The Dating App Paradox: Why dating apps may be 'worse than ever'
(www.npr.org)
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 14 Feb 2024 02:00
https://lemmy.world/post/11930381
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 14 Feb 2024 02:00
https://lemmy.world/post/11930381
The Dating App Paradox: Why dating apps may be ‘worse than ever’::undefined
threaded - newest
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Over the last couple of years, dating app companies like Match Group and Bumble have learned that, like love, their business is a battlefield.
Morgan Stanley found that dating app users who choose to pay end up spending “between $18 and $19 per month on either subscriptions or a la carte purchases.”
In its mission to make money, it has been using tricks and schemes — like, she says, putting desirable matches “behind a paywall” — to convince more of its users to pony up and use premium features.
Basically, Doctorow says tech platforms start off trying to make their user experiences really good because their first goal is to try to become popular and achieve scale.
It’s possible that new apps are failing to rise and topple the reigning ones because of monopolistic strategies of companies like Match Group, which has been systematically acquiring rivals, including Hinge back in 2018.
Over time, the earnest daters go on a bunch of bad dates, encountering people who have no interest in real relationships or whose profiles are completely misleading.
The original article contains 1,909 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 91%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The old rape whistle paradox. The better your product works, the less it’s needed.
I’ve posted this here before, but this phenomenon isn’t unique to dating apps, though dating apps are a particularly good example. The problem is that capitalism uses computers backwards.
I’ve worked on open source software projects, some of them pretty major. And we had a sort of similar debate. In a non-capitalist software product, the users are not strictly required – particularly if they aren’t paying, you don’t really need them. Except that open source has this user->contributor treadmill that requires that some users become contributors in order for a project to grow. So you want to be as pro-user as possible, hoping and dreaming you’ll get patches out of the blue some day, or similar.
But what happens when your users become hostile or entitled. What if they do the equivalent of calling tech support and demanding satisfaction. The customer is always right, right? How much time and effort can you devote to them without detracted from what you were doing (coding). Eventually as a product grows, the number of hostile users grows. What do you do to manage this at scale?
Suddenly you’re facing the same problem Home Depot faces in your article, except your capital is not measured in dollars but time, motivation, mood… And you start putting up barriers in a similar fashion.
What’s the point of writing software without users? Even if you’re the only user, there needs to be a user, else it’s a waste of time and effort. If you’re just playing, studying, or whatever, why even publish and open source it? Users are a necessity for any software.
The other issues of growing FLOSS projects are a serious issue though.
Not to be argumentative, and I generally see your point :)
I do occasionally write software that will have zero users – not even myself. Because it’s fun to play with the code. “I wonder if I can prototype a openscad type thingy using Python set syntax…” Or whatever. It’s the equivalent of sitting in front of a piano and creating song fragments to pass the time.
Naturally the benefit here is that you’re developing skills, passing time in an entertaining fashion, and working the ole grey matter.
I’ve had similar experiences to what troyunrau@lemmy.ca describes. The problem comes more from the expectations that users have as consumers, which they bring with them to open source projects from general culture, not necessarily the existence of the users themselves. Some of those users for big open source projects are often corporations, to boot.
The full quote is actually “The customer is always right in matters of taste.” Which basically means that you should sell what your customers want to buy- not that customers can demand whatever they want 😄
I’ve never seen so many uses of the word “lemon” in an article before
It’s a regular lemon party in there.
Good website
Soon some company will find a way to charge us for the air we breathe.
<img alt="" src="https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--96dp7e7---/c_fill,fl_progressive,g_center,h_900,q_80,w_1600/17zdydkft9xpcjpg.jpg">
vitalityair.com
“How much does it cost to go outside today?”
“Hmm… the weather is nice and it’s a weekend, so we’re at peak rates today. Did you want to go somewhere or just stay in the yard, they’re running a special on staying within RentCo property lines.”
Ha, I just looked at hinge. These girls are my age super model types? Get the fuck out of here
Yeah, that’s part of what they do. When you first sign up, you can’t believe it. Everyone so good looking, seemingly interesting. But then they start funneling you and paywalling the people that more people “like.” It’s a business.
Ah. Create artificial supply and demand
I’m sure it has 45 apps just for funsies. /s
Glad I met someone when OkCupid and Tinder were not complete garbage.
I was incredibly lucky finding my wife several years ago. Still shocked we found each other on tinder considering how bad tinder has been for a long time.
If you want a TLDR: every time dating apps work, they lose two customers, and they don’t want that
The only fix I came up with, is to charge people some amount up front, then if they’re still active weekly users in 6 months, they get a refund. That would create a better incentive structure for the app.
Wouldn’t that discourage forming good, lasting relationships?
You think someone would give up on a real relationship just to a some money back?
Would you? How much money would be worth giving up on “The One”?
People do much stupider things for less. Like eating tide pods.
Are those similar in some way? I don’t see the connection.
Even if your “Stupid is as stupid does” argument is true. Do you think it’d be common enough to be a problem? How common?
I’ve been looking for you my whole life, Tracy. If we stay together, though, I’d lose my €24.99 subscripton refund with Tinder"
They touched on something that could pave the way for a new and better dating app experience. Let your exes rate you. This tell your would-be dater 1. they aren’t such a POS that everyone they date ends up hating them, and 2. Would provide the real info that you’d like to see on dating profiles.
How would you deal with the issue of everyone giving you a high rating? That wouldn’t fare well for relationships either as you’d assume everyone is trying to get back with said ex. Or even worse they just keep floaters around.
I really don’t think everyone would have a high rating lol
but yeah, not sure how one would screen the review, maybe they have to upload a picture of you guys kissing and that let’s you rate them? Who knows, but I’d trust that info more than what someone put on there themselves
Jesus Christ a sex life social credit system.
it would really weed out all the people who want oral, but never reciprocate… That alone is worth it lmao
No, it fucking isn’t lmao
That would require the ex to be a good, honest person.
I knew these apps were fucked up when I kept matching with my ex-wife. Yeah no thanks. I was trying to FIX that fuck up.