Slashdot Mirror


Snapchat's Big Redesign Bashed In 83 Percent of User Reviews (techcrunch.com)

The new Snapchat redesign that jams Stories in between private messages is not receiving a whole lot of praise. "In the few countries including the U.K., Australia, and Canada where the redesign is widely available, 83 percent of App Store reviews (1,941) for the update are negative with one or two stars, according to data by mobile analytics firm Sensor Tower," reports TechCrunch. "Just 17 percent, or 391 of the reviews, give it three to five stars." From the report: The most referenced keywords in the negative reviews include "new update," "Stories," and "please fix." Meanwhile, Snapchat's Support Twitter account has been busy replying to people who hate the update and are asking to uninstall it, noting "It's not possible to revert to a previous version of Snapchat," and trying to explain where Stories are to confused users. Hopes were that the redesign could boost Snapchat's soggy revenue, which fell short of Wall Street earnings expectations in Q3 and led to a loss of $443 million. The redesign mixes Stories, where Snapchat shows ads but which have seen stagnation in sharing rates amidst competition from Instagram Stories, into the more popular messaging inbox, where Snapchat's ephemeral messaging is more differentiated and entrenched.

63 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. As with any other website redesign... by Albert71292 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They'll get over it.

    --
    "A Bird In The Hand Will Poop On Your Wrist"-Benny Hill,1982
    1. Re:As with any other website redesign... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not like they have much of a choice anyway.

    2. Re:As with any other website redesign... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They'll get over it.

      Sounds like something a Progressive hipster who presumes to know better than you would say.

    3. Re:As with any other website redesign... by iampiti · · Score: 1

      Yes, I you don't have any alternatives to use a software/service you eventually get used to the new UI but that doesn't mean the new is better than the old one.
      It's one of the disadvantages of using non-standard/closed source services/apps: You're totally beholden to the whims of the owner.
      In something like web browsers, mail clients, etc if one fucks up badly I can just use another

    4. Re:As with any other website redesign... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      They'll get over it.

      Most of the forums I participate in on Yahoo have gotten over Yahoo's redesign but moving elsewhere.

  2. Remember Slashdot beta? by manu0601 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is always the same story. Someone thinks the site needs to be refreshed, but users do not like change for the sake of it, especially about user interfaces.

    1. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless there is something wrong with the current interface, updating for the sake of it is something that keeps marketing types employed but doesn't achieve much else that's positive.

      Essentially, you're throwing away your users' familiarity with your interface and annoying them. They don't want to have to re-learn how to use your site... they want to engage the minimum possible number of brain cells required to participate.

      However, marketing folks are GOOD at marketing, and one of the things they can sell people on is the need for marketing people, and they do that by first convincing you to listen to marketing people. When they form an unholy union with sales and convince people the changes can increase revenue... look out, change is coming.

      Because it's not the users who matter, it's the customers.

    2. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unless there is something wrong with the current interface, updating for the sake of it is something that keeps marketing types employed but doesn't achieve much else that's positive.

      Essentially, you're throwing away your users' familiarity with your interface and annoying them. They don't want to have to re-learn how to use your site... they want to engage the minimum possible number of brain cells required to participate.

      The same thing happened with one of my banks recently, the website stayed the same for over a decade and suddenly underwent a total redesign that utterly destroys the workflow that I had going. Now not only does it take extra steps to do everything but their "tablet friendly or something" design requires absurd amount of scrolling as there is no longer a way to see all of my sub-accounts on one screen anymore.

    3. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is always the same story. Someone thinks the site needs to be refreshed, but users do not like change for the sake of it, especially about user interfaces.

      I don't care if the UI changes, but it needs to change to something usable.

      That Slashdot beta was so bad that I stopped visiting Slashdot altogether.
      It took me six months to realize they had reverted the beta, and that was because I accidentally followed a link.

    4. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      Capital One, I presume?

    5. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ever notice how Amazon has basically had the same Dotcom 1.0 aesthetics forever? And how Jeff Bezos is the richest man on the planet? Maybe ridiculous interface refreshes with the latest hipster look and feel are not so good after all.

    6. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      True, but sometimes it gets broken for no reason other than "new stuff".

