The feedback he ignored

Julia states the mechanism first, from her month inside a single project: when you’re deep in the build, “tu única opinión prevalece a todo, porque básicamente es la única” ▸ 18:13, obviousness is a symptom of immersion, not of truth. Then Juan supplies the case study against himself.

Months ago, a Sanfanson tester wrote that they saw no gameplay in it ▸ 19:42. The comment stung, got filed under “wrong target audience”, and was ignored ▸ 20:00. Today, with two more launches of perspective, he restates it as the product’s precise diagnosis: “tienes un juego para aprender idiomas y tú no te diviertes. Entonces, ¿qué juego es este?” ▸ 21:15. And the cost gets estimated honestly: had he taken it seriously and kept iterating from that day, “ya tendría como unos 100 usuarios, 200, hasta 1000, quién sabe” ▸ 21:50.

But the entry refuses the easy moral of “listen to everything”, because the same week produced feedback he was right to ignore: a Koby user objecting to Google login ▸ 23:44. Asked what login they’d prefer, silence; meanwhile ~50 people across his apps registered happily with Google, and past experiments with GitHub and email logins were pure setup cost. Verdict: not worth it.

la crítica que duele y describe el producto es la que va en serio →

So the skill, the one he credits Lean Startup for naming and admits he’s still calibrating ▸ 25:16, is triage. A heuristic falls out of his two cases: feedback that describes your product’s experience (“I’m not having fun”) outranks feedback that describes the user’s preferences (“I dislike Google”), especially when the second contradicts observed behavior. The user doesn’t always know what they want. Sometimes, though, they tell you exactly what your product is, and it hurts precisely because it’s the diagnosis…