UX/UI: instrumental vs intrinsic value

I’m currently paying for both HBO and Netflix, and use both services regularly. And the difference between the two products’ design and user experience is astonishing. The former lacks just about everything one would come to expect from a streaming service in 2016: recently played shows, history of watched episodes, related/recommended shows etc. From a UX/UI perspective, it sucks. 

That said, there is no way I would ever prefer a Netflix show over an HBO show because of this. 

Sometimes when I hear people talk about the importance of UX/UI, they refer to it as the holy grail of products. But of course it is not. It can be a key differentiator and a competitive advantage, but it will always only add instrumental value to the product. Unless the product has underlying, intrinsic value – it’s worthless. 

Nå skal Røkke investere i gründerbedrifter

Nå skal Røkke investere i gründerbedrifter

The Next Great Platform is the One That We Already Have – Greylock Perspectives

The Next Great Platform is the One That We Already Have – Greylock Perspectives

Liebreich and McCrone: Electric vehicles – It’s not just about the car – Bloomberg New Energy Finance

Liebreich and McCrone: Electric vehicles – It’s not just about the car – Bloomberg New Energy Finance

What’s significant about this dynamic is the effect it has on how value is distributed along the stack: the market cap of the protocol always grows faster than the combined value of the applications built on top, since the success of the application layer drives further speculation at the protocol layer.

Blockchain leads to value being captured increasingly in protocols. Fat protocols. From USV

But equally, anything with that much potential has a high likelihood of failure – if it was obviously a good idea with no risks, everyone would be doing it. Indeed, it’s inherent in really transformative ideas that they look like bad ideas – Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon all did, sometimes several times over. In hindsight the things that worked look like good ideas and the ones that failed look stupid, but sadly it’s not that obvious at the time. Rather, this is how the process of invention and creation works. We try things – we try to create companies, products and ideas, and sometimes they work, and sometimes they change the world. And so, we see, in our world around half such attempts fail completely, and 5% or so go to the moon.

Look for bad ideas. From Benedict Evans

Why we need bubbles

Why we need bubbles

We don’t favor specific kinds of sources — or ideas. Our aim is to deliver the types of stories we’ve gotten feedback that an individual person most wants to see.

We do this not only because we believe it’s the right thing but also because it’s good for our business

Facebook explicitly saying that they’re building everyone’s private echo chambers. Taken from this great and very important piece from Ben Thomson. From my perspective, this is definitely not “the right thing” – social media platforms should be obligated to show multiple (as in also opposing) views on stories.

Want to boost your news app? Hire a gamer. — Monday Note

Want to boost your news app? Hire a gamer. — Monday Note

More from this FDA for Tech-guy. Time Well Spent