      For example: firefox has redesigned its new home page, and whilst it used to have a set of often-accessed sites, like a super-bookmark page, it now has "trending on pocket" and a history. Neither of which are particularly useful when what you want is the old set of bookmarks.

      Fortunately you can turn the pocket stuff off, but then you're left with a big gap of blank space instead.

      (this is on mobile, on desktop it simply puts the remaining bookmarkets in the middle with a load of white space around them)

      So sometimes complaints about the new does not equal a general reluctance to change.After all, people have gotten used to Windows 10 new interface, but its still fucked in comparison to the old one.

    7. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by BlazeMiskulin · · Score: 1

      A good Marketing Director (or marketing staff) would be opposed to this sort of change. Marketing isn't about selling something new and supporting all updates and changes; it's about creating a positive relationship between companies and customers. 95% of the time that means NOT changing things.

      This sort of stuff isn't coming from the marketing department. It's coming from some C-level idiot who doesn't understand the first thing about customer service or brand reputation.

    8. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      You are not a user

      You are the product

      They will improve the "product". When you pay nothing, you use a platform because most of your moronic friends are too stingy to pay for a real service, you don't get to complain.

      They deserve all the indignities being heaped on them.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    9. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      You need to understand the basic definitions.

      Snapchat is the vendor. The advertisers are the ones who pay it. They are the customers. The people who use snapchat to exchange photos and message are called the product. The company will fall at the feet of the customers, and do what they demand.

      They will make it annoying and difficult to use. If you are not paying for it, you are NOT the customer.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    10. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wish Windows and OSX and Gnome would learn. I'm sticking with Mint specifically because they don't f with the UI

    11. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Capital One, I presume?

      In process of closing my accounts with them because of that change. Holy crap what awful design.

    12. Re: Remember Slashdot beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      F beta!

    13. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Yep, I totally called this about a month or two ago. Too lazy to look it up though. And of course, it's not like I exactly needed to be Nostradamus to predict this either.

      Brought to you by the same type of idiot who gave us "New Coke."

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    14. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is what I find so inexplicable about Google. They keep creating a product with a decent interface, then ruining the interface. The only product they then go on to actually fix again is mail. The G+ interface for example has become steadily worse in every way but one, they finally fixed Plus Tagging such that it actually works correctly almost all of the time. People show up with the names they have set now, for example, not just the name they signed up with. I've been tagging this one guy who signed up with his real name but changed it to "Lycanpedia" and what would happen until just about a week ago is that I'd type +Lyc and up would pop his real name, not his nickname, which of course did not start with the same characters. And to boot, plus tagging did absolutely no prioritization or sorting. I'd try to plus someone I plussed about every damned day and they would be tenth in the list or something, and the list would be full of people whose names didn't match what I was typing at all as a result of their using original names and not nicknames.

      Another example is whitespace. Google loves whitespace. I don't know about you, but I prefer to actually use the space in my browser. One of the things that's especially pathetic about /. is how much whitespace you get if you block the singing, dancing ads that bring browsers to their knees. G+ used to flow into multiple columns depending on screen with, but Google pegged it to a single column and now we have assloads of whitespace again.

      Why is Google, the company originally known for its simple and clean and functional search interface, so horrible at web design and web app interfaces?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Unless there is something wrong with the current interface, updating for the sake of it ...

      Despite what users think very few updates are "for the sake of it". Typically updates to interfaces are to capture new users with the knowledge that the old users while complaining bitterly are locked in to your platform. When your growth stagnates a new interface and give it yet another bump.

      You see marketing people are just like any other people, they are a business decision that need to provide more value to the company than their paycheck or they get made redundant. Without marketing people doing things like playing with the interface you get ... Linux software with its wonderfully huge single digit percentage adoption rates, or you get stagnation with no new users (who wants to start using untrendy software that looks like it hasn't been updated in years) and an eventual loss of old users due to churn.

    16. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something? Amazon has plenty of the fancy dynamic loading and sliding stuff that everyone else does. It's just not badly done.

    17. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by swb · · Score: 1

      Have you noticed how it's not really gotten any *better*, though?

      Unlike many other web sites, Amazon seems to use a product description keyword based categorization system. If you're searching for a widget in a broad category (eg, "headphones"), it's nearly impossible to use Amazon to filter the search accurately by attributes because the filter categories are based on production descriptions, not actual specifications.

