[ggambetta]

The tone of the article rubs me the wrong way for some reason. Consider these two paragraphs:

The Adjacent Users are aware of a product and possibly tried using the it, but are not able to successfully become an engaged user. This is typically because the current product positioning or experience has too many barriers to adoption for them.

While Instagram had product-market fit for 400+ million people, we discovered new groups of users who didn’t quite understand Instagram and how it fit into their lives.

There's so much assumption there. "not able to successfully become an engaged user"; "too many barriers to adoption"; "didn't quite understand [...] how it fit into their lives". No question about whether potential users are interested in the product in the first place? It's so life-changing that if someone decides not to use the thing, it's because they failed at becoming engaged, or just don't understand that it's life-changing?

I'm confused. Maybe this is the level of delusions of grandeur you need to succeed at that scale with that kind of product, and I'm just hopelessly naive :(

[scribu]

> No question about whether potential users are interested in the product in the first place?

They do show interest, tho. From the article:

> There are a set of users who show intent for your product but are not quite able to get over the hump. Those are your adjacent users.

[grawprog]

I've never found 'the hump' to be the issue with most things i've shown intent for then decided against. Typically it's because I discover the product does not in fact suit my needs. This is the primary reason. I'm not an adjacent user of said product and I never will be unless the product changes to suit my needs in some way.

[scribu]

> unless the product changes to suit my needs in some way

But isn't that the point of the article? To figure out how to change the product so that it meets more people's needs.

[debaserab2]

Meeting people’s needs or tapping into human social behaviors and instincts?

I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.

[jbob2000]

The article completely dehumanizes Instagram users, it's a window into the lack of empathy social media companies have for other human beings.

[alexpetralia]

Anything at scale does this.

[gmfawcett]

I don't think that's true. An entity (corporation, government, etc.) continuously decides whether to humanize or dehumanize its citizens/customers. Which way it leans in any (every) decision is a matter of goals and values, not a matter of scale.

E.g. a government may not know all its citizens in a personal sense, but it can establish charters of rights and freedoms, it can design humane and accessible services, etc. Scale doesn't prevent these things, rather it necessitates them.

[aerosmile]

Humane and accessible services are still designed at scale, rather than on an individual level.

[gmfawcett]

Of course. In context, I read "anything at scale does this" to mean "anything at scale dehumanizes its users" which is the point that I disagree with. A scaled-up service can still honour the client -- it takes intention and good design, but it's certainly possible.