[jacquesm]

I don't think people expect it so much as that the designs that put form over function are pushed so hard that it seems as though people expect it because there aren't any function-over-form alternatives. Fair chance that if you bucked that trend that you'd end up with happy users and a higher retention for the longer term even if in the shorter term your conversion rates may be a bit lower.

Similar to how the quality tools rarely look as snazzy as the wanna-be's, and are sold to a more professional audience at a higher price but lower volume. They also typically need much less advertising and marketing, they are sold by reputation and word of mouth.

[ldjkfkdsjnv]

Maybe, but I will admit that I trust a SaaS product more that has a better design with slick front end components. When I see a rudimentary but functional product, I shy away

[fighterpilot]

Would you still shy away if the product was uniquely solving an important problem for you? I am in the same boat as you but I think as though I would only shy away if the product was marginally useful to me and I probably would have stopped using them eventually anyways

[handrous]

It's peacock feathers. You demonstrate company/product health by burning cash keeping your design "modern", even if a simpler but less-expensive-looking design would have been better for UX.

[ldjkfkdsjnv]

This is true, but as a signal it still does work. If the front end is flashy, they definitely put some money and resources into it, which means they have those to begin with

[hughhopkins]

This is a good point and ties into the whole funding trap. I imagine some founders find it difficult to show a shitty looking MVP when you have investors looking