      I always seem to end up with a bunch of junk, accessories, etc, only tangentially related to the actual thing I'm shopping for because the seller have spammed their description with keywords.

      I sure wish Amazon had a detailed advanced search like NewEgg, where you can really drill down accurately.

    18. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      So what do you call it when 50% of your 'product' wanders off? It's a moot point really. Revenue is not customer based here, it's user based.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    19. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by dfm3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      GP wasn't talking about the flashy sliding stuff, but about the content layout. Things you'll still see on Amazon's website, that many other websites have eliminated in favor of "streamlining" the "user experience":

      - No hamburger menus. They still dare to hide their menus behind descriptive words.
      - Long lists actually have page numbers at the bottom, instead of infinitely scrolling.
      - Everything's black text on white, with blue links, and prices in dark red. Lots of bold text everywhere. Virtually no pale thin fonts on pastel backgrounds.
      - Not one, but TWO site maps at the bottom of the page!
      - Minimal white space. By modern "UX" design, most pages are actually considered cluttered. Not quite "Yahoo 1996" cluttered, but still very information dense.

      And you know what? It works. I can usually get from where I am to where I want to be with no more than a couple clicks, and I spend longer on each page because there's so much info to digest. That means I'm more likely to notice all the other "impulse buy" items on the sidebar, which is probably their goal.

    20. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Unlike many other web sites, Amazon seems to use a product description keyword based categorization system. If you're searching for a widget in a broad category (eg, "headphones"), it's nearly impossible to use Amazon to filter the search accurately by attributes because the filter categories are based on production descriptions, not actual specifications.

      That's not a UI problem, it's a functionality problem. And how is the Amazon software supposed to catagorize products other than using the descriptions? Remember that what they're selling generally comes from someone else--all they really know about it is the product description the original seller gives them.

    21. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by iampiti · · Score: 1

      Yup, touch friendly UIs are diminishing information density in screens everywhere and it's making the new designs suck bad for usage on desktop computers. I understand that the lowest common denominator works everywhere and that developing 2 UIs is expensive but the current situation is crappy

    22. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by iampiti · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know on your version on Amazon but on the .es website decided to remove all text (i.e description and price) from the product showcase on the main page. Only photos remain and when I have a row of similar products (e.g. graphic cards) it was much more useful to have the make/model and price. Now if I want that information I have to actually click in every product's picture and go to its details page. Annotying and a time waster

    23. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And it's Links-friendly! But it's still a far cry from the epitome of usability, berkshirehathaway.com. For example, many comments have all but the last one or two words displayed, and you have to click a "show more" Javascript link to see them. Slashdot has the same problem, but uses a page refresh instead of Javascript.

    24. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by torkus · · Score: 1

      There's some balance...there ARE improvements to the UI that most websites would benefit from.

      It's when they decide to redesign and move EVERYTHING around to a "better" place that they annoy their long term user base...and many people just give up and go re-learn on another site. Sites like FB are lucky enough to have a large base of user data that's not easy to take elsewhere which leaves people generally at their mercy.

      Snapchat OTOH is transient by design so other than a friends list, there's literally nothing to refer back to or 'lose' if you move to another platform. They're in the most precarious position possible with a generation prone to whim and change!

      Let them continue on this path of annoying their customers while their stock prices continues to slide...I'm rather doubtful of their continued existence. Shoulda either cashed out at IPO or sold to FB.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    25. Re:Remember Slashdot beta? by torkus · · Score: 1

      'locked into' works great for sites with lots of historical data. FB, as an example, keeps reminding you how much stuff you have on there with the '5 years ago' suggested post nonsense.

      Snapchat is transitory by design. There's no lock-in besides your friends list which is pretty trivial.

      For a business catering to a generation that changes direction with the wind on a product with essentially zero history or lock-in they're playing a dangerous game.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  3. Web 3.0 is a pile of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This whole "responsive" design (slow, bloated, ajax-on-meth pile of shit) shift and "mobile" revolution has been a wholesale disaster.

