Ask HN: Is building a calm, non-gamified learning app a mistake?

Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overall framing: goals, ethics, and audience

  • Several comments say the answer depends on your goal:
    • Venture‑scale growth and ad/subscription funnels almost require aggressive engagement tactics.
    • A calm, non‑gamified app can work as a niche product or side project, especially for intrinsically motivated learners.
  • There’s a recurring ethical tension: do you optimize for learning outcomes or for retention/monetization? Many feel current “enshittified” apps optimize the latter.

Gamification: useful tool vs manipulative dark pattern

  • Distinction is made between:
    • “Good” gamification: visualizing progress, gentle streaks, feedback on over‑studying, light competition, fun UX.
    • “Bad” gamification: nagging notifications, dark patterns, punishment for missing a day, addictive loops.
  • Some argue gamification is essential for habit formation; others say they abandon any app that pushes points, achievements, or constant reminders.
  • Multiple people suggest making gamification/notifications optional or minimal, not the core of the experience.

Learning effectiveness and language‑learning specifics

  • Strong skepticism that highly gamified apps (notably Duolingo) lead to real fluency; they’re often seen as “language‑themed quiz games.”
  • Many emphasize immersion and “comprehensible input” (media, conversations, everyday use) as key; SRS/flashcards help but aren’t sufficient alone.
  • Calm tools are appreciated for focused, low‑stimulation practice (e.g., before sleep), but several say real learning is inherently effortful and not always “calm.”

Examples and user preferences

  • Non‑ or lightly‑gamified tools like Anki, Mango Languages, Pimsleur, calmcode, and some indie language apps are cited positively, though Anki’s UX is criticized as intimidating.
  • Some users explicitly seek non‑gamified, non‑nagging tools and are willing to pay; others state flatly they wouldn’t buy a calm app because they need stronger external motivation.

Market, sustainability, and “container vs content”

  • Language learning is described as a “tarpit” for solo devs: crowded space, low activation/retention, and high expectations.
  • Calm, serious apps target a smaller but more demanding market; to be viable they may need higher prices or recurring revenue to cover ongoing content and server costs.
  • One framing: content vs container. An app is mostly a “container” that shapes attention and engagement. If you refuse the usual levers (streaks, notifications), you still need some alternative way to pull users back in regularly.
  • Several warn that over time, revenue pressure tends to push even idealistic products toward more gamification.

Net takeaway from the thread

  • Building a calm, non‑gamified learning app is not a mistake in itself, especially if:
    • You’re targeting motivated learners who dislike manipulative design, and
    • You accept slower growth and a smaller market.
  • It is likely at odds with the mainstream consumer app market and with VC‑style expectations, unless you find a strong niche and a sustainable business model.