Why Facebook has never listened and why it definitely won’t start now | Hacker News Reader

Why Facebook has never listened and why it definitely won’t start now

scobleizer.com

27 pointsazharcs19 comments

Scoble is treating this issue like it's black and white, when in fact it's more complicated. In reality, Zuckerberg should ignore some of his users, and listen to others.

People who complain about these types of changes generally fall into one of two categories:

1) Stubborn people who just hate change. They are used to something being a certain way, and are inconvenienced by having to change their thought pattern, even if it has an overall positive effect.

2) People who dislike the change for specific, actionable reasons, and would not be opposed to the change if their issues were resolved. These issues are often related to the inability to do something that was possible in the previous version, or legitimate usability issues which were not tested thoroughly enough before making the change.

Facebook should listen to the people who fall under category 2 and ignore category 1. A few minor changes to the new format would go a long way in making the majority of users satisfied.

I'm sorry but the Porsche analogy is just crap. If you ask Porsche enthusiasts, they will not list "trunk room" or "more leg room" as desirable features of their next Porsche. If you ask the thousands of people who buy a Porsche because it is a status symbol, then yes, they will want it to be more like a Volvo. Does Porsche listen to the former? Heck yes they do. And the latter? They are laughed at and ignored while their checks are cashed.

For the record, I am indifferent to the redesign but do not use Facebook too much. FWIW, I think the average facebook user is just scared of a website changing in general and the concept of "redesign" is entirely lost on them.

Porsche did join in the SUV craze (and satisfied the "trunk room" and "more leg room" requests) by introducing the Cayenne. And I seem to remember something about a four-door coming out (or might be mixing it up with Lamborghini). Part of it is figuring out how to retain the base and still expand into a new area. Neat trick.

Wait, what? He's disappointed because his announcement of his wife's pregnancy did NOT release a howling horde of marketeers trying to sell him more shit? Jesus, what a sad sack.

I think you missed the point of why he brought that up. He's not disappointed. But he's able to distance himself from his own experiences and view them from the perspective of Facebook and Twitter.

Sure, but that perspective seems to be "F'em, regular mallrat people like advertising. I don't personally know anyone that tacky, but I'm sure they exist and are ripe for the picking. All that's needed is a total disregard for everyone's opinion." Ugh. It betrays a contempt for, well, the world, and it is quite ugly.

I don't see it as an concession that people like advertising, but as one that in order for online applications like Facebook to exist, they need revenue. He's pointing out how Facebook can get revenue.

He is pretty explicit an unapologetic in the comments.

"Robert Scoble Says: March 21st, 2009 at 7:05 pm Leo: you are particularly clueless if you think what I just laid out for you is spam. Advertising is NOT spam. A LOT of people actually LIKE seeing advertising."

"Robert Scoble Says: March 21st, 2009 at 7:25 pm Will: I disagree. I know a LOT of people who enjoy being marketed to. Here’s a hint: they love going to the mall."

I was a bit over the top in characterizing it (eg, he does admit to knowing people who want stuff shoved at them), but these are his own words. Later on he adds some sops like "Zuckerberg told me he'll add filtering", but it's totally an afterthought.

Scoble is quite seriously telling Facebook to create its own reality over the opinions of the entire world. The potential profits are beside the point, at least for me. He's advocating a sad and ugly attitude.

Whenever I meet someone who says that s\he "hates advertising", I count the advertisements that they're wearing and carrying. It's always a non-zero number.

People do like advertising that provides value to them. They dislike/hate advertising that doesn't.

Is it possible to suck up more than this?

"Zuckerberg is a real leader because he doesn’t care what anyone thinks. He’s going to do what he thinks is best for his business. I wish Silicon Valley had more like him."

"I told him he was brilliant and that his moves this month would be remembered for decades. Decades."

I'm amazed Scoble's been able to keep his tall talk intact after this many years of announcing next big things that never go anywhere. But I'll say this for the guy -- he's perky.

Well, you have got to realize that this is part of Scoble's job—he is a technology evangelist (among other things) by trade. A large number of his statements are inherently biased, and that's OK; it's not like you have to pay him any heed. I certainly don't.

I think its a bit of a stretch to forecast the current redesign to something that will be happening decades later. I can't accept the fact that even in 2015 it will be the same game on the internet much less 2035. Scoble sometimes has some insightful writeups, but somehow correlating the facebook redesign to technology ubiquity in the future is a murky forecast at best. No one can predict what will happen then. The future on the web remains to be built.

I don't care that much either way about the re-design, however, it seems kind of dumb to tick off your users on purpose.

We are talking about basic usability here, not whether a luxury sports car that less than 1% of the population owns during their mid-life crisis has a trunk.

The blogger says that Facebooks usibility goal is different than what users can see so their opinions are short sighted. Facebook is going through a design change in order to build new, non-user, growth. Facebook is becoming more usable for a different market, namely businesses. It isn't on purpose, it's a side-effect, or so the theory goes.

The analogy you refer to was fine. It made a point and was short.

Facebook is just trying to prevent itself from becoming irrelevant. It realizes that the service it offers it not unique in any significant way and it can get left by the way side when the next big thing comes along.

It's still a young company and without an established business model we can't really hold them to too much. You won't expect an application in beta to be a beacon of stability and usability. This is the stage facebook is in and it should be allowed to evolve until they find a sustainable business model.

Uh being contacted by lots of companies because you announce having a baby is definitely NOT the future. Unless Facebook ad Twitter design away the "unsubscribe" button.

Terrible article. The author put his foot in his mouth to talk up a numerically successful 24-year-old taken by the old to be an emblem of our generation, even though most within our generation just wish the guy would go away.

This is going to sound like it's borne out of resentment, but I don't intend it that way: Mark Zuckerberg's problem is that he never failed, and that he never was in the position where failure was remotely possible. Before Facebook's rise, he had ridiculous amounts of PR handed to him, and then got absurd VC investments-- again, literally handed to him. So, the end result of this is that he can't take success gracefully. This is why he pisses people off, and it's also why Facebook is such a mess. If he can't handle success well in the public, why would we expect him to be any more humble and attuned in private?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com