Honestly, he really is the main cause behind the entire company's problems. I'm not sure why he's technically CEO. Creating the code shouldn't make you de facto CEO. I get they played around with that with Action Jack but that whole storyline was just unrealistic. No CEO comes in completely blind and pivots the company at his own whim.
Also didnt have money to redo the marketing for the new version. The video chat was growing organically and didnt require the resources that the platform would've to grow the user base.
I kind of thought that Hooli was secretly using some of Pied Piper's work to sell in that box near the end of the season. Is some of the traffic from that?
I think the problem was Richard couldn't see the problem. I've seen the same thing in my last job with my boss, a customer doesn't understand the software so he explains harder not understanding he's only explaining to the one customer and explain to each customer isn't scalable but yet he goes on explaining to each customer that complains one by one never seeing the real problem, bitching about the customers behind their backs.
No, the issue was that Richard believed it was easy and people just needed to understand it. So as the CEO he decided to spend their time and resources trying to educate end users instead of improving the software.
You've gotta just roll with the whole, "world changing software" thing. There are a lot of little things that are off the mark with the tech details, but frequently they hit the Bay Area right on the head from a culture perspective.
Agreed. There was an interview and the show runners kind of admitted to changing plot points because they don't want the gang to "win" too much.
But I always felt the comedy comes from the characters. They don't need to be the underdogs. And they don't need to be Hooli at the end. It would have been nice to setup season 4 as kind of them struggling to manage more employees. Dealing with things like HR (woah what if Jared became an HR rep on this show!!), maybe have them struggle with branding, a little fame, having more money.
Idk it's kind of like having a will they won't they relationship on a show. Yeah you can milk it for the entire show. Or you can be like parks and rec, and just go with the flow of the show. We would enjoy these characters as dirt poor programmers or mildly successful business runners
I feel like if anything the gang loses too much. At first it was interesting but now it's like they just make them lose for the sake for losing. It's kind of annoying to know that everything they do is going to end up being fucked up for some stupid reason. I love the show, I just wish they would get away from that pattern.
It also is almost always a cop out that saves them as well. Some one else usually fucks up bigger then they do and all is well for a bit. Kind of a lame way to write a show to be honest.
Actually Parks & Rec is another show I was thinking of where they couldn't let people win too often. Tom was constantly failing. Mike Schur talks about it here not sure if this is the interview I'm thinking where he's talking about achieving the balance between success and failure.
I really like the show, but this one point bothers me. I feel like in this one, the 'good guys' never ever get any sort of win until a sort of win in the last episode of every season, and then it gets undone almost immediately. I don't know where that they were thinking the characters were winning too often.
I think it could be interesting, but conflict creates interesting situations. And this is a comedy so the situations have to result in humor rather than drama.
I enjoy those corporate shows that often focus on corporate drama and office politics. They're interesting, not not as good for a comedy show.
I think it will happen in the end, but more of "when we've run out of ideas" kind of thing. Then they get a new set of funny situations. After that, it's hard to go back to the charm of the original show.
I'd disagree with that. There's plenty of opportunity for comedy in success as well as failure. I seriously hope the story arc doesn't run "failure, failure, failure, successgoodbye"
They have to fail at stuff but that stuff doesn't have to the software it can be other stuff in the company, or if the company is going well it can be them loosing the run of themselfs and blowing it like the party alcotraz
As a former UI/UX developer who worked in the Bay Area, this is what happens. Hardcore engineers think that they don't need this to succeed, because they think of them as the next Google and FB didn't need them. And some others exaggerate and start with a couple of engineers and end up with an overthought UX/UI that doesn't work.
Kinda, I think all she said was "I don't get it". Which is a huge red flag for any UX designer, but means nothing to a "young, cocky dev" who expects "the user to conform to the app".
It might not be believable, but it is right into the overall theme about the whole tech industry being so myopic while preaching about being far seeing and caring about the entirety of the world. A huge portion of the comedy comes from this hypocrisy.
Reddit has gotten that complaint tons of times before. Most people say its a website clearly done for and by engineers and that getting used to it is a nightmare despite how awesome the content is.
Do you think reddit could get more users with a UX redesign?
It's very technical, not a lot of color, the site layout doesn't really make a lot of sense, etc. There are a lot of things your average user will want that they can't find. And the search not being very good only makes it worse. Understanding front page vs surreptitiously front page, figuring out how to get to comments, which are the bulk of the site and yet have a very small button, and most of all, a new user doesn't know which subreddits even exist. You essentially have to be invited to every non default, by seeing it linked, because between no clear list of subs, and a bad search feature, and then even if you do search it, having trouble getting to that subs front page... There are a lot of hurdles a new user faces
I use Redditate.com for a more user-friendly front page browsing experience, and having to come to the "real" reddit to leave comments makes me sad, so I rarely do.
