Hacker News Reader

Comment by tl | Hacker News Reader

It also slows down the launch of every app because you're launching an app to launch your app. The idea that people would pay money, do a bunch of extra work and make their device slower just to change the appearance of their home screen because a handful of people on social media popularize it blows my mind.

View on HN

> The idea that people would pay money, do a bunch of extra work and make their device slower just to change the appearance of their home screen because a handful of people on social media popularize it blows my mind.

I'm surprised you find that surprising because customisation isn't exactly a new phenomenon. I mean is it really any different to techies slapping stickers on their laptop? Or car enthusiasts modding their vehical? Or home owners decorating their house? Maybe you consider this different because it is software rather than physical stuff; but people do also change their ring tones and wallpaper images too, people customise their avatars on MMO games and profile pictures on social networks. Heck, I even have an alternative coloured border on HN. So while this particular workaround will undoubtedly be more work than most people are willing to take I do still get why some people might want to customise their home screen.

> I'm surprised you find that surprising because customisation isn't exactly a new phenomenon

An entire generation of developers is growing up being told that users like being told how to use their devices, and that options scare them.

Devil's advocate: this is true. The people buying this icon pack, and the people who spend time on software customization in general, are a negligible subset of iPhone users. If you're making an app that aims for the lowest common denominator, options should be a low priority and well hidden once they're added.

If you're targeting a segment that likes options it's a different story.

I think this opinion is similar to the opinion that people don't value their privacy: it is a very convenient viewpoint to have when it comes to a company's bottom line.

Sure, if you approach the average person about an obscure topic like their privacy on the internet, they probably don't have strong opinions about it because that is outside of their wheelhouse, and they probably haven't given it much thought. If you couch privacy in terms that they are familiar with, such as drawing parallels to Supreme Court cases regarding surveillance and privacy, suddenly they care about whether or not they're being stalked online by corporations and governments.

For example, right to repair is something that most people don't think about. However, if you press the average person about whether they think they have the right to repair their own vehicle, suddenly everyone has strong opinions about it. People assume they have the right to use their hardware as they see fit, and aren't afraid of such options.

I spend a lot of time teaching non-technical people to use software, and in my experience the two things aren't the same at all. These sorts of users aren't too aware of the invasive aspects of modern programs, but if told, they're against it. However, they already know software with lots of options has those options. They just don't understand most of the choices and are afraid to try any in case one changes state in a way they can't get back from. More options scare and confuse them and make it much harder for these people (the vast majority) to use modern tech.

To be clear, I don't like the Apple approach. I think the options should still exist--but they need to be far removed from the UI without significant, non-discoverable steps.

I find weird that there's a whole market of plastic stuff with lots of colors and designs for the exterior of the phone, but somehow it's given that stuff inside the screen is different.

Maybe the subset of people who spend time on software customization is small because software customization tends to be low priority and well hidden?

I'm convinced the poster above is only surprised because of the combination in this case: It costs (a lot of) money to buy this set. It requires a lot of manual work to add the custom icons. And - most importantly - it slows down every app start. While I myself don't really like to change defaults, I can very well see the benefit of customization for other people. But at the expense of performance this becomes very questionable.

A lot of?

It's like the cost of eating lunch out three times in a big city.

Given the amount of work put into drawing icons, I'd say it's fair. I'm absolutely thrilled someone found a way to charge for something that is a personal project and not backed by some big corporate marketing buck.

Yes. A lot of. I value the work the designer put into it. But you have to also consider all the variables: 1. This is not a one and done deal. If he had a single client paying that for 80 icons, of course it wouldn't be fair. But since it's a product that is created once and sold multiple times, the price shouldn't be decided by the hours of work or craft put into it. 2. These icons are minimalistic. There certainly is a craft behind this design choice, but compared to more realistic icon depictions (comparing to macOS icons for example), it takes far less effort to design these. 3. A lot of them have already been established. If you can simply take a pre-existing pattern and adapt it to your style, there's not much for you to do. Official logos of other companies and adaptions of app icons.

Don't take this the wrong way. I'm happy for the designer to have been so successful. I'm merely pointing out that the price is relatively steep in comparison with other icon kits of the same craft. But good for him that he was so bold to go with the price and get rewarded for it!

Not sure if you've used shortcuts on iOS but a lot of those customizations don't change the performance of anything. The shortcuts on an iphone add a half second each time you use the app, because the icon has to open the shortcuts app THEN open the app the shortcut is linked to.

If adding a sticker to your laptop increased the boot time a fraction of a second some people would still do it, but many would it find it maddening!

Half a second is actually quite a big deal.

"A delay of less than 100 milliseconds feels instant to a user, but a delay between 100 and 300 milliseconds is perceptible. A delay between 300 and 1,000 milliseconds makes the user feel like a machine is working, but if the delay is above 1,000 milliseconds, your user will likely start to mentally context-switch."

http://designingforperformance.com/performance-is-ux/#design...

Not in the context of an 8 second boot time. Almost no one will notice 8 vs 8.5s

Most apps start in about a second.

I've seen people mod their car in ways that are detrimental to it's performance. I've also known people who have intentionally bought inferior hardware because it looked nicer. In fact I've seen some people wear shoes that has give them blisters but done so because those shoes were pretty.

You'd be surprised at the lengths of inconvenience some people will endure for the sake of aesthetics.

> I mean is it really any different to techies slapping stickers on their laptop? Or car enthusiasts modding their vehical?

Stickers take a trivial amount of effort and don't impair performance. Car mods take time and money, but often make things functionally better. The icon app takes time and money to setup and the only functional change is for the worse. I think the icons are just enough different/worse than most other customizations that it's reasonable to be surprised at their popularity.

None of the things you listed have any downside. This shortcuts workaround makes opening apps a horrible experience.

I've seen people mod their car in ways that are detrimental to it's performance (and intentionally too). So yes, some of those examples can sometimes affect the product negatively.

Never underestimate a persons vanity.

> customisation isn't exactly a new phenomenon

Another classic example: https://skins.webamp.org/

Digital life is taking over. It's the equivalent of putting some plant trees in your living room. As we spend more time (most of our time?) on our digital devices, the aesthetic is switching from real life to digital life.

It also removes context menus from app icons, reduced functionality on top of slower launch time.

Well, here is some history (from 1992):

https://winworldpc.com/product/icon-do-it/1x

I remember it was not inexpensive ($19).

It's so common to open apps from the search bar (and the app drawer now, I imagine), that it probably becomes less of a burden. Might even make people use those other patterns more, who knows.

I see no one remembers MySpace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com