    • Websites are slower, less usable, less useful, and even more ad and spyware ridden than they were so much as 3 years ago.
    • Mainstream, text-only websites now take 20s to load on i5s, need megabytes of css and and javascript code to even display images.
    • Even the best Web 2.0 sites have degraded, losing functionality, common sense, text on buttons, borders on buttons for Christsake.
    • Mammoth advances bandwidth, storage, latency, processor power and memory are mullified as fast as Node.js can devour them.
    • Every page is now an app

    Brutal reality: Websites were better when IE6 was still around.
    When we didn't have standards. When "Designers" didn't have the ability to treat the browser as a turning machine and hijack everything about it. When sites pretended to give a shit about bandwidth.

    Web 3.0 is a pile of shit.
    http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm
    http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/

    1. Re:Web 3.0 is a pile of shit by sqorbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot to type "Get Off My Lawn" at the end of that post.

      --
      Sent from my TARDIS
    2. Re:Web 3.0 is a pile of shit by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Mainstream, text-only websites now take 20s to load on i5s, need megabytes of css and and javascript code to even display images.

      To be honest, it's quite impressive that it works at all.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Web 3.0 is a pile of shit by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      Really? do you miss flash? java applets?

    4. Re:Web 3.0 is a pile of shit by swb · · Score: 1

      Nobody misses Java applets or Flash blobs. IMHO, the hope was that when Flash expired those sites would be forced to migrate to less obnoxious interfaces. Unfortunately the Black Mirror like outcome was that all those dumb Flash and Java applets waited until HTML5 matured enough that they could basically just produce the same shit as HTML5.

      I almost wonder if there were tools made that allowed for cross-compiling (translating?) a Flash project as HTML5 directly.

  4. Retarded millennial hipsters by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    Retarded millennial hipsters producing shitty designs because they're retarded millennial hipsters...

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Retarded millennial hipsters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah but that's also their target audience.

    2. Re:Retarded millennial hipsters by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Retarded millennial hipsters producing shitty designs because they're retarded millennial hipsters...

      I love people who hate on millennials because they're millenials.

      It's like you're saying that you have so few positive attributes that the only thing you think shows you're better than anyone else is something utterly arbitrary, i.e. yur age.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re: Retarded millennial hipsters by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      Are we allowed to use the word stupid around those who have loved ones who are stupid?

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  5. " a loss of $443 million." by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

    Hopes were that the redesign could boost Snapchat's soggy revenue, which fell short of Wall Street earnings expectations in Q3 and led to a loss of $443 million.

    Excuse me but I think these guys possibly should be investigated either for embezzlement or they're building a secret moon base with lasers, sharks, blackjack and hookers.

    How on earth do you fit that much money into such a small space? Do you have a TARDIS in your pocket?

  6. A design upgrade isn't a good enough reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You need to add a feature or something that makes the design update the AFTERTHOUGHT, as they're wowed by how simple and powerful the new version is. If you're drawing attention to something trivial and it also sucks, congratulations yes that's going to bite you. Fortunately nobody will miss this app in 2 years when it's replaced by something more hip and wowfactor.

  7. facebook did the same garbage years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Facebook did this garbage when they pretty much made it impossible for me to find shit I cared about, but needed to make damn sure I saw whatever retarded bullshit meme I never cared about.

    You want to kill your user base? Take away all the shit that the users liked about your service.

    Idiots.

  8. What's a 'snapchat'? by gdonald · · Score: 2

    Is that available on EFnet?

  9. Any UI change you implement needs to pass the test by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mostly the test of the user of "enhanced experience" against the discomfort of having to move his ass. Any change is first met with resistance. It could be the best, most intuitive UI in the history of UIs and the user will first meet it with hostility. It's different, it ain't what he is used to and most of all using it without having to use half a brain cell, i.e. what he was used to if it was a tool he used every day for hours, is no longer an option. He has to learn again. People do not like that.

    So whenever you do something like this, you HAVE TO give the user something he really, really, REALLY wants to compensate and overcome that reluctance. It needn't even be anything great. Not even anything useful. Any kind of convenience goodie may well do the trick.

