol. Devices connecting need to be pre-
               | registered with Amazon, and can only communicate via an
               | endpoint in AWS.
               | 
               | Even if someone somehow created a device for arbitrary
               | web browsing via Sidewall, and put up with the incredibly
               | slow connection speed, combined with strict limits on how
               | much bandwidth can be consumed, all they get is a VPN
               | immediately traceable to their AWS account.
        
               | jiofih wrote:
               | Amazon. Apple's system doesn't use much of your bandwidth
               | or have anyone else's data going through your device
               | (it's completely anonymous).
        
               | pranau wrote:
               | Can you please explain how Apple's Find My is anonymous
               | while Sidewalk is not? As far as I understand, Find My
               | collects device location information through other
               | iPhones and then upload them to Apple's cloud where it
               | can be viewed by you. Apple states that this is done in a
               | privacy preserving way by using rotating identifiers. In
               | the case of Amazon, they state that all the device
               | information being relayed through your device is
               | encrypted and capped at 80kbps.
               | 
               | I am not sure I understand why one is a concern while the
               | other isn't.
        
               | jiofih wrote:
               | Sidewalk is carrying all kinds of data from other users.
               | You have absolutely no idea what. It's a loosely defined
               | system that Amazon controls remotely at their will. The
               | encryption stops you from snooping like any other TLS
               | traffic, but Amazon itself is the receiver on the other
               | end. And it piggybacks on your own internet connection -
               | 80Kbps is a _huge_ amount of data.
               | 
               | Find My identifiers have a single purpose, are useless to
               | anything but the owners device, cannot be used by Apple
               | for tracking, ads or whatever, and id be surprised if the
               | entire payload after a day out is > 8KB total. These look
               | completely different to me.
        
               | smoldesu wrote:
               | > You have absolutely no idea what. It's a loosely
               | defined system that Amazon controls remotely at their
               | will.
               | 
               | s/Amazon/Apple and you've got yourself the Airtag
               | protocol. Obviously Airtags use less bandwidth, but both
               | are proprietary and about equally as evil in my eyes.
        
               | wyager wrote:
               | We know exactly what goes in an airtag message. It's very
               | limited. https://positive.security/blog/send-my
        
               | smoldesu wrote:
               | The article you just linked is about an exploit that
               | allows you to propagate arbitrary data through the Airtag
               | network, which is the _exact opposite_ of knowing what
               | goes into an Airtag message.
        
               | wyager wrote:
               | Actually read the article. It's so bandwidth-limited as
               | to be useless
        
               | rodiger wrote:
               | afaik it is a relay system so it does have other's data
               | possibly going through. That being said the information
               | being passed is less comprehensive.
        
       | amelius wrote:
       | Instead of "opinionated", perhaps this word is a better fit:
       | Paternalistic (adjective)              (of people in authority)
       | making decisions for other people rather than letting them take
       | responsibility for their own lives
       | 
       | Source: Cambridge Dictionary
        
         | Torwald wrote:
         | "Opinionated software" is a established term, hence the use I
         | guess.
        
         | RyEgswuCsn wrote:
         | > rather than letting them take responsibility for their own
         | lives
         | 
         | It would seem to me people sometimes don't want to bother
         | figuring out what's the best way of doing X, therefore I feel
         | it is still valuable for someone to do the research and
         | productize his know-how on "the best way of doing X".
        
           | anoncake wrote:
           | There's nothing wrong with having good defaults, just with
           | not being able to override them. "Opinionated" usually means
           | latter.
        
             | corty wrote:
             | Not just usually, opinionated means exactly paternalistic:
             | "opinionated" is the opposite of "configureable". That is a
             | basic tenet of the article.
        
             | bobthechef wrote:
             | That makes it sound easy. Overriding means the capacity to
             | be overriden. I.e., if you can change the default, then it
             | presupposed that you have a mechanism for dealing with
             | various options PLUS some other options. That's additional
             | work.
        
