Not sure why you're getting downvotes - it's a reasonable question to ask: "why use something that makes you crazy / stressed out?
Not to set up a straw-man, but I'd imagine a similar reaction if someone wrote a post titled "How to use Facebook and not get depressed," the gut-reaction is "why use it if it's making you feel bad?"
and thats where my quesiton is not for the employees but for the employers. Why are you choosing to use a product in your company that has no use.
If it had use then it wouldnt make people "crazy". It would make them happy. This inherently leads me to believe it has no use.
Personal experience, there is no golden rule to these things. Email , slack , google calendar. You eventually need to build your own relationship with these things and be adult enough to maintain that relationship (inbox at 0), seperate it from your emotions and be prepared to toss it to the side for in person conversation.
Its not slack that is making people crazy its the policies of using it at the company (or usually the lack there of) that make its benefit inconsistent. But it seems slack has not improved the situation but only exacerbated it.
Ah, I see. I agree with you in that case, but in my experience the true-but-rubbish answer is generally that the decision makers had need to use a tool and “common sense” made them force it on everyone else without any consideration (a common problem whenever the justification is “common sense”).
Why this works for a dashboard but not for anything else:
-design is inheriently unique. You want your brand and your site to standout from the rest. A one size fits all design methology actually goes against design. A design framework for the web is like saying all stores should look the same. Even restaurants dont look the same and they are in the same usecase. Design matters and cannont be churned out like a factory product (or good design at least). There are 2 80/20 rules here. You can get 80% of your good design by adhering to 20% of the standards, yet its the last 20% of good design that makes your site stand out and the first 80% is just basic usability.
-dashboards are purely functional and not user facing (at least the admin dashboards I hope this framework is talking about). This is a great place to use a standard framework and get all the reuse out of it so you can focus on making your user facing site unique
because we are not cheap and are ok with paying for a service.
How cheap should it be. There will be no service that people will pay for if they pirate content. The service they want is a service where they dont have to pay.
If you are pirating you are not a customer. Any business man should not be concerned with trying to gain your market, its not profitable.
Steam, iTunes, and Spotify have almost completely killed off pirating for games and music. It's still possible but people would rather pay for those services because the services actually add a value over the actual data which is post scarcity.
TV and the film industry have decided they'll make more money by making a worse product and doing everything they can to prevent users from finding alternatives
I'm not quite sure about this, but aren't the products you have mentioned also have the same problem as Netflix. Spotify is able to provide lots of music options, but for how long? They are being effectively strangled by music labels and competitors, which will eventually lead to a content fragmentation between music streaming services. Then people will turn back to pirating music just as fast and they have for video. I'm not sure about steam , but I'm sure that eventually the gaming industry will face the same problem, it's only a matter of time.
Yes, if their products value F(steam) < F(free) then of course people will pirate. Why would you expect consumers to pay for a product that is inferior to something that was left untouched? Why should a firm exist when they supply negative value to their consumers? It would be the same situation as it was 10 years ago in the heyday of pirating and companies should expect to lose out on income, in this case the music labels
If this was a natural state of affairs there might be considerations about morals, but the current rules and laws came about through direct intervention by these same companies
> If you are pirating you are not a customer. Any business man should not be concerned with trying to gain your market, its not profitable.
A poor businessman. A good businessman sees the black market and determines if they can provide a similar service in the white market. Clearly there are consumers and they want something that they aren't getting already.
And in this case, things like popcorn time have a great interface and are easier than most streaming services.
People want to see new movies in their homes (and I always laugh at the "no movie should be reduced to this shrinks from theater screen to computer screen, because clearly people like it that way).
And people want to see population and good movies at the top of their lists, not problem garbage. There's a lot of people that complain about even Netflix because of this. Their recommendation engine isn't what it used to be.
There's a lot more reasons too. People pirate for many more reasons than because it's free, though that definitely is a big component. But people seem to be ignoring these other reasons.
There's a market, or two, here that aren't being served. A good businessman would serve them.
up until a point ... HBO has been all about the entire pipeline from its inception because it feels (and has proven) that its content alone is good enough for it to be purchased a la carte.
Netflix and all others see this and say ... theres a business model here.
Fastforward 20 years, creating good content is cheaper. There are more film grad students to make the supply cheaper. Add to that the internet which allows you to be your own distributor. Basically its easier to be HBO today than when HBO started and you still get the added profits that HBO gets vs not generating your own content.
We want a hub but well take what we can get as long as the content is good. And we will get custom content because we have shown it pays. I guess we dont want the hub enough.
"We want a hub but well take what we can get as long as the content is good."
I'm not sure. Convenience seems to trump content in a lot of markets. If you have a solid baseline level of content, the best experience wins.
In that regard, a fragmented market could cause the entire streaming model to-- well perhaps not collapse, but fail to flower fully.
Cable says "Yeah, you're spending $80 per month, but there's one consistent UI, one login, one bill."
Streaming with one service like pre-fragmentation Netflix, says "You're spending $10 per month, getting a modest content pool, and it's all still pretty easy to use."
But how will people respond to "You're spending $50 per month, get a fairly broad selection of content, but it's all scattered across a bunch of services which behave subtly differently and have to be managed independently?"
They might well respond by going back to the less-hassle cable option, or just shed services til they get to something that feels manageable-- one or two services, maybe paying for a month of something else to binge its signature show once a year. Netflix and HBO might kick out enough big draws to justify subscribing year-round, but will a low-budget or niche player?
hollywood idiots
these must be models and actors