You’ve missed the point completely. You don’t like Medium’s price, totally fine. Don’t pay for it. Don’t like it? Take it up with them.

Medium uses that measly $5 to pay the author of this article (me). So you effectively asked someone to steal it for you in the comments. Odd indeed.

And while the value you personally ascribe to Medium is completely beside the point, it’s worth mentioning your attitude toward the cost is preposterous. $5/mo for a platform where you admit to reading 30 articles a month is more than reasonable. And “edging toward Netflix?? Medium costs 60% less than Netflix (which is a completely unrelated expense and nonsensical to even compare).

So yes, your request to effectively steal while scoffing at $5/mo being unreasonable is totally odd and nowhere near standard or ethical.

That's an odd statement to make considering that money goes to the author of the article you're wanting to read. How good do the articles need to be in order for them to deserve payment?

Of all those, the only software companies you mentioned are Slack and MS Office. The disnction is that if you don’t pay somebody to use their software, then they aren’t a software company. I’m not trying to be nitpicky but the distinction matters (and that’s probably something I should expound in at some point).

Also it’s worth noting my other response in this thread that I didn’t adequately separate motion from animation, which I should have. I’m talking more abt larger animations, the likes of which pollute dribbble and cause my laptop to get hotter than the sun.

Yes that’s a great distinction I should’ve made. I’m talking grander animations rather than motions. Good point.

I mean...I just said Google was the one exception I could think of and they’re arguably not a software company. Video games are so far outside the context of what I was talking about because, again, not software companies.

I can’t think of a single successful software that uses animation in any meaningful way. I’m genuinely curious if I’m missing something. Google introduced some minor tweens in Material Design, iOS has them, but nothing else comes to mind, particularly in the realm of SaaS.

I have the same curiosity. I talk to people who genuinely love it so I’m sure I’m wrong in making a uniform criticism. But my feeling is that teams need a contingent in locations otherwise it’s lonely and inefficient. Those working remote lose so much from being near others; and often they don’t even know what they’re missing.

It’s funny to me that on one side we hear so much about the importance of geography in how it breeds innovation in ecosystems like SV and now Austin. So if that’s true then how can remote teams be better than co-located?

I’m not sure what the purpose is of these clarifications but I can say that in regards to your comment on sprint week vs. design sprint, it’s probably more accurate to say I invented the “sprint week” term since it doesn’t actually appear in GV’s original definition (which was what I was referring to): https://www.gv.com/sprint/

Spront weeks are by no means standard. Unless you are conflating it with the “sprint” that’s derived from agile methodology to refer to a unit of time; not anything that inherently pertains to design.

As for mixed remote teams working with a good manager, I believe that behind every manager who manages a remote team is a manager who wish their team wasn’t remote. It’s a huge pain in the ass.

I think that in terms of the total number of companies, there are more smaller teams teams than larger teams. Meanwhile, large teams have the resources to dominate the discourse on design systems. My point was set against that backdrop. Not an attack on their overal utility but pointing out that, if you happen to be one of the other thousands of designers not working at large enterprises, it’s reasonable to question the value of a system.

I completely agree with you about designers being free to experiment with animation. You’re right that it certainly has its place.