               | anoncake wrote:
               | Yes, you need to implement a configuration mechanism, but
               | you almost always do anyway.
        
         | bobthechef wrote:
         | I don't really understand the objection. The article is only
         | meaningful as a response to those who try to make a product
         | that is everything to everyone, thus producing a product for
         | nobody. Besides, unless you only buy bespoke, made-to-order
         | products design in consultation with you, anything with a
         | design has already been decided potentially in a way that you
         | dislike but others don't.
        
       | mattacular wrote:
       | I want to paste without formatting sometimes though?
        
       | teekert wrote:
       | Dear chat clients, I never want any formatting on any pasted
       | text, ever. Thank you. (That is destination theme matching
       | indeed.)
       | 
       | And with respect to the Whatsapp - Signal comparison, Signal came
       | to the stage (at least for me) when whatsapp was already huge
       | (and also had a focus on privacy by the way!), so that comparison
       | is unfair.
       | 
       | Other than this, I agree with the premise.
        
       | ccity88 wrote:
       | I feel like I read something new every week on HN about design
       | philosophy; make your product this way not that way, try to do
       | this and not that, here's 10 examples of products that failed
       | because of x, here's 5 products that were successful because of y
       | - maybe it's time to realise that there's no monolithic
       | overarching "right" way to design a product. This is how we ended
       | up with the current trendy cohort of minimalist apps with flat
       | dark designs, with mobile apps that all look the same, with
       | products that miss killer features for the sake of simplicity,
       | with the annoying typefaces that all tech companies use that make
       | it "trendy".
        
         | fnord77 wrote:
         | yes, lots of philosophy and little actual science (testing
         | hypotheses etc)
        
           | hellomyguys wrote:
           | Well I would argue the monolithic look on apps is a to some
           | degree a byproduct of testing. It makes sense that most apps'
           | buttons, layouts, design patterns look the same and are
           | considered "easiest" to use by A/B testing standards. You
           | don't have to learn anything new to use those designs.
        
         | whatgoodisaroad wrote:
         | Right, in a way I think this opening tweet just undercuts the
         | entire argument. It's a simplistic description of a problem,
         | which the body of the article returns with a simplistic sort of
         | solution.
         | 
         | The truth is that I want paste to match formatting _sometimes_
         | , and putting that many emphatic "ever"s in the tweet reads
         | like an act of denial towards how tricky design can be.
         | 
         | In the case of pasting, we've solved he problem with a pair of
         | keyboard shortcuts: Ctrl+v to match formatting, ctrl+shift+v to
         | strip formatting. Effectively, this makes matching format the
         | convention. I actually think matching is probably more common.
         | 
         | Now keyboard shortcuts are not sexy design. They aren't user
         | friendly and are described derisively as "power user" features.
         | But what they _are_ is probably the optional solution to a
         | design problem, and sometimes that 's not exciting.
        
         | passivate wrote:
         | In every functional department, there is some amount of this -
         | UX folks want to update the design language, advertising needs
         | a fresh campaign for the new version, devs want to move to some
         | new framework, and/or rewrite etc. Everyone thinks their
         | actions are well justified - except for the user who rarely
         | benefits :)
        
         | Jenk wrote:
         | Same, and with each new article the X or Y reasons get that
         | little bit more abstract. Eventually I'm sure we'll see
         | articles that say "They failed because they didn't _care_" or
         | "They succeeded becasuse they _listened_" and that's as much
         | depth as we'll get from them.
        
         | philosopher1234 wrote:
         | >This is how we ended up with the current trendy cohort of
         | minimalist apps with flat dark designs, with mobile apps that
         | all look the same, with products that miss killer features for
         | the sake of simplicity, with the annoying typefaces that all
         | tech companies use that make it "trendy".
         | 
         | i like all these things, and am glad this is the way the world
         | is.
        
