One piece of user feedback completely changed how we're validating our product
One of the best pieces of feedback we've received this week was that a better writing experience isn't enough to convince someone to switch platforms.
That changed the questions we're asking. Instead of "What features do you want?"
We're now asking:
"What problem would make you leave the platform you're already using?"
It feels like a much more useful way to validate product-market fit.
Have you ever had a single piece of feedback completely change how you approached your product?
Trending on Indie Hackers
That is a better question, but I would ask about a real recent case: "Tell me about the last time this problem was bad enough that you tried to solve it." Then ask what they did, what it cost, and why they stayed. Hypothetical willingness to leave often overstates demand. A recent attempt to switch gives you observed behaviour, the trigger, and the existing workaround. The strongest signal is not frustration alone; it is frustration plus an event that makes doing nothing more expensive.
That's a great framework. We've been moving in that direction because it's much easier to learn from what people actually did than from what they think they might do. We'll definitely start asking more about recent experiences and workarounds. Thanks for sharing that approach!
The shift from "what features do you want" to "what problem would make you leave" is the real PMF question. Most people optimize for incremental improvements when they should be asking why users stay despite friction. The switching cost realization is huge—platforms that ignore why someone is locked in miss the real leverage point. Curious if you're also mapping switching costs vs problem severity?
That's a great way to frame it. We're not formally mapping it yet, but that's exactly the direction we're heading. Understanding "why people stay despite the friction" feels just as important as understanding what frustrates them. Really appreciate the perspective.