| ▲ | tikhonj 19 hours ago |
| All of the pizza examples are about reducing cost. The argument about dating apps is about increasing retention. The dynamics are qualitatively different. The argument with pizza is more like "people like salty, fatty food, so pizza places are incentivized to make their pizza less healthy so that people come back more often"... which is exactly what happens! So why doesn't a legitimately healthy restaurant come along and take the whole market? It's partly because restaurants aren't just in the business of selling (healthy) food: it's also about convenience and satisfaction and experience. More importantly, that just doesn't fit with how people largely make day-to-day decisions. The same thing happens with dating apps. People get drawn in for all sorts of reasons that don't necessarily map to getting married, even if finding a long-term relationship is explicitly their goal. Tinder competes with Tiktok more than it competes with other dating apps. The other problem is that making a really effective dating app is just hard. It's fundamentally difficult to help people find compatible partners, especially without in-person contact. That's compounded by cultural and demographic issues. It doesn't matter how well your app is designed when there's a massive imbalance in genders! |
|
| ▲ | mettamage 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| > The other problem is that making a really effective dating app is just hard. It's fundamentally difficult to help people find compatible partners, especially without in-person contact. That's compounded by cultural and demographic issues. It doesn't matter how well your app is designed when there's a massive imbalance in genders! Really true. Most of dating seems to be dominated by that people want to be comfortable and dating is an inherently uncomfortable experience at times and many people seem to have a hard time with it. I’m writing this as someone that made the conscious decision to face every form of uncomfortableness in dating if I noticed it was needed. Some people look at me bewildered with how I met my wife. They found what I did was way too much effort. But I am thinking to myself: you’re going to spend the most time with them! You better be damn sure that you’re long-term compatible. Yet, enough people seem to act the whole process is more like buying something from your local Chipotle/<name your favorite establishment> where comfort is king. |
| |
| ▲ | TechnicolorByte 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Can you expand on what types of uncomfortableness you faced and what you mean by effort (to the point of bewildering people)? Curious what worked for you. Not sure if you just mean you forced yourself to go on a million dates and were super selective. | |
| ▲ | perfmode 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | How did you meet your wife? |
|
|
| ▲ | SeanAnderson 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Tinder competes with Tiktok more than it competes with other dating apps. is a crazy remark, but I think you're right. We're living in weird time! |
| |
| ▲ | yen223 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a restating of an older idea that fancy restaurants aren't competing against other restaurants, they are competing against movie theatres. Because they are in the date entertainment market | | | |
| ▲ | heymijo 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yep, Peter Drucker wrote about this all the way back in 1964. > The competition is therefore all the other activities that compete for the rapidly growing “discretionary time” of a population His examples were bowling ball manufacturers competing with lawn care companies, but the idea is the same, go up an abstraction layer, and the competition is for time. | |
| ▲ | nirui 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not really that weird. People who uses dating apps are on a very specific mission (to get laid, a.k.a "to meet more interesting people"). They'll optimize their profile to specifically archive that goal. TikTok accepts wider range of interest-based (instead of goal-based) contents, and have much wider demographic spread. On that platform, you show more aspect of you and your life to your viewers, and that creates a degree of trust and maybe even empathy, both are beneficial in creating a closer relationship. And it's not just on TikTok, I first noticed the effect in online games. For example, people who act kindly often get a lot of friends, etc. |
|
|
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Also, the pizza examples miss out the competition aspect. Pizza restaurants are competing against other pizza places, but also competing against other foods. If someone starts increasing the price and reducing quality of pizzas, then at some point people will start saying "I don't like pizza, let's go for a burger" and eventually a whole generation will grow up thinking that they don't like pizzas as they've only eaten crappy ones. Ultimately, these kinds of things go in cycles with the population varying between choosing cheap and trashy products and choosing expensive, quality products. |
|
| ▲ | camillomiller 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I honestly felt like “wtf” reading those examples.
Everything listed there as positives would lead exactly to user(patrons) retention.