         | giancarlostoro wrote:
         | "Why this HN comment is correct on design", "Why said revered
         | HN comment is incorrect on design", "HN comment creates cult"
         | 
         | Jokes aside, I tend to agree with you. No matter is so black or
         | white, if something failed, it was a host of things that went
         | wrong. If something succeeded, it was as well numerous things.
         | The most common successful factors are the ones people role
         | their eyes over cause everyone already knows 'dedication' and
         | 'hard work' are factors, but they don't always get you results,
         | they're just the most common factors.
        
       | scriptstar wrote:
       | It isn't very clear. The author says you have to create flexible
       | products (using configuration) but down the line, be more
       | opinionated (using convention). He lost me.
        
         | rakoo wrote:
         | The two are not exclusive; in fact, "convention" means that out
         | of all the possibilities a certain set is chosen and used by
         | default. It is not possible to have a "convention" if there is
         | no "configuration", otherwise it's just a limited set of
         | features.
         | 
         | What the author says is that's it's good to have configuration,
         | because then everyone can find what they want, but
         | configuration alone is not enough. You need good defaults, and
         | because "good" is subjective it means you need defaults that
         | will please a specific category of users, and you need to go
         | all-in on it because then your software will have its own
         | identity. It also means that those who want to use the software
         | another way can still do it because it's configurable.
        
         | marcosdumay wrote:
         | AKA support doing the entire work, and pay attention to what
         | defaults you choose. Don't stop at the first part.
         | 
         | He also says that your flexibility should be enough to fit the
         | target audience, and not much more because you should focus on
         | delighting that audience, not on broadening it.
         | 
         | I actually didn't like the article either. The means he pushes
         | are known to not be very effective, and he makes a completely
         | one sided analysis of a cost/benefit situation. But I think you
         | are focusing too hard on the trees and missed the forest.
        
       | anti-nazi wrote:
       | that's not good advice at all
        
       | MattGaiser wrote:
       | > I will design it for the average user rather than the power
       | user.
       | 
       | But do power users or average users drive purchasing and ensure
       | market share?
       | 
       | I was at a company that tried to switch to Google Cloud over
       | Office 365. Know what saved MSFT? The Excel and Word power users.
       | Average users had no opinion, but the power users all wanted
       | Office.
        
         | II2II wrote:
         | In the context of this article, "average user" and "power user"
         | does not have much meaning. Take the copy-paste example. One
         | group of users is going to find paste-with-formatting more
         | practical while another group of users is going to find paste-
         | without-formatting more useful. The distinction has more to do
         | with the task at hand than the ability of the user. Consider
         | someone working withing a document or within a set of documents
         | for a project. Losing formatting means they will have to go
         | back to recreate it. Now consider someone pulling information
         | from various sources. Maintaining formatting means a loss of
         | consistency in the destination, so it is less desirable.
         | 
         | As for the opinion of average verses power users, I suspect it
         | has a lot more to do with expectations. Power users are more
         | inclined to expect software to do work for them, while the
         | average user seems to be willing to work for the software. As
         | an example, take a table that spans multiple pages. Power users
         | will expect an option to add the table heading on each page,
         | while the average user will do it themselves manually (even if
         | the feature exists and even if they have to redo the work each
         | time the page boundaries change).
        
         | Mauricebranagh wrote:
         | And that's a pretty low bar for power users BTW.
         | 
         | Google cloud is ok for "formatting your Christmas card list in
         | Norwegian" to use a literary allusion.
         | 
         | But when you come to writing specs and reports used by multiple
         | teams word /excel is still by far the best solution.
        
           | ghaff wrote:
           | GSuite (and probably O365) are probably actually pretty good
           | examples of opinionated vs. the all the options offline MS
           | Office.
           | 
           | Personally, myself and people I work with mostly like GSuite.
           | We're probably generally described as heavy users but not
           | _power_ users, i.e. we don 't need the features that only a
           | few percent of people do. I actually find GSuite much more
           | streamlined for my uses and collaborative editing is such a
           | win. I do create fairly long docs sometimes but they're not
           | complicated docs.
        
