{"id":461066,"date":"2025-05-26T21:00:35","date_gmt":"2025-05-26T21:00:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/?p=461066"},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"-0001-11-29T21:00:00","slug":"","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/?p=461066","title":{"rendered":"Why you love bad products<\/span>"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Have you ever felt frustrated when a product you love gets a redesign?<\/p>\n

As someone deeply involved in product development, I\u2019ve observed an interesting pattern: no matter how thoughtfully businesses try to innovate and improve, users often cling to the old product and resist change. Even when the new version offers clear advantages.<\/p>\n

The issue<\/h2>\n

Think of every major update to platforms like YouTube or Facebook. Each redesign inevitably triggers a wave of online backlash, like the collective outcry in a stadium after a controversial call from the referee. Users argue that the previous design was better; some threaten to abandon the platform, while others go so far as to launch petitions demanding a rollback<\/a>. And these reactions aren\u2019t always unfounded. Take the Reddit redesign in 2018 \u2014 many still remember the uproar it caused.<\/p>\n

\"Old<\/p>\n
Old Reddit<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

My name is Mark, and I’m responsible for client interfaces at EXANTE. In this article, I want to explore why we grow so attached to products that, while familiar, are often outdated and inefficient. More importantly, I want to better understand \u2014 and hopefully help others understand \u2014 how to deliver product changes without triggering user backlash.<\/p>\n

Why Are Changes Even Needed<\/h2>\n

I\u2019m convinced that product evolution, including redesigns, is an inevitable necessity. Market conditions, client expectations, and competitors\u2019 offerings evolve rapidly. In this environment, standing still is equivalent to falling behind. Simply put, a product that doesn\u2019t change is probably already obsolete. That\u2019s why businesses focus on growing their CTB (Change the Business) metrics \u2014 pursuing innovation and new opportunities \u2014 while keeping RTB (Run the Business) metrics lean, maintaining only what\u2019s essential to function day to day. Just like in living organisms: a cell spends minimal energy to maintain its basic functions, but any change \u2014 growth, division, or adaptation \u2014 demands extra resources.<\/p>\n

\"Ready<\/p>\n
Ready for redesign<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

The Context<\/h2>\n

One of EXANTE\u2019s flagship products, the Desktop Platform, is currently undergoing a major redesign. But it\u2019s more than just an interface refresh; the update introduces a range of functional improvements. Internally, we like to call it a \u201cfacelift.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Before<\/p>\n
Before «facelift»<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n
\"After<\/p>\n
After «facelift»<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Due to technical reasons \u2014 which we won\u2019t get into here \u2014 we chose to roll out all changes simultaneously. Aware of the risks involved, we did our best to make the transition as smooth as possible. When clients updated their trading terminal to the latest version, they were greeted with a friendly prompt offering them the option to switch to the new interface right away or delay the transition. We also informed them that the option to revert to the old interface would soon be removed.<\/p>\n

\"Migration<\/p>\n
Migration dialogue<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

As you might expect, when the new version was released, over 60% of the users opted to delay the transition. But just a few months later, that number had dropped to around 3%.<\/p>\n

So why does this happen? Why did we see similar reactions among the users of YouTube, Reddit, and others \u2013 and why is it likely to happen again? Beyond the obvious reasons, what really drives users to resist change?<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s take a closer look.<\/p>\n

The Science Behind It<\/h2>\n

In my opinion, the answer begins with how our brains work: our minds are inherently lazy, and we\u2019re wired to favor familiar patterns and routines. But that\u2019s just my personal take \u2014 I\u2019m not a scientist. To better understand this, I turned to research from actual experts.<\/p>\n

\"Daniel<\/p>\n
Daniel Kahneman<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Cognitive Economy<\/h3>\n

Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman calls this phenomenon \u201ccognitive economy.\u201d Essentially, our brain prefers to minimise energy spent on decision-making by opting for familiar, tried-and-tested routines. As a result, significant changes aren\u2019t just met with hesitation \u2014 they can trigger outright resistance.<\/p>\n

