• boonhet@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    And if the business needs aren’t met, said businesses will go to another SaaS company that promises them a better, brighter future.

    The user might not be the subscriber, but the user being less productive because the software is getting in their way, will irritate the subscriber.

    I know a SaaS company that put thousands upon thousands of engineering hours into making small (and sometimes large) optimizations over their overall crappy architecture so their enterprise customers (and I’m talking ~6 out of the top 10 largest companies in one industry in the US) wouldn’t leave them for a solution that doesn’t freeze up for all users in a company when one user runs a report. Each company ran in a silo of their own, but for the bigger ones… I’m not going to give exact numbers, but if you give every user a total of half an hour of unnecessary delays per day, that’s like 500 hours of wasted time per day per 1000 employees. Said employees were performing extremely overpriced services, so 500 hours of wasted time per day might be something like 100k income lost per day. Not an insignificant number even for billion dollar companies.

    I’ve since left the company for greener pastures and I hear the new management sucks, but the old one for sure knew that they were going to lose their huge ass clients over performance issues and bugs.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      The key phrase was work well. You are saying they have a motive for it to work. Like not freeze up. I am saying they have no motive for it to work well. As in be user friendly or efficient or easy to use.

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Ok, well really splitting hairs on what “working well” means but ok. Why do UX designers exist? I mean if you have a bad UI that takes a user 10 min to do something that can be done in 10 seconds in another solution, you lose. Time is money. Anyone who has ever been in magament knows it’s all about cost vs output. If a call center employee can handle 2x more cases with another solution due to a better UX, they will move to that.

        You are saying efficiency doesn’t matter, which is just %100 false. A more efficient solution makes/saves more money. It saves time, which is also money and improves agility of the team. How can you say with a straight face that a business doesn’t care about efficiency of it’s workers…

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          Because I have worked with software for 30 years. When the employee is salaried, thier time costs nothing. I will say I have no experience with call centers. So those may be an exception. I believe the majority of computer use jobs are salary though.

          • Lightor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            Ugh, wrong again. Time is money. People have limited bandwidth and output, you want to get at much output as you can for the salary spend while realizing each person has a finite output. You keep saying things like “time costs nothing” and “quality doesn’t matter” which are just completely wrong and if true would upend the industry.

            Also I’ve been in software for just over 20, the last 4 of those as a CTO. Since you seem to keep bringing up your credentials for some reason.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        It still worked - you could use the software with occasional hiccups, it’s not like there was data loss or anything. It just didn’t work WELL.