           | mhluongo wrote:
           | Makes sense, that must be my Microsoft office products are
           | winning at software shops /s
           | 
           | Best for you, maybe. I haven't found a real use for either in
           | the past 5 years writing software and running product. The
           | only role in the org that has needed Excel over Sheets is
           | finance, and the only time we touch Word is when we're
           | dealing with outside legal and they aren't comfortable with
           | anything but Word for redlines. Even then, junior partners
           | have apologized and said they've tried to convince the firm
           | to switch.
        
             | will4274 wrote:
             | Why did they apologize? I have to say, this smells
             | political - if Excel and Sheets are just two pieces of
             | software, then there's no reason to apologize for liking
             | one more than the other. For somebody at the partner level
             | to apologize and ask for a change in a users' workflow -
             | seems like catering to people who have a political issue
             | with Microsoft, rather than judging on technical merits.
        
               | mhluongo wrote:
               | Because it's a pain in the ass for us, their clients, to
               | interface with their office software.
               | 
               | Note that this particular firm serves a ton of tech
               | startups. I don't expect a firm that does, say, real
               | estate financing hears many complaints from their
               | clientele.
        
           | Jenk wrote:
           | Do you have any examples of what is superior in O365? As my
           | other reply states I've found it to be the opposite - GSuite
           | supports _more_ than MS does online.
        
             | Mauricebranagh wrote:
             | I did mean the real local word etc not the shite online
             | versions.
             | 
             | Main thing is structured documents tracking changes, macros
             | to automate processes.
        
         | Jenk wrote:
         | Anecdotal and a complete digression from your point - I
         | consider myself a poweruser of excel/word/etc and I loathe the
         | online variants in O365. There's quite a few features missing
         | in both that require me to use the offline variant that are
         | both supported in GSuite. Table of Contents generator in Word
         | is probably the biggest one I hate that is missing, and the
         | clipboard nonsense isn't great either, but last time I used it
         | in gsuite it wasn't a problem.
        
       | bwb wrote:
       | I always feel with titles like this I want to respond back with
       | one of the following: 1. Maybe or 2. Until it is too much x aka
       | "opinionated"
       | 
       | But, still a good read :)
        
       | jfengel wrote:
       | Opinionated products are killer products when lots of people
       | realize they share your opinion.
       | 
       | Apple banks on that. They are commonly derided by technical
       | people for what their products don't do, but for a lot of users,
       | they're happy with what the product does. Making it more capable
       | would often make it harder for them to use.
       | 
       | Even making it configurable doesn't make it better. Even if the
       | options are hidden, just having it there makes users nervous.
       | They think, "Well, I could maybe make my device better, but that
       | involves going into the no-no hell menu of billions of options".
       | They're literally happier to just do it the opinionated way.
       | 
       | The trick, of course, is to actually have an opinion that a lot
       | of people share. Often, that opinion doesn't exist. Even if it
       | exists, you need to find it among the thousands of voices trying
       | to tell you that they need some variant of it. It seems to
       | require a fair bit of luck, though chance favors the prepared
       | mind.
        
         | config_yml wrote:
         | It probably matters how this opinion is formed. Often it's
         | formed first by your own pain, and if you start talk to people
         | and do user research you might discover that you're on to
         | something.
        
       | phkahler wrote:
       | >> Opinionated products are better than flexible products.
       | 
       | But they will rub some users the wrong way, and that's OK. In the
       | open source CAD world you see the distinction in Solvespace vs
       | FreeCAD. One is loved by its users as an easy, highly productive
       | tool, if a bit odd looking. The other is regarded as more capable
       | and feature complete - which is true - but is considered bloated,
       | annoying, and crash-prone by users of the former.
       | 
       | There is definitely room for both approaches, or even multiple
       | "this is the one true way" products. If you delight a segment of
       | the market you'll never be obsolete.
        