\n

«A general \u2018law of least effort\u2019 applies to cognitive as well as physical exertion. The law asserts that if there are several ways of achieving the same goal, people will eventually gravitate to the least demanding course of action. In the economy of action, effort is a cost, and the acquisition of skill is driven by the balance of benefits and costs. Laziness is built deep into our nature.»<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n
\"Kahneman's<\/p>\n
Kahneman’s bestseller<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Kahneman explores this concept in depth in his influential book, \u201cThinking, Fast and Slow\u201d. He describes two modes of thinking: System 1, which is fast, intuitive, and efficient but prone to biases and errors; and System 2, which is slower, analytical, and used for problem-solving, but requires much more mental effort and energy.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhen you are in a state of cognitive ease, you are probably in a good mood, like what you see, believe what you hear, trust your intuitions, and feel that the current situation is comfortably familiar.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Interestingly, this reminded me of the difference between lightweight LLM models (around 8 billion parameters) and heavier models (408+ billion parameters), where larger models consume significantly more GPU resources to produce superior results.<\/p>\n

Status Quo Bias<\/h3>\n

Another relevant concept is the \u201cstatus quo bias,\u201d first described by researchers William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser in a 1988 paper in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty<\/em>. Their research showed that people often resist change \u2013 even when the new option is clearly superior \u2013 due to a subconscious fear of potential loss.<\/p>\n

Loss Aversion<\/h3>\n

This aligns closely with another cognitive bias known as \u201closs aversion,\u201d introduced by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in their seminal paper, \u201cProspect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.\u201d Loss aversion refers to the phenomenon where people perceive potential losses more intensely than equivalent gains, leading them to value the comfort of the familiar far more than potential benefits from something new. This bias may help explain why millions were hesitant to switch from keypad phones to touchscreen smartphones for so long.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe aggravation that one experiences in losing a sum of money appears to be greater than the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n
\"Difference<\/p>\n
Difference in perception<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

In short, our resistance to abandon familiar interfaces isn\u2019t just habit \u2013 it\u2019s driven by deep-rooted cognitive mechanisms that compel us to cling to the familiar. Understanding these mechanisms is the first step toward empathising with users and helping them adapt more smoothly to change.<\/p>\n

Breaking the Norms<\/h2>\n

Since we\u2019ve touched on the reluctance users showed in giving up devices with physical keyboards, let\u2019s look at some business cases where embracing a new paradigm made all the difference.<\/p>\n

2007.<\/strong> The mobile market is saturated with smartphones with physical keyboards. Devices like BlackBerry, with their convenient QWERTY layouts, were the gold standard, especially among business users. Nokia led with its Symbian OS phones, also equipped with physical keyboards. <\/p>\n

\"Our<\/p>\n
Our reality in 2007<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Meanwhile, keyboard-less devices like Palm\u2019s PDAs were seen as niche or geeky. I still remember laughing when a programmer friend showed me his PDA, which had no games installed \u2014 he insisted, with a smirk, that it was \u201cstrictly for work.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Rich<\/p>\n
Rich people devices<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Apple<\/h3>\n

Then Apple released the iPhone\u2014a smartphone with no physical keyboard, just a single home button and a fully touchscreen interface. The design was so unusual at the time that it drew widespread scepticism. <\/p>\n

\"Steve<\/p>\n
Steve Jobs with the first iPhone<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Steve Ballmer, then Microsoft CEO, even publicly mocked the device:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c500 dollars? Fully subsidized, with a plan? I said, \u2018That is the most expensive phone in the world, and it doesn\u2019t appeal to business customers because it doesn\u2019t have a keyboard, which makes it not a very good email machine.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/div>\n

I still remember the first time I held an iPhone after years of using Symbian. It felt unfamiliar and strange \u2013 especially the restriction on freely installing third-party apps. But despite that initial hesitation, users quickly embraced the iPhone. Its bold new design didn\u2019t just gain acceptance \u2013 it redefined the entire smartphone industry and set a new standard.<\/p>\n

As of early 2024, Apple Inc.\u2019s market capitalisation has surpassed 3 trillion dollars\u2014about seven times the GDP of Norway, or as one GDP of France \u2014 with iPhone sales playing a major role in that success.<\/p>\n

