password1 · HackerTrans

5 months agodiscuss

Market share is not really relevant about this, what matter's here is which platform drives more revenue and that's iOS pretty much everywhere. These companies are data-driven, they don't choose where to invest based on ideology or geography, but on ROI. iOS brings the majority of the money and so the majority of the investment goes there.

password1

5 months agodiscuss

Usually businesses that make money out of mobile apps are very data driven, I promise you that if they could make more money from Android they would already been doing it. They still have an Android offering, but it's underinvested because it brings less money.

password1

6 months agodiscuss

There's a saying in mobile development that in most companies the Android version of the app is a second class citizen. It usually brings substantially less money and so less money are invested in it. As a result the Android team is often understaffed and the app is almost always behind in feature development, less polished and with overall worse UX and more bugs compared to the iOS app.

Also iOS still has a community of iOS only indie devs that publish polished apps for iOS, it's very common to find very popular iOS app with very curated UX that are exclusive to that platform and have a good fanbase.

password1

6 months agodiscuss

It's interesting that the the author created three saas over the weekend as some sort of proof that execution is useless now. But would any company ever buy one of these? No, because for a company to buy your saas you need salespeople or some marketing channel, compliance and regulatory checkmarks, SSO integrations, ability to take and implement special feature requests, SLAs, maintenance and support capacity, etc.

That's the execution part of creating a successful business and it's still entirely missing.

password1

4 years agodiscuss

This would quickly trap you in yet another filter bubble, just one of your own creation. Dangerous idea. One of the core principles of the internet should be the ability to discover and encounter information and opinions that you aren't even aware could exist (serendipity?). If user start to limit all their searches to just a handful of websites and their peers it can have a really bad filtering effect.

Besides, do not think about the problem as a techie with a long list of trusted internet personalities. Think about it as a normal user that barely gets technology. The most common outcome would be that they setup once these search sources with some random familiar sounding names (probably news outlet they trust) and never touch them again. It feels it could be a highly exploitable system.

password1

5 years agodiscuss

That only covers backlinks and authority, it's just one piece of the puzzle. Ironically, that's called a "black-hat" way of obtaining backlinks and authority. The "white-hat" way is to go to legit websites and purchase links, literally pay them to link your website. This is a great example of what's considered "ethical" in SEO

password1

5 years agodiscuss

A while back (two years?). The thing is, user were extremely satisfied by the product. The users came to the website for a comparison table (which was at the top), used the information, clicked a link on the table and then exited the website. The rest of the page was useless, most won't even scroll. But still they needed it for a ton of SEO reasons (keyword density, semantic structure and complexity, internal and external linking). The company was working on an extremely competitive niche and it was crushing it (multi-million dollar ad revenue), so I think they knew what were doing.

password1

5 years agodiscuss

I think it would get reported by your competitors and then blacklisted/penalized after manual review.

password1

5 years agodiscuss

It's SEO. Once a SEO expert was showing me user heatmaps on his popular website's articles. The users completely ignored 90% of the content and of the text of a page. I asked him why so many parts of the text were ignored by the users and his answer was "oh, that text is not for the users, it's for google". The literally paid writers to write articles way longer than needed solely to satisfy Google algorithms. The worst part is that it worked and they earned a lot of money from it.

comments