         | bsenftner wrote:
         | This is there the Proctor & Gamble branding approach to
         | products begins to make sense. In development, there is one
         | code base, but multiple configurations of build. In the market
         | the company has a "product line" of software, each opinionated
         | towards a different work flow. Similar to being multi-lingual,
         | this is multi-opinionazation to address different process
         | styles.
        
       | resoluteteeth wrote:
       | > Beyond the laughs, there is a product lesson in this tweet. It
       | is an example of a product design principle: "convention over
       | configuration", aka "make the easy things easy, the hard things
       | possible".
       | 
       | I don't know if the author is trying to use this as an example
       | (since you can customize the behavior) or a counterexample, but
       | the situation describe me of pasting in Word is a bad example of
       | this. It's not even generally possible to paste from another word
       | document and completely match the source formatting 100%
       | (including stuff like text boxes) because of how pasting
       | interacts with the terrible style system.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | smoldesu wrote:
       | All of my favorite products are completely unopinionated. Of
       | course, aligning yourself with a specific audience will move
       | units, but it won't make your product any better or worse. The
       | only way you can actually improve your product is by becoming
       | less opinionated and listening to the community who uses your
       | product. Oftentimes their insight will be much more valuable than
       | just "being opinionated".
        
       | WesolyKubeczek wrote:
       | I understand where the author is coming from, and that it tends
       | to work sometimes, blablabla, but if I saved a dollar every time
       | an "opinionated" application, framework, library, or programming
       | language appeared on Github, I would have likely saved for a
       | slightly used Toyota by now.
        
       | cblconfederate wrote:
       | It has been a long time since programs were written in a sane
       | way: with lots of functionality so that experienced users can
       | figure out a routine speed and become blazingly fast. Modern
       | computing has decided to make people dumb. They like them like
       | that, mindless drones who can only scroll and press YES. In life
       | you get what you pay for, and right now we get users who don't
       | care because they don't know, and big tech keeps feeding them
       | more of the same.
       | 
       | When developers care more about imposing their opinions on others
       | they have jumped to the class of people who care about power.
       | They are the new lawyers and people should start making jokes
       | about them being at the bottom of the sea.
        
       | rob74 wrote:
       | > _Conventions create an opinionated product. Opinions create
       | user delight. User delight creates successful businesses._
       | 
       | The problem with opinionated products is people who have very
       | strong opposite opinions. Go for example is a famously
       | opinionated language - it even has a standardized way to format
       | source code via go fmt which everyone uses. But if these opinions
       | clash with the opinions of equally opinionated people, those
       | people may refuse to touch it. Me _not_ included (I have to
       | stress that), my opinions are not set in stone, and I see the
       | reasons why the language designers did it the way they did - in
       | the end, having a standard way of doing things, even if it 's not
       | everyone's favorite way, is better than fragmentation.
        
         | mojuba wrote:
         | It's usually how corporate programming languages are designed:
         | they have corporate environments in mind which is the exact
         | opposite of hacking. Strict standards, predictability and low
         | bars to entry. Hence opinionated approach even to source code
         | formatting and pretty much everything else. Java, C# and Go are
         | all examples of this. Swift is kind of there too, though it's
         | probably the least opinionated language of them all, the
         | corporate ones. (Some would say C# is also kind of okay.
         | Probably)
         | 
         | But the point of the article was a bit broader. Opinionated
         | products can build a strong devoted userbase around them. The
         | question is only how reasonable your opinions are.
         | 
         | An example from Apple's UI: the way multiple windows of the
         | same app are cycled on the desktop with Cmd-` is absolutely
         | beyond any logic. It tries to be smart but makes cycling so
         | unpredictable that it becomes practically useless. It's
         | probably even worse than MS Word's copy/paste one (actually I'm
         | not sure which is worse).
         | 
         | This is someone's opinion and I can't imagine anyone on Earth
         | except the creator of this logic being happy with it. It's an
         | edge case that illustrates the point: your opinion should
         | resonate with enough people to sustain your business, that's
         | all.
        