\"GDP<\/p>\n
GDP of France<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Spotify<\/h3>\n

Similarly, take Spotify\u2019s impact on how we listen to music. Instead of purchasing albums, users can now access vast song libraries for a subscription fee. While subscription-based services were already trending, Spotify played a key role in transforming global listening habits.<\/p>\n

As of early 2024, Spotify has over 250 million paying subscribers \u2014 which, coincidentally, is exactly how many people would live in my hometown\u2026 if 249 million of them suddenly moved in.<\/p>\n

\"Spotify<\/p>\n
Spotify Premium Subscriber Number<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Humane<\/h3>\n

However, not all innovations lead to resounding success. In 2024, the now-infamous company Humane launched Ai Pin, an AI-powered wearable device, which was met with lukewarm response \u2013 partly due to technical shortcomings. Tech influencer Marques Brownlee called it the worst gadget he\u2019d ever reviewed<\/a>\u2014and he\u2019s reviewed plenty. Shortly after, Ai Pin sales were halted, and Humane was acquired by HP for around $116 million.<\/p>\n

\"Marques<\/p>\n
Marques Brownlee with Ai Pin — YouTube video preview<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

The Cost of Change<\/h3>\n

While preparing this article, a core idea emerged that I\u2019d like to frame as the main thesis: any change you introduce demands effort from the user. Users, consciously or not, always assess the benefit-to-effort ratio. If your new product or updated interface doesn\u2019t offer clear benefits that justify the effort required to adapt, users simply won\u2019t embrace it. It\u2019s also important to recognise that existing products, interfaces, or workflows always have a built-in advantage: users already know how to use them. It is also important to notice that even if a new product offers significant benefits with a small investment in adaptation, users are more likely to choose not to undergo adaptation.<\/p>\n

Take this: if a task used to take two clicks, and now it takes three \u2014 the added friction can kill any sense of improvement. If it still takes two, the user\u2019s natural question is: \u201cWhy bother learning it all over again?\u201d And even if it takes one click less, the gain might still not be worth the effort of re-learning.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n
The importance of adaptation versus the value of change<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Personally, all of Tesla\u2019s impressive features lose their appeal the moment I have to wrestle with those unconventional door handles. (By the way, I\u2019d love to hear your take on Tesla\u2019s door handles\u2014feel free to share in the comments!)<\/p>\n

\"Opening<\/p>\n
Opening the door of the Tesla<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Delivery Principles<\/h2>\n

So, how can we introduce major changes without triggering strong user resistance? How can we make new products feel familiar?<\/p>\n

Throughout my career in product management \u2014 and while compiling this article \u2014 I\u2019ve identified several key principles that guide my approach to delivering change. I hope you find them useful too:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Use familiar patterns: <\/strong>Don\u2019t reinvent the wheel or introduce new patterns without a clear necessity. Adopting proven, familiar solutions is not only acceptable\u2014it\u2019s often the smarter choice.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Consider the broader context: <\/strong>The world doesn\u2019t revolve around your product. Users won\u2019t spend hours learning unless the value of change is obvious. If your changes aren\u2019t intuitive, users won\u2019t hesitate to move to a competitor.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Provide clear instructions: <\/strong>Even seemingly obvious features can be confusing. Create guides, release notes, onboarding screens to clearly communicate \u201cwhat\u2019s new\u201d and how to use it.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    Test on yourself: <\/strong>Always use your product before release. If you find something frustrating or inconvenient, chances are your users will too. Keep using your product after release, continuously, whenever possible.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  5. \n

    Measure and analyse: <\/strong>Track your metrics and set up product dashboards. Pay close attention to user churn dynamics and analyse behavioural metrics thoroughly.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  6. \n

    Listen to feedback: <\/strong>Conduct product interviews, listen to your customers, collect their feedback, and pay special attention to their criticism. Learn to distinguish temporary resistance from genuine product issues. Don\u2019t seek praise\u2014it won\u2019t help you to improve the product.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  7. \n

