[noitpmeder]

Literally every company on the planet would jump at the chance for their product to be addictive.

[yoyohello13]

No that’s just the goal of bad companies. I work for a company that does not, in fact, want our product to be addictive. We want our product to help people. Stop normalizing this behavior as ‘just business’ and start calling out bad people for what they are.

[noitpmeder]

Name and praise?

[kibibu]

Meta

[chatmasta]

Yeah but you’re not supposed to say it out loud. The bigger part of this story is Nadella saying (paraphrased) that he has no clue who wrote the document and that guy should look for a new job.

[Defletter]

Who'd've guessed that the profit motive being the primary if not sole concern would sometimes (often) create incentives that are hostile to humanity.

[whynotmaybe]

Imagine a world where every car company would get money every time someone uses their car.

Instead of monthly subscription for self driving or heated seat, it would just cost a few cents a minute.

This would be a strong push to try to destroy public transportation everywhere

[gruez]

>Imagine a world where every car company would get money every time someone uses their car.

So oil companies? Moreover car companies do get more money with more car use. More driving means more parts required, more servicing needed (from their dealership network), and cars that need to be replaced sooner. It's not as instantaneous as uber charging your card every time you do a ride, but I don't see how that makes a material difference.

[whynotmaybe]

They don't get everything, spare parts are made by other companies, same with tires, servicing can be done outside their network...

Microsoft handles more verticality.

[danorama]

I don't think that's actually true. Heck, from my own experience, I can definitively say it's not actually true. I've worked in several organizations where I helped create and sell products whose job was to provide value, then let people get on with their day. I wouldn't have worked at those places otherwise.

Not saying that intended addictiveness is not common, but let's not normalize corporate sociopathy.

[trumpdong]

That's because your employer doesn't think they can ever be addictive.

[danorama]

No, it was because they weren't supposed to be. They were fulfilling an actual need and creating value in a way that wasn't intended to be addictive. And I was a co-founder of some of those orgs and products, so it wasn't about my employer.

I know it's hard to believe that not every organization is sociopathic, because many are (the larger, the more likely to be). But not every one is.

[yoyohello13]

I think the most disturbing aspect of HN is how so many people seem to believe that anti-social behavior is rational. There is this weird dichotomy that you are either a money hungry behemoth or destitute out on the street. My company is a not-for-profit, we put our revenue back into the local community, our employees make a great living and we still have year over year growth.

[trumpdong]

Evidence that anti-social behavior is rational can be seen in all the successful anti-social people, like Elon, Donald, Jeffrey and William.

[JohnFen]

Only if your definition of "success" consists solely of accumulating wealth. Many people use a different definition.

[yoyohello13]

Maybe rational is the wrong word. I think I mean aspirational.

[trumpdong]

If your boss could quadruple sales by making the product addictive and that was easy, I guarantee he would. So would you if you weren't paid a fixed salary.