artyomavanesov

Zapier seems exactly like the type of product that is difficult to unbundle because its value is in its integrations. If an integration (e.g. Gmail and Trello) maps to an addressable market, then the more permutations there are, the larger Zapier's potential market and value is. If you move away from Zapier to some optimized single-purpose integration then you lose the potential value from access to the other integrations. And because of Zapier's enormous library it covers both common and niche use cases.

Zapier is different from something like Craigslist because the latter only offers convenience from having different verticals in one place. There is no synergy between them.

Indeed, in Figma people who don't have a MacBook can also access the design.

I have worked extensively with both Sketch and Figma. And although I find Sketch to have a superior design experience, Figma works better in the context of teams. It's usually also cheaper than the Sketch stack.

Figma offers design, prototyping, developer handover, team collaboration, a.o. capabilities. The basic service is free and the paid tier is fairly priced. All said capabilities are also integrated so you don't have to use plugins or switch between apps. When working with Sketch, I use Sketch for design, Marvel/InVision/Framer for prototyping, InVision/Zeplin for developer handover, and InVision Freehand/Miro for collaboration. This means dealing with multiple licenses, plugins, and copy-pasting assets.

I also worked with a mid-sized company that was paying around EUR 20,000 just for their InVision license (developer inspect is expensive). With Figma you get most of these services (good enough) for a single price.

So money certainly plays a role but Figma's success goes beyond just the pricing model.

AFAIK Estonia, Georgia, and Barbados offer similar programs.

• Estonia: https://e-resident.gov.ee/nomadvisa/ • Georgia: https://www.traveloffpath.com/georgia-launches-digital-nomad... • Barbados: https://globetrender.com/2020/07/16/barbados-one-year-work-v...

In a way he was right. In a way he wasn't.

But it makes you wonder how many of today's unicorns will still be around in 20 years.

UnDraw has become hugely popular within the design community. If you are able to recognize the style then you will start seeing the illustrations all over the internet. Thumbs up to the makers.

> Personally I think a lot of it is being driven by the commoditization of advanced chip fabrication.

That's an interesting perspective. With mobile device chip manufacturing being modularized, Facebook is able to integrate forward with the end user by combining software (i.e. their portfolio of apps) with consumer electronics.

Aggregation theory at work: https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/

There's no getting around the fact that developing AR technology requires substantial investment in R&D. Only companies such as Facebook, ones that employ some of the best engineers and also have a strong incentive to make that investment, are able to pull it off.

Whatever product comes out of Facebook under its current business model will be optimized for serving ads. Not necessarily serving the user.

This in itself is not bad, as it will still stimulate the growth of an ecosystem where developers can create products with different business models.

When it comes to Facebook someone is already making the decision about the optimal balance between content and ads. However, currently this decision is at least to some extent made on aggregate.

As a result, some users get so turned off by ads that they leave the platform, whereas others continue using a it because they don't regard ads as (such high of) a cost.

It's not about rearranging menu-items, but rather learning how an individual user could optimally interact with an application and then tailoring the interface accordingly.

If you visit booking.com it's unlikely you'll ever see the same website twice. It's because their product team does continuous design and A/B testing, trying to come up with the best one-size-fits-all solution. If this loop of designing and testing were to be automated, UIs could be designed based on individual user data rather than aggregate.

The premise is that just like our content feeds (e.g. Facebook, YouTube autoplay) are unique, so will our context (i.e. interface) become unique.

We already see a hint of this outcome in apps we use today. Our Facebook feed which consists of content-rich widgets is the product of an algorithm's best attempt at predicting what content we want to consume and how we want to consume it. However, this article is about context, not content.

> I lament the day that unpredictable icons line a toolbar changing as often as I change a tool.

If you visit booking.com it's unlikely you'll ever see the same website twice. That's because their product team is continuously A/B testing, trying to come up with the best one-size-fits-all solution.

Although their designers' decisions are based on usage data, the data will only tell that button A outperforms button B, not why. And that's because our devices are unable to accurately measure what we're doing and what state we're in.

With the right data algorithms could make layout and even component level design decisions, but tailor them to individual users instead of user personas.

The pace at which React is evolving is both exciting and frustrating. There is so much you can do with all these new tools, but your code is never really up to date.

I picked up web development 1.5 year ago and already went through several stages of re-learning. It's great that the ecosystem is developing this rapidly. But it does require significant effort to stay on top of the latest techniques. Especially if you're not a full-time developer.

It's because Google is so widely used that people are not aware of how good the alternatives are/have become.

I like the focus on user intent. After all, the purpose of search is to provide users with information, not present them with a list of search results.

Recently I switched from Chrome + Google Search to Firefox + DuckDuckGo and I'm pleased, surprised even, by how well this setup works. The user experience is great and the search results of both setups usually correspond.

The ROI of learning web development has never been higher. With modern-day frameworks and tools like Firebase anyone with knowledge of javascript can build apps. Exciting times.

I agree that ads serve their purpose. Their proceeds allow websites to exist and motive entrepreneurs to create them in the first place.

My point is indeed that people go to grocery stores to buy food, not to spend money. Doesn't mean cashiers aren't justified.

People don't use browsers to look at ads. So from a user standpoint ads shouldn't be there in the first place.