uhmm… users are stakeholders
And that is, why it is important to know the difference of stake- and shareholders. But it is a great mistake to learn from.
If only decision makers would ever recognize the mistake in the first place.
Yeah but they never come to sprint planning so 🤷
You don’t designate a user advocate or at least have a representative of Trust & Safety to advice on development?
It was a joke, dear.
Oh, my comment was a joke too, darling. We know that no one on project management cares enough to actually have proper user advocates on the dev team.
I’d prefer a well equipped UX research team tbh. “Advocate” is one of those job titles that screams “my role is poorly defined”
UX and UI aren’t magic bullets. They constantly come up with and approve the most anti-user crap. They are just as disconnected from the actual user base as a database engineer.
UX and UI design is not the same as a UX research team. Different disciplines entirely.
I think they meant shareholders
not necessarily. Your “stakeholders” on the deal/contract that interface with product and success managers could all be VPs who never use the product.
No. A stakeholder is anyone with an interest in the project. Where you consider the importance of a particular stakeholder vs another is a different question.
That doesn’t sound like a very helpful or useful definition in day to day operations.
Lemme fuck up your shit
- Yes
- Maybe later
ARE YOU SURE?
- No
- Continue
The entire world economy in a nutshell
s/stakeholders/shareholders/ is more like it.
Where did you find this photo of YouTube execs?
deleted by creator
PSA: Features are never prioritized for users. Features are prioritized for the paying customer.
This is such a naive mistake to make. This is why the freemium business model is doomed to shitty products, and explains pretty much why the Internet economy is in the sorry state that it is. If you don’t pay for the service (regardless of your preferred economic stance, either directly or through taxes) you have absolutely no right to complain.
Windows features are not prioritized for those paying customers who bought licenses, but linux features are prioritized for non-paying linux users.
The real answer is that for profit companies develop features to maximize their profits. User-prioritized features are only added to the extent that they draw and maintain customers. Outside of that, companies don’t care if you’re happy or not, regardless of how much you’ve paid.
Even paying customers aren’t guaranteed feature priority. Have you even seen Windows outside of EU markets? You pay well over $100 for a license, and they shove a wheelbarrow’s worth of ads and data extraction up your ass. See also: the cableification of streaming services. (EDIT: Oh, and I forgot about Adobe!)
The Internet Economy doesn’t need a freemium model to be shit. In fact some of the worse SaaS I interact with on a daily basis is also extremely expensive.
It’s got everything to do with misaligned financial incentives already plaguing traditional markets (pursuit of infinite growth, short term thinking, etc.) compounded by how quick and easy software is to change and update which yields very high feature bloat and a much faster cycle of enshittification.
you have absolutely no right to complain
I was with you until this. This is the kind of handwaving devs use to shield themselves from criticism for idiotic choices. There’s “you’re not entitled to support or to have your requests taken seriously if you aren’t supporting development” and there’s “don’t you dare voice a negative opinion on anything I’ve done”.
I’ve lost count of how many slack or discord channels I’ve been in where devs seem to take basic feedback as a personal attack.
Me, having the features I want because I made a pull request in a FOSS proyect and then added it myself
GNOME development in a nutshell.
