Thomas Meijer

A workspace featuring two monitors displaying a scenic lake landscape, with a wooden desk and a keyboard nearby.

Got myself a lil something something

Users don't want to 'engage' with tools. They want to finish and leave

Question: Would you celebrate if users spent 20 minutes buying something that should take 2?

If users spend a lot of time in your app, your UX probably sucks.

Google HEART framework: task success rate predicts retention 3x better than session length

Amazon optimizes for *less* time on site (faster checkout = higher revenue)

A man with gray hair and glasses shows an surprised expression, sitting in a cart with a green field and buildings in the background.

The gf when she sees my @AnthropicAI bill

Do This Today:

1) Record yourself using your app. Count milliseconds between tap and response.
2) If any interaction takes longer than 100ms, add loading states, optimistic UI, or skeleton screens.
3) Test perceived speed: does it *feel* instant, even if the backend is slow?

Technical founders focus on API speed but ignore interaction latency. That lag between tap and visual feedback? That’s where the “non-native” feeling comes from.

When users tap a button and it responds in 50ms, they perceive quality. When it takes 200ms, they perceive jank. Even if the visual design is perfect.

Your app uses SF Symbols and standard nav bars. Users still say it feels “slow” or “off.”

The problem? It’s temporal, not visual.

Native feel is 80% response time, 20% visual design.

Result Pattern:
App feels 'easier to use' without feature changes. Consistency = users spend less energy on interface, more on task.

DM me if this sounds familiar.

The Fix:
Define 5 interaction patterns (primary action placement, destructive action style, back navigation, etc). Use them everywhere. Break consistency only for critical alerts.

Many MVPs 'break the rules' on every screen to feel unique. Users experience this as lack of polish, not creativity.

What I See:
Save button top-right on screen A, bottom-left on screen B, floating action button on screen C. Users tap wrong spot, feel dumb, lose trust.

Here's the test: delete all your instructional text. Is your UI still usable?

If not, your patterns are broken.

TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat: near-zero instructions. Billions of users just know how they work. Because the patterns are borrowed from apps that came before.

More text = more to ignore. Visual patterns beat verbal explanation.

Every word you write in your app reduces comprehension.

Sounds backwards. It's not.

Nielsen Norman tracked eye movements: users read 20-28% of the words on screen. The rest? Skipped entirely.

Try this:
1. Map the first 3 tasks users attempt post-onboarding (analytics or session recordings)
2. Identify where they get stuck or abandon (empty states? unclear next steps?)
3. Add contextual help *at the point of friction*, not in onboarding

If that moment’s buried under UX friction, you lose them.

The “aha moment” (when value clicks) almost never happens during onboarding. It happens when users successfully complete their first meaningful action.

Most apps frontload instructions, but leave users alone during their first real task. That’s when they hit friction:
- Unclear CTAs
- Empty states without guidance
- Confusing flows

Your onboarding is smooth. Users complete it in 90 seconds. Then they vanish.

The problem isn't the tutorial. It's what happens next.

Users don't come back to 'viable.' They come back to things they enjoy using.

ou can ship fast AND loveable. But it requires specs. It requires defining how things should behave before devs start guessing.

MVP gives founders permission to skip the details. Most Loveable forces you to care about the 20 micro-interactions that make software feel good or frustrating.

That's not more features. It's the stuff founders always skip:

• Clear feedback when something saves
• Helpful errors (not 'something went wrong')• Smart defaults so users don't start from scratch
• Loading states that don't feel broken
• One polished flow instead of five half-done ones

Not 'what's the least we can ship?' but 'what's the minimum someone needs to actually love using this?'

Stop building Minimum Viable Products. Build Most Loveable Products instead.

MVP thinking gets you: bare minimum flows, zero polish, 'we'll fix it later' everywhere. Users try it once, never come back.

Most Loveable thinking asks different questions:

In 3 years, we're going to see incredible apps and designs from people who got their start on a MacBook Neo.

Because ecosystems don't grow by making the top-end faster.

They grow by lowering the barrier to entry.

Apple just handed a generation of makers their ticket in.

The best work often comes from constraints anyway.

Give someone a $599 laptop and tell them to build something. They'll figure it out. They'll optimize. They'll get resourceful.

That's where innovation happens.

$599 means accessible. $499 for students means attainable. That's the whole game.

Yeah, 8GB of RAM isn't a lot. Yeah, the A18 Pro isn't an M-series chip.

But for someone learning Figma? Writing their first Swift app? Thinker with AI. It's plenty.

My first MacBook Pro changed my life. Not exaggerating. It gave me access to tools I couldn't afford otherwise. Let me learn iOS design properly. Let me build things that actually worked.

But I had to save for months to afford it.

The Neo removes that friction.

A hand holds a MacBook Neo with a vibrant, colorful screen. Text announces the price and pre-order details for the device.

The MacBook Neo is $599 and runs on an iPhone chip.

Spec nerds are losing their minds.

I think it's brilliant.

This isn't about replacing the MacBook Air. It's about getting Macs into the hands of people who've been priced out.

Startup founders: "We want it to feel like Apple."

Also startup founders: "Can we add 6 more CTAs to the homepage?"

Pick one.