    Validate hypotheses: <\/strong>Run usability tests, and if applicable, perform A\/B tests. Try to understand exactly how users interact with your product. Conduct \u201ccorridor testing\u201d during concept development, build prototypes in Figma, draw diagrams and wireframes \u2014 it\u2019s cheaper than developing features or redesigns nobody needs. Debate, discuss, research competitors, and assess market demand.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  8. \n

    Establish clear communication: <\/strong>Communicate upcoming changes clearly and transparently to all employees. Explain what\u2019s changing and, more importantly, why. Transparent communication helps reduce resistance. Make sure your colleagues have the full context \u2014 don\u2019t work in isolation.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  9. \n

    Create value around changes: <\/strong>Users need to see clear benefits from new features or interfaces. Even when the change is mandatory, it\u2019s crucial to actively communicate the value in every possible way. A user who chooses to adopt a feature will always be more satisfied than one who feels forced into it.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  10. \n

    Ensure a smooth transition: <\/strong>Start by testing changes internally with your team, then roll them out gradually to small groups of users. Provide users with a temporary option to switch back to the old interface. Gradual rollouts are especially important for large client bases \u2014 many services launch updates to only a small percentage of users at first to monitor feedback and minimize risk.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Evolution over Revolution<\/h2>\n

    One principle I want to emphasize above all others is this:<\/p>\n

    Evolution Over Revolution.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Ultimately, prioritize evolution over revolution. Users don\u2019t want change just for the sake of change. They\u2019re willing to learn something new\u2014but only if it\u2019s clearly worth the effort. That doesn\u2019t mean you should avoid bold, groundbreaking features. After all, great products can \u2014 and do \u2014 change the world, and taking risks is part of doing business.<\/p>\n

    \"Door<\/p>\n
    Door Reinvented<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

    What I\u2019m cautioning against are revolutionary changes that lack clear, obvious value. If you\u2019re going to introduce a major shift, make sure it delivers benefits that clearly outweigh the effort required for users to adapt.<\/p>\n

    What principles do you follow to introduce changes without overwhelming your users?<\/p>\n

    Share your thoughts in the comments \u2014 I\u2019d love to hear them!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    <\/div>\n


    \u0441\u0441\u044b\u043b\u043a\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0440\u0438\u0433\u0438\u043d\u0430\u043b \u0441\u0442\u0430\u0442\u044c\u0438 https:\/\/habr.com\/ru\/articles\/912848\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n

    Have you ever felt frustrated when a product you love gets a redesign?<\/p>\n

    As someone deeply involved in product development, I\u2019ve observed an interesting pattern: no matter how thoughtfully businesses try to innovate and improve, users often cling to the old product and resist change. Even when the new version offers clear advantages.<\/p>\n

    The issue<\/h2>\n

    Think of every major update to platforms like YouTube or Facebook. Each redesign inevitably triggers a wave of online backlash, like the collective outcry in a stadium after a controversial call from the referee. Users argue that the previous design was better; some threaten to abandon the platform, while others go so far as to launch petitions demanding a rollback<\/a>. And these reactions aren\u2019t always unfounded. Take the Reddit redesign in 2018 \u2014 many still remember the uproar it caused.<\/p>\n

    \n
    Old Reddit<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

    My name is Mark, and I’m responsible for client interfaces at EXANTE. In this article, I want to explore why we grow so attached to products that, while familiar, are often outdated and inefficient. More importantly, I want to better understand \u2014 and hopefully help others understand \u2014 how to deliver product changes without triggering user backlash.<\/p>\n

    Why Are Changes Even Needed<\/h2>\n

    I\u2019m convinced that product evolution, including redesigns, is an inevitable necessity. Market conditions, client expectations, and competitors\u2019 offerings evolve rapidly. In this environment, standing still is equivalent to falling behind. Simply put, a product that doesn\u2019t change is probably already obsolete. That\u2019s why businesses focus on growing their CTB (Change the Business) metrics \u2014 pursuing innovation and new opportunities \u2014 while keeping RTB (Run the Business) metrics lean, maintaining only what\u2019s essential to function day to day. Just like in living organisms: a cell spends minimal energy to maintain its basic functions, but any change \u2014 growth, division, or adaptation \u2014 demands extra resources.<\/p>\n

