Why Are Dating Apps Failing Us? A Deep Dive into Misaligned Incentives and the Quest for Genuine Connection

The Hacker News community recently tackled a perennially frustrating topic: why are dating apps so bad, and why hasn't a truly 'good' one emerged? The consensus largely points to a fundamental misalignment between the business goals of these apps and the romantic goals of their users. As the original poster noted, many popular apps, often acquired by giants like Match Group, seem designed to 'keep you single and spending money' through various 'enshittification' tactics and dark patterns.

The Profit Motive vs. User Success

A dominant theme, echoed by former dating app startup founder nasalgoat, is that the prevailing subscription model is antithetical to user success. An app profits from continued engagement and subscriptions; if a user finds a lasting relationship, they leave the platform, representing churn. This creates an incentive to keep users on the app, perhaps by showing 'hottest' profiles first to encourage sign-ups rather than optimizing for genuine compatibility, as nasalgoat revealed from their experience. App store fees (e.g., Apple's 30%) further exacerbate the need for aggressive monetization.

Commenters like josephcsible and IAmBroom suggested alternative monetization, such as a one-time upfront fee, similar to old-style matchmakers. This would align incentives, as the service would be motivated to match users effectively to manage their own time and resources. However, JohnBooty, who ran a social/dating site, argued that there's always a fresh supply of new users, akin to a college bar, mitigating the 'successful user churn' problem to some extent.

The Paradox of Choice and Serendipity

Many users, like wryoak, highlighted a core issue: dating apps often present a 'shopping mall’s worth of candidates,' leading to choice paralysis and superficial judgments. wryoak compellingly argued that real-life chemistry often blossoms unexpectedly, with people they wouldn't have 'swiped right on.' Current apps, they contend, focus on selecting whom you want to have chemistry with, not whom you will or can.

This led to discussions around fostering serendipity:

netsharc proposed a 'Speed-Dating' app, connecting users randomly for short, timed video chats, with options to extend or politely disengage. jmye suggested making initial chats audio-only to reduce superficial judgment before a potential video reveal.
Critiques of such ideas included the potential for disappointment if physical attraction isn't there after a good conversation (IAmBroom), and the increased effort required from users (thatguymike).
fynd_dating countered that serendipity can lead to incompatible relationships, arguing that apps should help users self-select for compatibility first, then facilitate chemistry within that pool.

User-Side Challenges and Market Dynamics

The discussion also acknowledged that apps aren't solely to blame:

User Behavior: The original poster and jrozner noted that users' own issues (unattractiveness, bad selection, laziness, unrealistic expectations) contribute to poor experiences. bradlys offered a blunt perspective: for many men, the issue isn't the app but their lack of attractiveness, a sentiment that sparked some debate but also resonated with others who feel apps simply expose societal dating dynamics.
Gender Imbalance: nasalgoat pointed out the significant male-to-female user ratio (e.g., 70/30) and differing motivations between genders, making balance difficult.
Low-Quality Interactions: Problems like dead/fake profiles, scammers, and users seeking attention rather than dates (29athrowaway) plague platforms. IAmBroom suggested a user rating system for rejections to help filter out creeps.
The Medium is the Message: spacemadness argued that reducing humans to database entries inherently lends itself to superficiality and transactional interactions.

Potential Paths Forward

Beyond serendipity-focused features and new monetization, other ideas surfaced:

Niche Apps: incomingpain suggested the deficit might be in apps catering to specific niches or addressing particular community needs (e.g., better support for LGBT users).
Friend-Sourced Matches: dobladov mentioned a German app, Blindmate, where friends select matches for users.
Non-Profit/Decentralized Models: solardev envisioned a non-profit, community-driven, open-source app with end-to-end encryption, while apopapo wondered about ActivityPub-based dating apps.
Offline Alternatives: bravesoul2 simply advocated for more offline social activities.

Ultimately, while many yearn for a 'good' dating app, the discussion highlighted the complex interplay of business incentives, the difficulty of replicating organic human connection digitally, and the inherent challenges within the user base itself. The consensus is that the current market leaders are failing, but creating a successful and genuinely helpful alternative is a formidable task.