For dating apps it’s the exact opposite. |
| |
| ▲ | gwd 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Read the pizza example, and was like "this guy is really clueless". Read the car example (car makers are incentivized to make cars unsafe!), and thought, "This ignorant fool needs to shut up." Car makers are incentivized to make unsafe cars, and before there was such heavy regulation, did so. | | |
| ▲ | strken 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think the point was that, yeah, auto manufacturers are incentivised to make unsafe cars...but in real life, they make safe(ish) ones. Pizza restaurants are incentivised to use the cheapest ingredients possible...but in real life, they have stopped somewhere above the absolute lowest quality. How can this be? Pointing out one incentive is not a complete argument without an understanding of the broader dynamics. Auto manufacturers are incentivised much more strongly and in the opposite direction to make safe(ish) cars. Pizza restaurants are incentivised not to make pizza from reconstituted sawdust and rancid milk fat, for multiple reasons. Then, goes the argument, if we are willing to regulate cars and abandon truly bad pizza restaurants, how come we put up with dating apps instead of e.g. deleting them and offering a $10k bounty to matchmakers, payable on our one year wedding anniversary? Why don't we ditch them? There must be more than just one incentive at play. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | fragmede 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > So why doesn't a legitimately healthy restaurant come along and take the whole market? The lesson is in revealed preferences. One of my friends, live him to death, has been trying to lose weight since forever. When we try to eat together, hell judge the food. Either what's in my pantry/freezer or from the restaurant we go it. He keeps talking about keto as well. He's pretty knowledgeable about things by this point. But he keeps being unable to lose the weight! Yet no matter how much he tells me or how right it actually is, the lesson is on revealed preferences, aka he's got a ton of dominos pizza boxes hiding out in the trash that he's been eating. Losing weight is pretty simple. Just stop eating such much food. It's not easy though, unfortunately. That food is pretty delicious. All dating apps have to do, which coffee meets bagel was doing at back when, is rate limit the matches given to women. Let woman rate as many men as they want, but only show women the to p 15/whatever matches so they aren't overwhelmed. it's so obvious and simple, but hard to put into in practice, for reasons that have zero to do with anybody's ability to write code. |
|
| ▲ | CrzyLngPwd 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It isn't just restaurants, but also supermarkets. They don't produce food; they produce shareholder wealth. That's their goal. Healthy food, grown naturally, not sprayed with chemicals, harvested in the last week, is just not a cost-effective plan for them. |
| |
| ▲ | ErroneousBosh 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Healthy food, grown naturally, not sprayed with chemicals, harvested in the last week, is just not a cost-effective plan for them. It's not just "not cost-effective", it's not technically feasible. Do you want to grow enough food to feed maybe a couple of dozen people and spend every waking minute doing it, or do you want to scale out to feed everyone including the vast majority of the population who do no useful work? | | |
| ▲ | tonyedgecombe 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not only that but there is no real evidence that organic food is better for you. Even from an environmental perspective the arguments are dubious. The yields on organic food are much lower which means you need more land under production, land that could have been left to the wilderness. |
| |
| ▲ | vkou 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Healthy food, grown naturally, not sprayed with chemicals, harvested in the last week, is just not a cost-effective plan for them. It's also not a cost-effective plan for most shoppers who have enough other expenses in their lives that they can't afford their food doubling in price. Most of us are stuck in globally-horrible local maximums, and we aren't going to get out of them without some external push. | | |
| ▲ | charlieyu1 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Overtaxation, less disposable income. | |
| ▲ | pil0u 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In 50 years, the proportion of the budget allocated to food, halved. I'm not saying everyone can have the choice to eat healthy, but probably a small majority has. I live in an area where small, local, sometimes organic producers are gathered to sell their product to the community in a way it is accessible to every budget. | | |
| ▲ | tonyedgecombe 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >I'm not saying everyone can have the choice to eat healthy, but probably a small majority has. I bet the least healthy options in people's shopping trolleys are some of the most expensive items. Cakes, biscuits, chocolate, ice creams, alcohol, pre-prepared meals, etc. | |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are very few areas where it's physically possible to live like that. And even in those areas many staples will be industrially farmed and imported from other countries, or at least shipped from far away within the same country. | |
| ▲ | onion2k 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In 50 years, the proportion of the budget allocated to food, halved. Did people choose to do that, or why they forced to by increased costs in other areas? | |
| ▲ | vkou 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > In 50 years, the proportion of the budget allocated to food, halved. Sure. But 50 years ago, healthcare and education didn't cost an arm and both legs. In those 5 decades, every single rent-seeker that you need to engage with to live has dipped his hand deeper into our pockets. > I live in an area where small, local, sometimes organic producers are gathered to sell their product to the community in a way it is accessible to every budget.... You forgot the "For the brief period of time their produce is in season." Only selling what you have, when you have it removes a lot of costs from food supply chains. If, like the local grocery, those small, local, organic producers had to keep you fed 24/7/365, their prices would go up - by a lot. I am also pretty confident that those small, local, organic producers aren't the source of most of their customers' caloric demands. | | |
| ▲ | pil0u 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I live in a part of the world where the healthcare system is also spread across the society in a more equalitarian way than what you describe. I don't understand your second point. One of my close friends is a farmer, they mostly grow organic apples. They work (insanely hard) across the whole year to prepare the crop and take care of the trees. They are not rich, but it starts to be sustainable.
Locally, it's having a community of farmers that grow different things that make you fed across the year, as long as you accept eating exotic food only very occasionally. Regarding calories, I honestly don't know. What I know for sure is that apples in the 50s had at least an order of magnitude more calories than apples today. Different times, different agricultural practices, different population also, fair. Obesity has skyrocketed across the whole world. People already eat too much, too much hyper transformed, too much sugar, too many calories. | | |
| ▲ | catlifeonmars an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Obesity has skyrocketed across the whole world. People already eat too much, too much hyper transformed, too much sugar, too many calories. Carbohydrates are way cheaper, but the distribution of nutrients you can get for any price has not gotten cheaper proportionally. Then you factor in choices, like paying rent vs eating healthier, etc etc. | |
| ▲ | tonyedgecombe 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Apples are an exception to the rule as they can be stored for a long time (up to a year for some varieties) under the correct conditions. | |
| ▲ | formerly_proven 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What I know for sure is that apples in the 50s had at least an order of magnitude more calories than apples today. Different times, different agricultural practices, different population also, fair. And you know this "for sure" exactly how? | |
| ▲ | vkou 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I don't understand your second point. When I go to the grocery, food is available to me at any time of year. Your friend's apples are only available for ~2 months/of the year. The supply chains that feed the world have to work year-round, and all the people that work them expect to get paid. Availability adds to the cost. > What I know for sure is that apples in the 50s had at least an order of magnitude more calories than apples today I have a very hard time believing that the average apple from the 50s had 94 * 10 = 940 calories. | | |
| ▲ | pil0u 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's the whole point: don't eat apples from January to December. | | |
| ▲ | vkou 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which is the whole problem. Your friend's apple orchard is not a replacement for the modern grocery. It's a seasonal supplement that replaces the cheapest and easiest part of a diet - in-season produce. And he has to work insanely hard all-year-long to do it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|