    \n
    Ready for redesign<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

    The Context<\/h2>\n

    One of EXANTE\u2019s flagship products, the Desktop Platform, is currently undergoing a major redesign. But it\u2019s more than just an interface refresh; the update introduces a range of functional improvements. Internally, we like to call it a \u201cfacelift.\u201d<\/p>\n

    \n
    Before «facelift»<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n
    \n
    After «facelift»<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

    Due to technical reasons \u2014 which we won\u2019t get into here \u2014 we chose to roll out all changes simultaneously. Aware of the risks involved, we did our best to make the transition as smooth as possible. When clients updated their trading terminal to the latest version, they were greeted with a friendly prompt offering them the option to switch to the new interface right away or delay the transition. We also informed them that the option to revert to the old interface would soon be removed.<\/p>\n

    \n
    Migration dialogue<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

    As you might expect, when the new version was released, over 60% of the users opted to delay the transition. But just a few months later, that number had dropped to around 3%.<\/p>\n

    So why does this happen? Why did we see similar reactions among the users of YouTube, Reddit, and others \u2013 and why is it likely to happen again? Beyond the obvious reasons, what really drives users to resist change?<\/p>\n

    Let\u2019s take a closer look.<\/p>\n

    The Science Behind It<\/h2>\n

    In my opinion, the answer begins with how our brains work: our minds are inherently lazy, and we\u2019re wired to favor familiar patterns and routines. But that\u2019s just my personal take \u2014 I\u2019m not a scientist. To better understand this, I turned to research from actual experts.<\/p>\n

    \n
    Daniel Kahneman<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

    Cognitive Economy<\/h3>\n

    Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman calls this phenomenon \u201ccognitive economy.\u201d Essentially, our brain prefers to minimise energy spent on decision-making by opting for familiar, tried-and-tested routines. As a result, significant changes aren\u2019t just met with hesitation \u2014 they can trigger outright resistance.<\/p>\n

    \n

    «A general \u2018law of least effort\u2019 applies to cognitive as well as physical exertion. The law asserts that if there are several ways of achieving the same goal, people will eventually gravitate to the least demanding course of action. In the economy of action, effort is a cost, and the acquisition of skill is driven by the balance of benefits and costs. Laziness is built deep into our nature.»<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    \n
    \n
    Kahneman’s bestseller<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

    Kahneman explores this concept in depth in his influential book, \u201cThinking, Fast and Slow\u201d. He describes two modes of thinking: System 1, which is fast, intuitive, and efficient but prone to biases and errors; and System 2, which is slower, analytical, and used for problem-solving, but requires much more mental effort and energy.<\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201cWhen you are in a state of cognitive ease, you are probably in a good mood, like what you see, believe what you hear, trust your intuitions, and feel that the current situation is comfortably familiar.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Interestingly, this reminded me of the difference between lightweight LLM models (around 8 billion parameters) and heavier models (408+ billion parameters), where larger models consume significantly more GPU resources to produce superior results.<\/p>\n

    Status Quo Bias<\/h3>\n

    Another relevant concept is the \u201cstatus quo bias,\u201d first described by researchers William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser in a 1988 paper in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty<\/em>. Their research showed that people often resist change \u2013 even when the new option is clearly superior \u2013 due to a subconscious fear of potential loss.<\/p>\n

    Loss Aversion<\/h3>\n

    This aligns closely with another cognitive bias known as \u201closs aversion,\u201d introduced by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in their seminal paper, \u201cProspect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.\u201d Loss aversion refers to the phenomenon where people perceive potential losses more intensely than equivalent gains, leading them to value the comfort of the familiar far more than potential benefits from something new. This bias may help explain why millions were hesitant to switch from keypad phones to touchscreen smartphones for so long.<\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201cThe aggravation that one experiences in losing a sum of money appears to be greater than the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    \n
    \n
    Difference in perception<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

