[brap]

You assume that your goals are aligned with the company’s goals. They’re not. There is no “problem”, it’s all working as intended.

From the company’s point of view, they actually are doing the right thing. They’re making money (which, I’d argue, is ultimately a good thing for everyone involved).

Netflix and Apple are no different, the goal is always $$, Apple just sells different things.

[JohnMakin]

No, he's saying the exact opposite - that the company's revenue-driven goals and the user's goals are not in alignment. It is definitely possible for those things to be in alignment, that's how products have worked for the majority of modern human history.

[ibbih]

It's a bit more complex than that right? If no part of the user wanted this, it wouldn't drive up engagement. Clearly it causes me to use the product more. Companies can try to optimize for stuff like "satisfaction after using the product" but it's genuinely much harder -- and not tying work to business outcomes is not scalable.

[bluGill]

Most drug addicts don't want to be addicted, they just want the high. Most video watchers want to continue their current shows, but if you make it easy they will get addicted to shows they didn't know they liked yet. People get on facebook for their friends, and then the infinite scrolling keeps them on long past when they have seen almost everything their friends have done.

[mastema]

I think the broader point is that the User's goals and Capitalism's goals are not in alignment and the company, who is caught in the middle, has an obvious and legally required option to choose if they are shareholder owned. The user loses this fight every time.