    Without, your UI is doomed.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Nobody likes redesigns by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it takes time to learn a new UI. Most people who make heavy enough use of an app to bother complaining about it stop looking at the UI and learn by muscle memory how to complete tasks. A UI design screws with that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  11. Chekov died because of this crap by nctritech · · Score: 2

    I'd just like to point out that user interface design changes for no good reason other than change's sake resulted in the death of Chekov's actor, Anton Yelchin. While Snapchat's UI is unlikely to result in death, the point remains the same: once users buy into an interface and grow the skill set to use it well, you can't shake it up in any major way without causing serious problems and pissing off a lot of people. Microsoft made a major change in Office 2007 with the "ribbon" that user testing indicated was necessary and was successful in reducing hunting and whatnot, yet that stupid ass ribbon and the shuffling of formatting options to hidden places without decent discoverability is still an enormous pain in the ass for me to use even today. It used to be that I could right-click on text and get paragraph and character formatting boxes with everything but the kitchen sink in them organized into wonderfully neat hierarchical tabs. Now every time I want to do something that doesn't start with B/I/U I have to go on an Easter egg hunt.

    Changing user interfaces willy-nilly kills well-known actors and pisses off millions of teenagers. Don't do it.

    1. Re:Chekov died because of this crap by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'd just like to point out that user interface design changes for no good reason other than change's sake resulted in the death of Chekov's actor, Anton Yelchin.

      What's really sad is that FCA, or Chrysler anyway, had a superior interface back in the 1960s. My 1960 Dodge Dart (Phoenix 2dr) had a push button automatic, which also appeared in several other vehicles made by Chrysler corp. It left absolutely no doubt about your gear selection. The parking brake was on a pedal, and totally distinct from the transmission like it should be. Some other vehicles have adopted push button automatic in recent years, but not vehicles from FCA. It's actually Lincoln that's been using them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Chekov died because of this crap by nctritech · · Score: 1

      It was a terrible user interface design that did not provide accurate feedback to the user. In the case of Chrysler's new shifter, it was difficult to know when the vehicle was in "park" and this was especially bad because the shifter is a handle that strongly resembles a standard shifter. Check out the video from Mopar about how to use it.

      The brake must be applied to change gears, INCLUDING to change into park when stopped. The gear change indication is not moved by bumping the lever (this would make a lot of sense to me, Park could be selected by frantically bumping forward several times if in doubt) but instead by just holding and waiting for the bold or illuminated letter to move to the desired gear. The shifter moves back to the center position when you let it go. The tactile feedback is deceptive to the user, especially to a user that is used to the manual and automatic transmission controls used in vehicles for many decades prior to this "innovation." Even in cars with automated transmission control where the lever is just an electronic input to the car's engine control unit, they STILL use locking positions for the lever for very good reasons.

      I want to know if you can shift to neutral from drive on this thing without applying the brake. If not, that's a serious safety risk too; if the engine were to malfunction or start uncontrollably accelerating, the fastest thing to do to separate it from the wheels and maintain control of the vehicle is to slam it into neutral. It doesn't seem like this design allows that. Removing physical linkages can have benefits but then a bad decision by some C programmer somewhere can end up getting you injured or killed. There is a reason I don't own anything with an automatic transmission anymore.

    3. Re:Chekov died because of this crap by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I agree about the benefit of confident gear selection/awareness. However, I bet it failed UX at the time, because people were far too accustomed to direct mechanical interaction for driving, and the push button left them feeling disconnected, or un-trusting of the automation. This is a life-n-death device, and trust is a factor.

      Yes, because people have no idea how any of this stuff works.

      On the other hand, you could buy a car with a column mounted, big mechanical lever that still clearly showed you the exact gear selection.

      Here's the thing, though; that big mechanical lever clearly shows you the exact gear shift position. It does not necessarily show you the gear selection, since something can go wrong with the linkage between the shifter and the transmission. Therefore, push button automatic was not accepted by the public only because they are dumb. Only a real manual transmission actually puts you in contact with the gears. Everything else is abstraction atop abstraction.

      It's only the best interface, if your market is ready for it at the time, I guess.

      That's definitely true. Products do not work before their time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Chekov died because of this crap by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I bet it failed UX at the time, because people were ... un-trusting of the automation.

      Given the history of car makers with reliability of automation, that would be and still is enough for me.

  12. Killing it? by beep54 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they are quietly trying to kill the damn thing without looking like that's what they are doing?