    In short, our resistance to abandon familiar interfaces isn\u2019t just habit \u2013 it\u2019s driven by deep-rooted cognitive mechanisms that compel us to cling to the familiar. Understanding these mechanisms is the first step toward empathising with users and helping them adapt more smoothly to change.<\/p>\n

    Breaking the Norms<\/h2>\n

    Since we\u2019ve touched on the reluctance users showed in giving up devices with physical keyboards, let\u2019s look at some business cases where embracing a new paradigm made all the difference.<\/p>\n

    2007.<\/strong> The mobile market is saturated with smartphones with physical keyboards. Devices like BlackBerry, with their convenient QWERTY layouts, were the gold standard, especially among business users. Nokia led with its Symbian OS phones, also equipped with physical keyboards. <\/p>\n

    \n
    Our reality in 2007<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

    Meanwhile, keyboard-less devices like Palm\u2019s PDAs were seen as niche or geeky. I still remember laughing when a programmer friend showed me his PDA, which had no games installed \u2014 he insisted, with a smirk, that it was \u201cstrictly for work.\u201d<\/p>\n

    \n
    Rich people devices<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

    Apple<\/h3>\n

    Then Apple released the iPhone\u2014a smartphone with no physical keyboard, just a single home button and a fully touchscreen interface. The design was so unusual at the time that it drew widespread scepticism. <\/p>\n

    \n
    Steve Jobs with the first iPhone<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

    Steve Ballmer, then Microsoft CEO, even publicly mocked the device:<\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201c500 dollars? Fully subsidized, with a plan? I said, \u2018That is the most expensive phone in the world, and it doesn\u2019t appeal to business customers because it doesn\u2019t have a keyboard, which makes it not a very good email machine.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    <\/div>\n

    I still remember the first time I held an iPhone after years of using Symbian. It felt unfamiliar and strange \u2013 especially the restriction on freely installing third-party apps. But despite that initial hesitation, users quickly embraced the iPhone. Its bold new design didn\u2019t just gain acceptance \u2013 it redefined the entire smartphone industry and set a new standard.<\/p>\n

    As of early 2024, Apple Inc.\u2019s market capitalisation has surpassed 3 trillion dollars\u2014about seven times the GDP of Norway, or as one GDP of France \u2014 with iPhone sales playing a major role in that success.<\/p>\n

    \n
    GDP of France<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

    Spotify<\/h3>\n

    Similarly, take Spotify\u2019s impact on how we listen to music. Instead of purchasing albums, users can now access vast song libraries for a subscription fee. While subscription-based services were already trending, Spotify played a key role in transforming global listening habits.<\/p>\n

    As of early 2024, Spotify has over 250 million paying subscribers \u2014 which, coincidentally, is exactly how many people would live in my hometown\u2026 if 249 million of them suddenly moved in.<\/p>\n

    \n
    Spotify Premium Subscriber Number<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

    Humane<\/h3>\n

    However, not all innovations lead to resounding success. In 2024, the now-infamous company Humane launched Ai Pin, an AI-powered wearable device, which was met with lukewarm response \u2013 partly due to technical shortcomings. Tech influencer Marques Brownlee called it the worst gadget he\u2019d ever reviewed<\/a>\u2014and he\u2019s reviewed plenty. Shortly after, Ai Pin sales were halted, and Humane was acquired by HP for around $116 million.<\/p>\n

    \n
    Marques Brownlee with Ai Pin — YouTube video preview<\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

    The Cost of Change<\/h3>\n

    While preparing this article, a core idea emerged that I\u2019d like to frame as the main thesis: any change you introduce demands effort from the user. Users, consciously or not, always assess the benefit-to-effort ratio. If your new product or updated interface doesn\u2019t offer clear benefits that justify the effort required to adapt, users simply won\u2019t embrace it. It\u2019s also important to recognise that existing products, interfaces, or workflows always have a built-in advantage: users already know how to use them. It is also important to notice that even if a new product offers significant benefits with a small investment in adaptation, users are more likely to choose not to undergo adaptation.<\/p>\n

    Take this: if a task used to take two clicks, and now it takes<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-461066","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/461066","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=461066"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/461066\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=461066"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=461066"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/savepearlharbor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=461066"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}