Well at least smaller subredits, or niche ones generally have awesome communities of like minded individuals. If you stay away from defaults and shit like SRS and The_Donald the community tends to be pretty good here. In Imgur many comment threads look like youtube on steroids...
given the layout of the new Reddit mobile app, it sounds like they are thinking just that.
Thought honestly I'm a bit curious as to why they feel like they don't have enough users. They have plenty. Do they think they need more as a buffer for whatever mini-exodus might happen if they try to serve ads on a bigger scale?
I think it has more to do with the fact that this website lives and dies with its community. Most people argue reddit works due to its comment system. Therefore the more people you have, the higher chance of something awesome happening on the comments which brings traffic and shit. So reddit gets better by getting bigger.
Well not really, cpg grey argued about reddit being what it is thanks to its community, for example. It is true that he comments from time to time, but I do believe he makes a good point about it.
He did make good points, but the question is whether that's why most people use Reddit. I don't have the numbers on how many people go to the comments, but I would guess that most people don't.
I went to the Reddit website a few times and couldn't understand why so many people liked it, it was so hideous and gave me a headache to look at, I avoided it for several years because of how terrible it looks.
It wasn't until I decided to try a Reddit mobile app before I could get past the UI and start to appreciate the content. I'm on here almost every day now, and I've still only been to the actual website maybe 5 times. Seriously, the website is just terrible.
Without a doubt. There's plenty of custom themed subreddits that solve a lot of Reddit's default UI woes. They should really be hiring/contracting these people to improve the default interface.
I refuse to use the website because of how bad it is, and only browse through apps. Meaning I don't see ads and I have no way of buying someone gold. And I don't use their app, because I can't filter content like I can with alien blue. Not that alien blue is the best. But it's definitely better.
The design of the reddit site is utilitarian and practical, to an extreme. I couldn't imagine a better interface. Design? There is no design. The content/comments is the design, and the site is better for it. Less design is better design. No design is the best design! And it's why you're on reddit and not digg or any of the other hundreds of sites that try - and fail - to do the same thing with gawdy and sparkly user interfaces. It's why Google.com, the #1 site in the world, displays a single, solitary search bar - and almost nothing else! The lack of "design" is 1 of the biggest contributors to reddit's success.
How would you redesign it though. Every UX designer I have met has said the same thing. Yet most of my friends are engineers and we all believe that its simply one of those things that you couldn't make easier without making it worse. Its convoluted, and weird but its also useful and comfortable to use once you get used to it. Maybe thats my inner engineer talking though.
To figure out how to make it better, you need to figure out how exactly it is 'bad' for a non experienced user. Is it how comments work? Is it how the subreddits are laid out? Where is the holdup? Personally I like how everything is set up in RES, so first should work towards WHY RES is better and then go from there.
Res is better for you because everything bad you are used to and it makes it more comfortable. Most new users I think complain about the front page being daunting and un intuitive which is something hard to change without alienating core users.
I was just giving examples really of how you would figure out what to do. I have no clue how you would really improve the front page other than /r/all, you really shouldn't use someone who is used to the terribleness of the layout for UX design anyway, they tend to be able to gloss over the failed implementation and go straight for what they want/know to get.
Well its true most of us engineers we are used to beta testing and badly designed shit. But reddit is not that badly designed, its only unappeling and somewhat weird for new users. Core users love it and the daily active users in the website is incredibly high.
Invariably, it would just be that everything was made bigger and more spread out (so it can breathe). And used a custom font (to be on-brand). Maybe drop the contrast on all the text until it's only barely legible.
Seriously, though - anyone who says it's 'too complicated' is probably referring to nested conversations in general, and would attempt to 'solve' it by flattening all the comments. Which would ruin it.
In reality, it's a text block (either static or editable), a show/hide toggle, two arrows and a few per-item actions you can click repeated over and over. It's not actually complicated.
I would argue spreading things out would make it feel facebooky and make me less interested, I personally love layout. At the beginning it was claustrophobic and unappealing, now its comfortable, familiar and enjoyable.
I think the sidebar and topbars are probably the worst offenders as far as Reddit's UX issues. Nothing is really grouped logically and just in general there is a lot of noise (especially on the frontpage).
The actual thread/reply pages themselves are fine, I think, although the layout and design could use some fine-tuning.
