The Dating App Paradox: Why dating apps may be ‘worse than ever’::undefined
If you want a TLDR: every time dating apps work, they lose two customers, and they don’t want that
The Dating App Paradox: Why dating apps may be 'worse than ever'
Submitted 2 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world [bot] to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
Hexagon@feddit.it 2 months ago
SeaJ@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Match Group, of course, denies that its acquisition strategy hurts healthy competition in the dating app market.
I’m sure it has 45 apps just for funsies. /s
Glad I met someone when OkCupid and Tinder were not complete garbage.
Holyginz@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I was incredibly lucky finding my wife several years ago. Still shocked we found each other on tinder considering how bad tinder has been for a long time.
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
The old rape whistle paradox. The better your product works, the less it’s needed.
Steve@communick.news 2 months ago
The only fix I came up with, is to charge people some amount up front, then if they’re still active weekly users in 6 months, they get a refund. That would create a better incentive structure for the app.
ogmios@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Wouldn’t that discourage forming good, lasting relationships?
Steve@communick.news 2 months ago
You think someone would give up on a real relationship just to a some money back?
Would you? How much money would be worth giving up on “The One”?JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 2 months ago
I’ve been looking for you my whole life, Tracy. If we stay together, though, I’d lose my €24.99 subscripton refund with Tinder"
filister@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Soon some company will find a way to change us for the air we breathe.
kambusha@feddit.ch 2 months ago
CM400@lemmy.world 2 months ago
“How much does it cost to go outside today?”
“Hmm… the weather is nice and it’s a weekend, so we’re at peak rates today. Did you want to go somewhere or just stay in the yard, they’re running a special on staying within RentCo property lines.”
ItsAFake@lemmus.org 2 months ago
autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] 2 months ago
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Over the last couple of years, dating app companies like Match Group and Bumble have learned that, like love, their business is a battlefield.
Morgan Stanley found that dating app users who choose to pay end up spending “between $18 and $19 per month on either subscriptions or a la carte purchases.”
In its mission to make money, it has been using tricks and schemes — like, she says, putting desirable matches “behind a paywall” — to convince more of its users to pony up and use premium features.
Basically, Doctorow says tech platforms start off trying to make their user experiences really good because their first goal is to try to become popular and achieve scale.
It’s possible that new apps are failing to rise and topple the reigning ones because of monopolistic strategies of companies like Match Group, which has been systematically acquiring rivals, including Hinge back in 2018.
Over time, the earnest daters go on a bunch of bad dates, encountering people who have no interest in real relationships or whose profiles are completely misleading.
The original article contains 1,909 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 91%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
peopleproblems@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Ha, I just looked at hinge. These girls are my age super model types? Get the fuck out of here
TheFriar@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Yeah, that’s part of what they do. When you first sign up, you can’t believe it. Everyone so good looking, seemingly interesting. But then they start funneling you and paywalling the people that more people “like.” It’s a business.
peopleproblems@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Ah. Create artificial supply and demand
billwashere@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I knew these apps were fucked up when I kept matching with my ex-wife. Yeah no thanks. I was trying to FIX that fuck up.
jpreston2005@lemmy.world 2 months ago
They touched on something that could pave the way for a new and better dating app experience. Let your exes rate you. This tell your would-be dater 1. they aren’t such a POS that everyone they date ends up hating them, and 2. Would provide the real info that you’d like to see on dating profiles.
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Jesus Christ a sex life social credit system.
jpreston2005@lemmy.world 2 months ago
it would really weed out all the people who want oral, but never reciprocate… That alone is worth it lmao
ogmios@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
That would require the ex to be a good, honest person.
ASaltPepper@lemmy.one 2 months ago
How would you deal with the issue of everyone giving you a high rating? That wouldn’t fare well for relationships either as you’d assume everyone is trying to get back with said ex. Or even worse they just keep floaters around.
jpreston2005@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I really don’t think everyone would have a high rating lol
but yeah, not sure how one would screen the review, maybe they have to upload a picture of you guys kissing and that let’s you rate them? Who knows, but I’d trust that info more than what someone put on there themselves
BurningnnTree@lemmy.one 2 months ago
I’ve never seen so many uses of the word “lemon” in an article before
SeaJ@lemm.ee 2 months ago
It’s a regular lemon party in there.
soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
Good website
theluddite@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
I’ve posted this here before, but this phenomenon isn’t unique to dating apps, though dating apps are a particularly good example. The problem is that capitalism uses computers backwards.
troyunrau@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
I’ve worked on open source software projects, some of them pretty major. And we had a sort of similar debate. In a non-capitalist software product, the users are not strictly required – particularly if they aren’t paying, you don’t really need them. Except that open source has this user->contributor treadmill that requires that some users become contributors in order for a project to grow. So you want to be as pro-user as possible, hoping and dreaming you’ll get patches out of the blue some day, or similar.
But what happens when your users become hostile or entitled. What if they do the equivalent of calling tech support and demanding satisfaction. The customer is always right, right? How much time and effort can you devote to them without detracted from what you were doing (coding). Eventually as a product grows, the number of hostile users grows. What do you do to manage this at scale?
Suddenly you’re facing the same problem Home Depot faces in your article, except your capital is not measured in dollars but time, motivation, mood… And you start putting up barriers in a similar fashion.
fjordbasa@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The full quote is actually “The customer is always right in matters of taste.” Which basically means that you should sell what your customers want to buy- not that customers can demand whatever they want 😄
treadful@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
What’s the point of writing software without users? Even if you’re the only user, there needs to be a user, else it’s a waste of time and effort. If you’re just playing, studying, or whatever, why even publish and open source it? Users are a necessity for any software.
The other issues of growing FLOSS projects are a serious issue though.