  13. My god, who did this redesign? Kennedy? Johnson? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    seriously I don't care. Just wanted to get in a dig on the still declining scores for the Last Jedi and it's projected 800 million dollar shortfall. Just because they didn't listen to fans / users and tried to reboot and cram something down everyone's throat.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  14. Beta Sucks! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    It sucks hard.

  15. Re:My god, who did this redesign? Kennedy? Johnson by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    seriously I don't care. Just wanted to get in a dig on the still declining scores for the Last Jedi and it's projected 800 million dollar shortfall. Just because they didn't listen to fans / users and tried to reboot and cram something down everyone's throat.

    It's so far got box office receipts of 1.2 billion of a budget of 200 million, and it's still growing. I somehow doubt the vampire lawyers in charge of Disney are upset by this.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  16. Re:Any UI change you implement needs to pass the t by Waccoon · · Score: 1

    He has to learn again. People do not like that.

    Companies need to stop believing that customers don't know what they want until they see it.

    History is full of UI redesigns that were welcomed with open arms, even if there were no radical new features. Most of that happened in the 90's, when GUIs were still new[ish] and evolving, and just moving things around was accepted as obvious improvement. These days the computer industry is a mature market, and we have 30 years of well-established standards. Even ordinary people are well aware that rapid changes are just going to break things that are known to work.

  17. Re:Any UI change you implement needs to pass the t by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    It sounds like this is more than just a UI change. Stories (ads) being injected in between private messages sounds an awful lot like spam.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  18. Re:My god, who did this redesign? Kennedy? Johnson by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    That's the production budget my friend. Reports in industry trade rags are that the total budget including marketing was 800 million dollars. So that's a net of 400 million. About a 33% return. I agree, 400 million profits seems great to you and me! But, it is nowhere near as profitable as it could have been.

    And I don't know... even if I was a vampire lawyer, I'd be devastated when my projections were for taking in about 2.0 billion dollars and the film only brought in 1.2 billion dollars and merchandising sales had collapsed as a result of the move (down 47%). And the thought that the next film (IX) was probably going do a Justice League swan dive to much lower profits than it would have made due to damage to the brand and over half the fans angry and saying they wouldn't pay to see the next film or any other disney star wars content in the future.

    And that's before the lost blue ray sales.

    Thanks for engaging. As a well written character from another i.p. says, "I can do this all day."

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  19. Re:My god, who did this redesign? Kennedy? Johnson by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    So that's a net of 400 million. About a 33% return. I agree, 400 million profits seems great to you and me! But, it is nowhere near as profitable as it could have been.

    Except no one but the most deluded arrogrent people forecast their film as one of the highest grossing films ever.

    A 33% return is not bad, and you're ignoring that it's still in cinemas so it's not come close to maximising the revenue for post release sales and merchandising.

    And I don't know... even if I was a vampire lawyer, I'd be devastated when my projections were for taking in about 2.0 billion dollars and the film only brought in 1.2 billion dollars and merchandising sales had collapsed as a result of the move (down 47%).

    So... how do you know what Disneys internal projections are? They've generally been pretty tight lipped about that sort of thing.

    made due to damage to the brand and over half the fans angry

    The angry neckbeards are a tiny fraction of the viewers. Plenty of actual fans loved it.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  20. Re:My god, who did this redesign? Kennedy? Johnson by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Disney made those numbers by locking theaters into a deal for an extra 20% of the box office compared to the normal deals. WIthout that, it would have been even lower.

    Industry insiders leaked to the press. Go look on youtube, there are plenty of videos with cites to all this info.

    Angry neck beards? Have you even glanced at the angry youtube videos?

    Let's see... from the videos... Disney deeply offended the following groups...

    Young women in their 20s. Older women in the 30s.
    Young black, asian, hispanic, and white men in their 20s (sans mustache much less beard). Older black, asian, hispanic, and white men in their 30s and 40s.

    And older white men and women in their 50s.

    Oh.. and it looks like the entire nation of china where they just canceled 92% of the planned showings.

    I can accept and respect that a bit less than half of the fans didn't hate the movie. And probably about a fourth of fans like it for various reasons. Enough to see it 2 or 3 times but that's about it. They'll go see IX too.

    But disney isn't going to get the same sweet deal for the next film after theaters lost so much money on this one. Box office plunged and by the time the 4 week period ended and theaters started getting a share of the box office- 90% of the expected gross of the film had been collected.

