Hacker News Reader

Comment by cowtools | Hacker News Reader

But surely there is a point at which the feature bloat becomes too great? the app becomes so feature-dense that users are turned off by the complexity, and the trickle of adventurous users doesn't satisfy the costs of development and maintenance of a new feature. I've heard a lot of stories about chat-apps with built-in payment functionality. I've heard of few successes.

I would like to think that WeChat is successful in the Chinese marketplace because that marketplace isn't actually very competitive. The government puts their thumb on the scale in favor of simplifying their mechanisms of control.

There is a phrase associated with unix: "Make each program do one thing well". Mobile operating systems lack the inter-process communication needed to make an ecosystem of simple, extensible programs.

View on HN

You are mistaken chinese market place is actually more competitive than the US. Instead of 1 amazon they have 3 instead of 1 Apple they have 3. Chinese companies have some restrictions and lines that are not supposed to be crossed but they are the same for most of them. And Chinese government is uncomfortable with 1 private app/service controlling the whole market as they want that control so they promote smaller players which results in more competitive market.

Spooky, how China figured out how to make capitalism work in the public interest. Notwithstanding that 'public interest' is defined by the party.

When you regulate the market, you enter social democracy territory. When you do it how much China is doing, you enter socialism territory.

One interesting part of the WeChat ecosystem in my opinion is the max size given to mini programs. The packaged app must be 10mb or less.

Of course video and images can be hosted externally, but it still forces companies who develop these mini programs to pay a minimum of attention to keeping their functionality relatively simple.

Hell no.

Tens of thousands of businesses worldwide purchase "the full Microsoft experience."

They integrate every single aspect of their digital enterprise with Microsoft's off the shelf option.

The same applies to Apps.

Many people want 1 thing that does it all.

I don't think that's true that people want 1 thing that does it all. They certainly want one bill, that I'll grant, but that's not exactly the same thing.

People want an ecosystem that is easy to adapt to, and more specifically they want _the ecosystem they're familiar with_. In a past life with software support, when it came to large/enterprise customers, the biggest pushback/fights had nothing to do with features or price, but with a few stubborn IT Managers/Administrators who were used to another product and didn't want to change.

UI/UX should have a common 'language' for lack of better words between them with a spin on it that still makes it unique for the program. We already see this with desktop OSes and mobile; if I right-click on any common desktop OS, I know I get a contextual menu on an object, if I swipe or tap on mobile likely something will happen, etc. Users mostly get this except for a small subset and can use a lot of apps; the app ecosystem on mobile more or less demonstrates this.

What Meta is doing with WhatsApp isn't about the one app for all, it's just they have a huge user base that isn't bringing in money and likely they see this as a cardinal sin _not to monetize_ WhatsApp somehow. They likely look at WeChat and go "wait you can make money like that?" and are desperately trying to figure out how to get themselves there. I have not been in the US for a long time so I don't know how people there will adopt to Meta-Money or whatever Meta ends up calling it. For the EU countries I've lived in, I'm not as confident people will want to be doing that with Meta at least when Apple/Google Pay exist and work pretty alright and banking apps already handling fast direct payments without needing an SV intermediary.

Facebook has already tried payments before through Messenger, and no one really used it. I don’t really see WhatsApp doing much better.

WhatsApp might succeed because it's less of a kitchen sink. WhatsApp is mainly about private communication. It's an app you feel like you control, where you're not being bombarded by advertising. Somehow payments feel psychologically safer in that context than a social network.

I mean, none of the US messaging-based payment transfer things have really worked. iMessage has no ads and no one uses the payments feature there either

I think we've pretty much saying the same thing.

I say application, you say ecosystem

To people who don't care about software, the difference can be... marginal.

They want a that is easy to use without training. Works perfectly, for their use case, the first time.

There are no other relevant details.

> People want an ecosystem that is easy to adapt to

People don't know what an 'ecosystem' is. They just want to click twice, and have things work. They don't have neither time nor energy to take away from daily hustle and dedicate it to maintaining an open web.

I don't necessarily think people want an MS-like offering that does everything. I think an enterprise package like MS offers is successful, because it makes life easy for people who handle procurement and IT management at large firms. It's just one relationship to negotiate, they structure their offerings to make them sticky, and it's less work for an admin to take care of.

I think the consensus among users is that no single component of MS's offering is best-in-class, except maybe Excel.

I think it is more about convenience. If you are already lured into a certain cosmos, given a certain context, some additional features can make sense and later on give an app a shift in meaning. Think about Google Maps and certain recommendations.

"The goal for most apps, especially social media, is to sustain user retention for as long as possible" That's it. And that's why I chose Kindle to be my go to app. No FB nor TikTok installed.

For unix, chaining programs is a way of working. Exchanging data between apps or websites is a hassle...

That's intentional. There's no reason you couldn't have apps be more interoperable through open standards, but vendors want to keep you locked in their ecosystem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com