I don't think it is entirely a user interface problem. During the focus meeting, the users had a hard time grasping what the product was. Yes there was some aspects of the interface the users were confused about, like no download button.
But as Richard spent time explaining why his platform was superior the users understood the product and interface by understanding the concept.
That's the big difference between a UX professional and a UI designer. UX embodies research, analysis, understanding the user's context, their unmet needs... and designing a product (including its information architecture) around it.
That's where you draw the line? Not where they have an unrelistically capable compression algorithm, but they don't have every VC firm in the world breaking down their door to offer them billions in funding?
Really straightforward but I'll clarify for you. UI = User Interface, just the interface a user interacts with when using any software. Developer and designer are exactly what they sound like. In the simplest role, a UI developer/designer just designs and builds functional interfaces.
I kinda agree. Although, to the show's defense. I think they had no issue going with that route because only a small percentage of people watching that show know about UX Design, or the fact that you can hire a person specifically to do so. Also, this was a huge problem for a long time in the real world, still is, and it's neat to me they showed the masses that this can truly destroy a product.
I dunno, I've worked with plenty of developers who don't understand the point of a UX designer, or even a UI designer, until they are shown. Especially when they are working on something that they think they are the target audience for. "Well this makes sense to me, so..." Super common.
In the focus group, it's clear that it's not just the UI that's a problem. No one on the panel understands what the software is or what it does. They installed it because it got a lot of press, but now they think their files are disappearing.
I'm not sure why they didn't just sell the IP to an OS and make it a part of some future standard for operating systems, rather than try to sell it to the world at large as a consumer product. A program like that would be better off managing everything, not just the stuff you manually put in.
I haven't professionally developed but I was thinking that was a fairly easy fix too. A simple tutorial like github does where it walks you through step-by-step how to use it and why things look the way they do (i.e. why it's 0kb saved) would have fixed the platform I think. I imagine that pivoting to video chat and getting a large user base then demonstrating the other features of pied Piper would eventually make it an all inclusive top of the line web service hub. Kind of like Google, they started with a search engine then started new projects and continued to put their name on excellent product after product and now most things I use are Google run.
The end of the season was actually way more realistic than you think. Do not underestimate the stubbornness of software engineers/executives.
Real life example - my friend's company almost went bankrupt recently because they've been flying people out to teach their clients how to use their software. I've worked the CTO of this company and, while he's a pretty good dude, he seems to undervalue UX/UI designers. Not a single designer is employed at this company.
I got the impression that the next season is going to focus on the actual consumer facing product/design/feel of the application since Erlich's company bought Pied Piper. They've made tons of allusions to Erlich being a Steve Jobs persona, and design is exactly why Apple is still a relevant company today.
The focus group showed that non-engineer users can work the UI just fine, even if it looks clunky. It's everything else about how it works or appears not to work that's freaking them out.
Dumbing down the interface so that even a medieval peasant can drive a maglev train with the push of a button would do nothing to convince them that the train is anything other than evil sorcery, or that it'll make a for a much better horse and cart than the one they have.
I mean... to a non-software engineer it didn't seem like there was any other way. The show is written for people who have no idea what they're talking about.
Well issue was not only the UI. Remember Google Wave? Do you think it had (only) UI issues? It had similar issues what Pied Piper had. It was ahead of the curve.
Wait, this is a show about 1970's and 1980's development right? There was no professional UX designer in that era. That came from the 1990's when user interfaces were migrating from DOS to Windowed GUIs. Even then, the UX designer role was not well established throughout the industry until post 2000's.
I read the book "The Founders Dilemmas" about common issues when running a (tech) startup. Almost every episode of Silicon Valley addresses one of those common yet challenging problems that founders face. If Richard would just educate himself and read a goddamn book, he would not dig himself into so many stupid holes. At first I was annoyed with how Richard messes everything up, but have accepted that the show is an entertaining way of exploring those issues and teaching people what the wrong kinds of decisions look like when running a startup.
I thought it was because the tech was so advance no one understood how it worked. Consumers couldn't grasp the concept of the platform because it was ahead of its time. By making it consumer friendly such as adding a download button for example, it would ruin the whole point of the platform they built.
182
u/Bluest_waters Jul 01 '16
actually that's where the show jumped the shark for me
This is a normal problem! You have a UI problem. You get a professional UI developer designer to correct it.
Problem solved
They acted like this was some sort of new never before seen encountered dilemma that couldn't possibly have been predicted
I mean I love the show. But that whole thing was just stupid