The author never argues for popularity; he argues that design should be using its seat at the table to produce better outcomes for users and for businesses.
The author and your comment do implicitly use popularity as the measure of success, which I think is dangerous:
That’s probably because no one is downloading it
Other than users deciding to use a product, what other metric is there for whether you have built something people want.
Better outcomes for users and businesses depend very much on your definition of better, which might range from making more money out of users to helping users get what they want even it if doesn't make money. There's a huge range of potential outcomes which different people might judge to be good, let's not pretend that there is one objective outcome which equals better/success/good or that it is strictly linked with making something people think they want right now. You can also make something they will want in one year, or something they will want when everyone else wants it too, or something only a few want but which you feel everyone might want if only they are exposed to it in the right way.
You can certainly argue that Paper fails to appeal to its intended audience, or deal with the content they have, rather than the content they'd like to have, but part of delivering a successful product is shaping what your users want by delivering something you consider valuable, not entirely pandering to their existing expectations or taste. e.g. iphones vs existing phones, ipod versus CD players etc. so I imagine that was the motivation for it. The trap that FB finds itself in is that they have grown massive by pandering to the lowest common denominator, and now cannot escape that. Sticky content they may have, but how much of it is worth the pixels?
The article and your comment here are sliding from 'better outcomes' to 'number of downloads/users/views/likes' as a definition of better - there are other definitions of better/success/good and some of them even make money (see Apple's attitude to design under Jobs). Things which are popular in a given era are rarely considered good or valuable in the long-term - popularity is an ephemeral and misleading measure of quality if you look at writing, design, art or any other creative field.
Success is measured by the original aim. This is exactly what the article is talking about, designers making something while forgetting the original aim, focusing on the wrong thing.
If I make something with the intention to sell it and try to sell it with a huge marketing budget and it doesn't sell, it's a failure.
These things have seemingly got no penetration. They didn't even hit a niche.
How is that anything other than complete failure?
You seem to be redefining the meaning of success to be how pretty it is which is precisely the problem the author is tackling:
In order to avoid losing its place atop organizations, design must deliver results...A “great” design which produces bad outcomes —low engagement, little utility, few downloads, indifference on the part of the target market— should be regarded as a failure.
The author and your comment do implicitly use popularity as the measure of success, which I think is dangerous:
That’s probably because no one is downloading it
Other than users deciding to use a product, what other metric is there for whether you have built something people want.
Better outcomes for users and businesses depend very much on your definition of better, which might range from making more money out of users to helping users get what they want even it if doesn't make money. There's a huge range of potential outcomes which different people might judge to be good, let's not pretend that there is one objective outcome which equals better/success/good or that it is strictly linked with making something people think they want right now. You can also make something they will want in one year, or something they will want when everyone else wants it too, or something only a few want but which you feel everyone might want if only they are exposed to it in the right way.
You can certainly argue that Paper fails to appeal to its intended audience, or deal with the content they have, rather than the content they'd like to have, but part of delivering a successful product is shaping what your users want by delivering something you consider valuable, not entirely pandering to their existing expectations or taste. e.g. iphones vs existing phones, ipod versus CD players etc. so I imagine that was the motivation for it. The trap that FB finds itself in is that they have grown massive by pandering to the lowest common denominator, and now cannot escape that. Sticky content they may have, but how much of it is worth the pixels?
The article and your comment here are sliding from 'better outcomes' to 'number of downloads/users/views/likes' as a definition of better - there are other definitions of better/success/good and some of them even make money (see Apple's attitude to design under Jobs). Things which are popular in a given era are rarely considered good or valuable in the long-term - popularity is an ephemeral and misleading measure of quality if you look at writing, design, art or any other creative field.