         | anoncake wrote:
         | Being opinionated is okay if your product is interoperable with
         | others. Then people have the choice between your product and
         | its potential replacements so having choices within your
         | product is not as important. I guess Go is okay because we can
         | afford multiple library ecosystems and programs written in
         | different languages can interoperate.
         | 
         | Unfortunately for-profit companies really don't like giving
         | their customers the choice to switch to a competitor.
        
         | weird-eye-issue wrote:
         | That's fine, then they won't use it.
         | 
         | Narrowing down your target market is marketing 101.
        
         | digitalbase wrote:
         | Isn't having an opinion + figuring out how to match that w
         | customer needs exactly what product management is?
         | 
         | I mean any product manager has to make a lot of decisions.
         | Having an opinion does help in making decisions
        
         | onion2k wrote:
         | _The problem with opinionated products is people who have very
         | strong opposite opinions._
         | 
         | Unopinionated products have to cater for everyone though, and
         | that creates bloat and complexity. Those will kill a product
         | quicker than limiting it to a small portion of the market that
         | agrees with the opinion you choose.
        
           | alpaca128 wrote:
           | > Unopinionated products have to cater for everyone though,
           | and that creates bloat and complexity.
           | 
           | I don't think one has to lead to the other.
           | Flexible/configurable software often also means extendable
           | (and thus potentially smaller out of the box) software. If
           | it's bloated from the start that's not because of a lack of
           | opinions; in fact for me it makes the software more
           | opinionated because it may come with a lot of stuff users
           | don't need. For example Firefox is pretty flexible and
           | extensible, you can even rearrange the UI, but it comes with
           | things like Pocket that nobody asked for.
           | 
           | Imho programs shouldn't try to cater to everyone, but they
           | should be flexible enough that they are able to if needed.
        
       | xrd wrote:
       | Killer product is such an amorphous phrasing.
       | 
       | If the author meant best product, I agree.
       | 
       | If the author meant best selling, I'm not sure I agree.
       | 
       | MS Word needs to have all those configuration options for IT to
       | check their boxes AND write the enterprise sized check.
       | 
       | If you are making a consumer app, this all seems like good
       | advice. But I'm not sure it is good general advice.
        
       | terminalserver wrote:
       | This article made no sense. The example were unrelated to the
       | thesis being put forward. It had nothing to do with making a
       | killer product.
        
       | ryanmcbride wrote:
       | No.
        
       | aantix wrote:
       | In order to have an opinion, you have to have a value judgement.
       | Value judgements take courage. Value judgements require saying
       | this is more important, these types of users will not be
       | included.
        
       | mistercow wrote:
       | I think the tweet in the opening screenshot is simply wrong. I
       | would argue that you almost always want paste to preserve the
       | pasteboard formatting. Most copy/paste is within the same
       | document, where you obviously want the odd bolded or italicized
       | word to retain its formatting. But you don't notice those cases,
       | because everything is working as expected. What you notice is
       | that when you paste from an _external_ source, the formatting is
       | completely wrong.
       | 
       | I know that this is tangential to the point of the article, but
       | it highlights an important point: you can't always trust what
       | users say they want. You need to listen to them, because their
       | frustrations point to real problems, but finding out what the
       | actual solution is involves more work than just taking the user's
       | suggestions at face value.
        
         | ako wrote:
         | I use copy/paste in powerpoint explicitly with the intent to
         | copy over the formatting of the original to the destination
         | deck. Easiest way to add a theme to an existing deck.
        
         | throwawayboise wrote:
         | I almost never want paste to preserve any formatting, because
         | I've almost never seen it work perfectly. If I need to reformat
         | it anyway, I'd rather not have to clean up its messes first.
         | 
         | BTW in most programs that handle rich text, SHIFT-CTRL-V does a
         | plain-text paste without the source formatting.
        
           | loudtieblahblah wrote:
           | this. the sheer volume of times i have to paste text into a
           | notepad or a URL bar or just any space that will lose the
           | formatting, just to re-copy/paste it into some (usually MS)
           | product that wants to preserve it is way higher than it
           | should be.
        