    Disney expected this to be in the 57% of sequels which make more money than the immediately prior film in the series. That means more than TFA. It was reasonable to expect it TLJ to exceed TFA. If the film hadn't been a horror show and an insult to the fan base, I would have easily dropped 60 bucks on it .

    What can you say about a film that kills an entire galaxy of people and leaves less than a dozen characters alive- one of whom the actress in real life is now dead?

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  21. Re:My god, who did this redesign? Kennedy? Johnson by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Industry insiders leaked to the press. Go look on youtube, there are plenty of videos with cites to all this info

    Youtube is not a great source of news, os I'm not going to wade through hours of nutcases ranting in order to possibly find a kernel of truth that i then have to verify by other means anyway.

    Angry neck beards? Have you even glanced at the angry youtube videos?

    No. First, I get my daily dose of stupid right here; I don't need another source. Second youtubers are about 0.01% of the actual star wars fans who are again about 0.01% of the people actually going to see the film.

    Oh.. and it looks like the entire nation of china where they just canceled 92% of the planned showings.

    Interestingly, none of the people you mentioned being offended were Chinese. China hasn't exactly ever been a hotbed of Starwars fans given the first 6 were never even released in the cinemas there.

    I can accept and respect that a bit less than half of the fans didn't hate the movie. And probably about a fourth of fans like it for various reasons. Enough to see it 2 or 3 times but that's about it. They'll go see IX too.

    Both me and my partner have seen it more than once and we'll certainly go and see the last installment too.

    But disney isn't going to get the same sweet deal for the next film after theaters lost so much money on this one. Box office plunged and by the time the 4 week period ended and theaters started getting a share of the box office- 90% of the expected gross of the film had been collected.

    Maybe some disappointment, but it's currently the third highest grossing Disney have ever made.

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/s...

    And if you look at the figures, it's likely to make it within a hair of the second, but not quite get there. Not bad at all.

    Disney expected this to be in the 57% of sequels which make more money than the immediately prior film in the series.

    Sequels tend to make more than the FIRST film in the series, not more than the 7th film in the series.

    If the film hadn't been a horror show

    It wasn't.

    and an insult to the fan base,

    It wasn't that either. Some fans were offended, some liked it. The most neckbeardy who have read all the books and have "invested" in model lightsabres probably were.

    What can you say about a film that kills an entire galaxy of people and leaves less than a dozen characters alive- one of whom the actress in real life is now dead?

    The film was overall good (with some flaws) and WTF? Do you think an angry fan assassinated Carrie Fisher because of the film or something? What? How is that at all relevant to this discussion or the fault of Disney?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  22. Re:My god, who did this redesign? Kennedy? Johnson by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Now you are just repeating points I already addressed.

    Good point. Yea, there are also offended chinese fans on youtube and in china. As I said, the offended fan base cut across multiple races, both genders, and all age groups. It also included people with poorly trimmed beards who you keep attacking.

    Missing the mark by 800 million is not "within a hair".

    The film was overall bad.

    The point on fisher is they gave the character a "meh" death (seriously rolling Holdo into Leia and giving Holdo's death to Leia would have been better.) and then backtracked on it in a really dumb way. It would have been an exit for the character. Instead now she'll either vanish or die between films. It was a dumb editing choice on their part.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  23. Re:My god, who did this redesign? Kennedy? Johnson by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    As I said, the offended fan base cut across multiple races, both genders, and all age groups.

    You repeat yourself. The fans dedicated enough to rant on youtube are an irrelevancy in terms of audience size.

    It also included people with poorly trimmed beards who you keep attacking.

    True neckbeardery is a way of life, not a(lack of) grooming technique.

    Missing the mark by 800 million is not "within a hair".

    I said it'll end within a hair of being their second highest grossing film ever. Not bad at all!

    The point on fisher is they gave the character a "meh" death (seriously rolling Holdo into Leia and giving Holdo's death to Leia would have been better.) and then backtracked on it in a really dumb way.

    Or you know they didn't give her a death.

    It would have been an exit for the character. Instead now she'll either vanish or die between films. It was a dumb editing choice on their part.

    Given she died shortly after filming, that would hav ebeen a hard editing job.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.