This attitude really bothers me. I have no affiliation with Womp, but from the looks of it, it's a cool product made by a small team. And they are giving it out for free - literally for free. But free still isn't enough. Even the notion to get some contact data in the hope that some subset of subscribers might be willing to pay for it in the future is somehow insulting to you. Instead, you want the transaction to be completely one sided: "give me stuff and get nothing back".
"But if they had confidence in their product, they would just make it open and people would try it out. And if they like it, they might buy it later!" - Right? Wrong!
People have increasingly short memories. Even if they like it now, by the time it makes it out of alpha, they'll long be chasing the next, shiny thing. So you have to keep the link alive to follow up on it. That's just good business.
So how about you have some sympathy for the talented people who put this together and give them the chance to follow up in a few months on the off chance that this is something you might be willing to use properly?
I felt the same about having to signup to even see it do something. It's really not about THIS particular product or the people behind it. It's just that I'm expected to do this with seemingly ever new thing that I want to interact with. It's become so common that, for me, the signup gate becomes a decision point where I ask myself "Do I really care/want to see this?". The answer is no a non-zero amount of times and I do bounce off it at that point.
I do get the desire for them to want an audience to give updates to and try to have a consistent user base. The thing that sucks is that not only do they want to email me, so does everyone else. I've never been very protective of my inbox but the volume has gotten crazy recently so that's had to change. If they let me in and then asked for my email to continue after a couple minutes I'd be more inclined to provide it.
> the signup gate becomes a decision point where I ask myself "Do I really care/want to see this?". The answer is no a non-zero amount of times and I do bounce off it at that point.
Cool. You’re not in the target, you bounce. You save time, they save time and bandwidth and get a higher quality user funnel. Everyone is happy.
That doesn't seem like the optimal way of filtering when you're just trying to get eyes on your product. That criteria doesn't have anything to do with the product itself. This is something that's actually relevant to my interests, looks cool, and I'd like to try it at some point.
How about they make the app completely frictionless to try out, and then charge money for it? I don't want to sign up for something before I try it, but if I'm using something I don't mind paying for it
On what planet is it 'free' if it requires you to hand over some of your most abusable info?
The thing that really bothers me is the normalisation of 'hand over your credentials' which inevitably maps to data leaks and identity theft. For what, trying out a product that you may or may not use?
"Free" means different things to different people. For instance, a free phone that records everything you do (not just phone calls) and posts the recordings to soyouwanttobeastar.com might appeal to some and horrify others.
If this free 3D product only required a DNA sample, the group who considers it free might change. Or if it required your signature. Or your corporate username.
It clearly is not free. It has a price. The question is how much different people value that price.
When I got to the signup, I just closed the window. How does that help them? You want as few possible barriers to experience of your product. It's not about denying them some sort of monetization, but incrementally that's what happened because of the signup.
It should be:
- I got you to click my url, here's some screenshots and a description.
- Looks interesting? Try it yourself.
- Like it? Sign up for an account to save your work, or maybe submit an email for announcements.
I think this attitude is a consequence of (a) so many things vying for our limited attention, and (b) people using your contact info in ways you don't want.
It's a reasonable response to the environment we live in, not necessarily a criticism of this specific app. Unfortunately it seems like the OP has wanted something like this for a long time, but their knee-jerk reaction to its outward appearance will prevent them from even trying it.
Like how an allergic reaction is our body's immune system over-reacting to something that may actually be benign.
Roark66 described it as "moderately annoying", not "insulting", so let's please not start an escalating chain of reactions to stuff that hasn't actually been expressed.
But I'm on the same "mildly annoyed" page, because with the large majority of "it looks cool" new products or services I try out, I know within 5 minutes that it doesn't actually meet my needs and I know I'm _not_ interested in it, but I still have to trust that this organization both today and in perpetuity (or as long as I keep that address) will be well-behaved and technically competent in using my information.
Recently on vacation I bought tickets to a museum in a country I was visiting, and in the process shared my email in order to receive a QR code for entry. They have a legitimate use case which involves sending something to me; fine. To my knowledge the ticket sales service involved does not operate in my region, and I would really prefer never to hear from them again after this one useful interaction. Only a couple of weeks later, in the space of 30 minutes I receive _dozens_ of marketing messages from them, each in a different language I do not speak, all promoting the same 10% off sale _for something I cannot make use of_. I assume some bug didn't associate a specific language with my record so they decided to send me messages in all of them. Their "unsubscribe" link was broken, perhaps for related lack-of-competence reasons. There's literally no way for me to tell them I am not in a position to buy anything further from them. But we've totally normalized online interactions that require (potential) customers to trust that an unfamiliar organization with be both well-intentioned and skillful in their handling of your contact info.
Imagine if receiving a free sample at a grocery store of a new product that might be appealing to you but might be entirely not to your taste required you to first give the company your contact info. Or if trying on a garment in a department store required the same trust. In a non-online context, this behavior would be creepy and intrusive. And you know that you might realize in seconds that you hate the mouthfeel of their product, or that the cut of those pants just doesn't work for your body, and no you won't be buying their product -- but you can't claw back your email.
I think in online contexts we should normalize at least one of two other patterns:
- Let people try it for k minutes/actions/new objects without a sign-up, after which the UI is blocked by a modal asking them to create an account. The customer gets to establish whether they actually want to use the product, and the company still gets info about people who are actually interested.
- Rather than relying on _emails_ specifically, account setup could rely on _revocable_ access to any other service that allows sending/receiving messages.
"But if they had confidence in their product, they would just make it open and people would try it out. And if they like it, they might buy it later!" - Right? Wrong!
People have increasingly short memories. Even if they like it now, by the time it makes it out of alpha, they'll long be chasing the next, shiny thing. So you have to keep the link alive to follow up on it. That's just good business.
So how about you have some sympathy for the talented people who put this together and give them the chance to follow up in a few months on the off chance that this is something you might be willing to use properly?