         | cuddlybacon wrote:
         | I think you make a good point here:
         | 
         | * Copying formatting works well and is desired when it is done
         | within an app but it is janky and undesired when the apps are
         | different.
         | 
         | I furiously hates copying/pasting of formatting. After
         | reflecting, the problems all exist when I'm pasting from one
         | app to another.
         | 
         | I just think out of the apps I use, the ones where paste with
         | formatting is the default (eg it's what CMD+V does) are the
         | ones where I'm usually pasting from somewhere else.
        
         | joe_fishfish wrote:
         | So if you make paste match the formatting of the destination
         | not the source, both you and the tweeter are happy. Make a
         | funky shortcut to override this if you want but this should be
         | the default.
        
         | castlecrasher2 wrote:
         | Is there an option in Word to change the default paste? I think
         | that's what many of these opinions boil down to, and while I
         | imagine there's hundreds of opinions on even the smallest thing
         | I suspect many of these large pain points could be solved
         | relatively easily if those in charge had a vision like the
         | article is suggesting.
        
         | akarma wrote:
         | In my case, I almost always want paste to override most
         | formatting -- if I copy something from a website, I want it to
         | match my formatting.
         | 
         | What I'm looking for, though, is particularly for the font
         | itself, the font color and maybe the size to match. If
         | something is bolded, or italicized, that should ideally be
         | retained.
         | 
         | A good configuration could be to ask whether you want the
         | formatting of what you're pasting to match the document, and
         | then ask if they want to set that choice as default.
        
         | dkersten wrote:
         | I agree, I often copy and paste to a basic no-formatting text
         | editor and back just to clear formatting, eg before pasting to
         | an email or whatever. I rarely want formatting retained when
         | pasting to/from emails. Same when copying from a website, as
         | someone else here mentioned.
        
         | MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
         | Not only that, but I think the "average user" probably has
         | lesser taste than the tweeter. They see a blue font on the text
         | they are copying from some random web page, they expect a blue
         | font when they paste it. This would be especially important to
         | the average user if they are copying a lot of text with bullets
         | and headers.
         | 
         | So the tweet may be describing a better practice for many use
         | cases, but it may not be the practice most people want.
        
         | swiley wrote:
         | >I would argue that you almost always want paste to preserve
         | the pasteboard formatting.
         | 
         | Perhaps you should consider asking the user what they want by
         | just giving them options. No need to prematurely break your
         | software. (which is what most good software does now.)
        
         | permo-w wrote:
         | I suspect that a more nuanced approach could suit general users
         | the best. Retain boldness, italics and underlining, change to
         | fit target colour and font.
         | 
         | Boldness, italics and underlining actually denote meaning,
         | whereas font and colour are generally just aesthetic
        
           | derefr wrote:
           | In real Desktop Publishing software, text (content) and its
           | style (layout) are separate -- the text usually comes in from
           | an external source (e.g. a file on an SMB share; a document
           | in a CMS) and can be updated independently of the layout.
           | 
           | The linked text format is usually Rich Text (RTF). This
           | allows a lot of things, but the Desktop Publishing tools only
           | _interpret_ the tags for bold, italics, underline, and a few
           | other things (strikeout, subscript, etc.) All other styling
           | in the linked text, they throw away.
           | 
           | This is precisely because, as you say, those specific styles
           | actually denote meaning. They're something the _writer_ adds.
           | No other styling is used from the linked text, because none
           | of the other styling is the writer 's _job_.
           | 
           | All other styling is instead applied to the block(s) within
           | the layout where the text gets embedded into. It's the layout
           | designer that gets to decide the font, size, spacing, etc.
           | for the text. Those attributes aren't stored with the text;
           | they're stored with the layout.
           | 
           | To me, this makes _far_ more sense as a workflow, even if you
           | 're a single author. I constantly wish that "word processors"
           | had restructured and absorbed ideas from Desktop Publishing
           | software when it came about. Instead, we got the garbled
           | hybrid: you can have "document styles" like Title, Heading,
           | Body, List Item, etc.; but they are essentially markup,
           | moving around with the text (rather than there being any
           | concept of an "section of the document" that gets styled,
           | that text can be moved into/out of, and where the styles of
           | that section will apply to the text only while it remains
           | inside that section, such that moving text out of that area
           | doesn't copy the styles of the section, only the styles of
           | the text.)
        
       | gwbas1c wrote:
       | About a year ago I wrote a Mac application to strip formatting
       | out of copy-pasted text. (Note: I was mostly interested in
       | getting an application in the store as a learning exercise.)
       | 
       | In general, copying formatted text is a mess on Mac. (I haven't
       | tried an equivalent Windows app, although I'm primarily a Windows
       | developer.) The problem is that many of the data structures for
       | formatted text don't preserve context. IE, it's impossible to
       | know that something is just "italic," "bold," or "underline,"
       | because the formatting is details about how to render the fonts.
       | IE, "italic" converts to kerning, "bold" and "underline" are
       | really separate fonts.
       | 
       | In theory, I could try to infer formatting changes, and then
       | convert to very basic HTML, but I only had about a month in
       | between jobs to finish the app.
       | 
       | Link: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/copy-
       | cleaner/id1521489777?mt=1...
        
         | thejosh wrote:
         | Isn't that ctrl+shift+v? It is for Linux and I think windows
         | too?
        
           | gwbas1c wrote:
           | Yeah, but who knows that? Apparently the author of the
           | article doesn't know that.
           | 
           | Anyway, my app lets you see what's in the clipboard and
           | adjust how much you want it cleaned.
        
           | ryandrake wrote:
           | The simpler keystroke should do the more common operation. My
           | guess is 90-99% of the time, users want to paste text and
           | match the format to the existing doc or app. Therefore, cmd+v
           | should strip formatting if done according to that rule.
        
           | cuddlybacon wrote:
           | On Mac, the apps I happened to check use cmd+shift+alt+v.
           | 
           | I checked MS Teams, Outlook, Mail.app, and Safari.
        
       | polote wrote:
       | This article mix a bit of everything. There are no rules to
       | create a killer product. That's the whole purpose of the product
       | management domain.
       | 
       | Regarding opinionated software they are great at creating
       | alignment between people who have different background. But are
       | not really good for complex use case. Look at excel, nobody is
       | going to say that this is not a killer product but still being
       | not opinionated at all. On the other side Github is a killer
       | product and very opinionated.
       | 
       | But anything is possible, look I'm currently building an
       | alternative to Confluence. You could say that knowledge
       | management is a perfect area for opinionated software, so why is
       | Notion (not opinionated) the killer product in that domain now ?
        
       | jhaile wrote:
       | Maybe Microsoft did the user research and knows that most users
       | want to preserve formatting when they paste in text. You prefer
       | it to match style when pasting, but how do you know most users
       | don't prefer it the way it is now?
       | 
       | User research, A/B testing, etc. is the way to make those
       | decisions. And yes, I do believe in being opinionated when making
       | software - but I didn't find your primary example to be
       | compelling evidence of that fact.
        
       | tremoloqui wrote:
       | The place for opinion in your product is in its configuration.
       | Applications need to be flexible, otherwise they are useless to
       | anyone who doesn't share your opinion.
       | 
       | Opinions are like estimates. The only things we can be sure of is
       | that they are not exactly right and will likely drift over time.
       | 
       | Similar to a shortcut, opinions can be useful - but should not be
       | a limiting factor.
        
       | dchuk wrote:
       | This is the actual key to building MVPs. A good MVP provides
       | exactly 1 way to do something impactful for a certain target
       | customer base. If you have alternative
       | paths/options/configurations, you built too much before testing
       | in the market.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-06-04 23:01 UTC)