Have you ever felt frustrated when a product you love gets a redesign?

As someone deeply involved in product development, I’ve observed an interesting pattern: no matter how thoughtfully businesses try to innovate and improve, users often cling to the old product and resist change. Even when the new version offers clear advantages.

The issue

Think of every major update to platforms like YouTube or Facebook. Each redesign inevitably triggers a wave of online backlash, like the collective outcry in a stadium after a controversial call from the referee. Users argue that the previous design was better; some threaten to abandon the platform, while others go so far as to launch petitions demanding a rollback. And these reactions aren’t always unfounded. Take the Reddit redesign in 2018 — many still remember the uproar it caused.

My name is Mark, and I'm responsible for client interfaces at EXANTE. In this article, I want to explore why we grow so attached to products that, while familiar, are often outdated and inefficient. More importantly, I want to better understand — and hopefully help others understand — how to deliver product changes without triggering user backlash.

Why Are Changes Even Needed

I’m convinced that product evolution, including redesigns, is an inevitable necessity. Market conditions, client expectations, and competitors’ offerings evolve rapidly. In this environment, standing still is equivalent to falling behind. Simply put, a product that doesn’t change is probably already obsolete. That’s why businesses focus on growing their CTB (Change the Business) metrics — pursuing innovation and new opportunities — while keeping RTB (Run the Business) metrics lean, maintaining only what’s essential to function day to day. Just like in living organisms: a cell spends minimal energy to maintain its basic functions, but any change — growth, division, or adaptation — demands extra resources.

The Context

One of EXANTE’s flagship products, the Desktop Platform, is currently undergoing a major redesign. But it’s more than just an interface refresh; the update introduces a range of functional improvements. Internally, we like to call it a “facelift.”

Due to technical reasons — which we won’t get into here — we chose to roll out all changes simultaneously. Aware of the risks involved, we did our best to make the transition as smooth as possible. When clients updated their trading terminal to the latest version, they were greeted with a friendly prompt offering them the option to switch to the new interface right away or delay the transition. We also informed them that the option to revert to the old interface would soon be removed.

As you might expect, when the new version was released, over 60% of the users opted to delay the transition. But just a few months later, that number had dropped to around 3%.

So why does this happen? Why did we see similar reactions among the users of YouTube, Reddit, and others – and why is it likely to happen again? Beyond the obvious reasons, what really drives users to resist change?

Let’s take a closer look.

The Science Behind It

In my opinion, the answer begins with how our brains work: our minds are inherently lazy, and we’re wired to favor familiar patterns and routines. But that’s just my personal take — I’m not a scientist. To better understand this, I turned to research from actual experts.

Cognitive Economy

Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman calls this phenomenon “cognitive economy.” Essentially, our brain prefers to minimise energy spent on decision-making by opting for familiar, tried-and-tested routines. As a result, significant changes aren’t just met with hesitation — they can trigger outright resistance.

"A general ‘law of least effort’ applies to cognitive as well as physical exertion. The law asserts that if there are several ways of achieving the same goal, people will eventually gravitate to the least demanding course of action. In the economy of action, effort is a cost, and the acquisition of skill is driven by the balance of benefits and costs. Laziness is built deep into our nature."

Kahneman explores this concept in depth in his influential book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. He describes two modes of thinking: System 1, which is fast, intuitive, and efficient but prone to biases and errors; and System 2, which is slower, analytical, and used for problem-solving, but requires much more mental effort and energy.

“When you are in a state of cognitive ease, you are probably in a good mood, like what you see, believe what you hear, trust your intuitions, and feel that the current situation is comfortably familiar.”

Interestingly, this reminded me of the difference between lightweight LLM models (around 8 billion parameters) and heavier models (408+ billion parameters), where larger models consume significantly more GPU resources to produce superior results.

Status Quo Bias

Another relevant concept is the “status quo bias,” first described by researchers William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser in a 1988 paper in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. Their research showed that people often resist change – even when the new option is clearly superior – due to a subconscious fear of potential loss.

Loss Aversion

This aligns closely with another cognitive bias known as “loss aversion,” introduced by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in their seminal paper, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Loss aversion refers to the phenomenon where people perceive potential losses more intensely than equivalent gains, leading them to value the comfort of the familiar far more than potential benefits from something new. This bias may help explain why millions were hesitant to switch from keypad phones to touchscreen smartphones for so long.

“The aggravation that one experiences in losing a sum of money appears to be greater than the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount.”

In short, our resistance to abandon familiar interfaces isn’t just habit – it’s driven by deep-rooted cognitive mechanisms that compel us to cling to the familiar. Understanding these mechanisms is the first step toward empathising with users and helping them adapt more smoothly to change.

Breaking the Norms

Since we’ve touched on the reluctance users showed in giving up devices with physical keyboards, let’s look at some business cases where embracing a new paradigm made all the difference.

2007. The mobile market is saturated with smartphones with physical keyboards. Devices like BlackBerry, with their convenient QWERTY layouts, were the gold standard, especially among business users. Nokia led with its Symbian OS phones, also equipped with physical keyboards.

Meanwhile, keyboard-less devices like Palm’s PDAs were seen as niche or geeky. I still remember laughing when a programmer friend showed me his PDA, which had no games installed — he insisted, with a smirk, that it was “strictly for work.”

Apple

Then Apple released the iPhone—a smartphone with no physical keyboard, just a single home button and a fully touchscreen interface. The design was so unusual at the time that it drew widespread scepticism.

Steve Ballmer, then Microsoft CEO, even publicly mocked the device:

“500 dollars? Fully subsidized, with a plan? I said, ‘That is the most expensive phone in the world, and it doesn’t appeal to business customers because it doesn’t have a keyboard, which makes it not a very good email machine.’”

I still remember the first time I held an iPhone after years of using Symbian. It felt unfamiliar and strange – especially the restriction on freely installing third-party apps. But despite that initial hesitation, users quickly embraced the iPhone. Its bold new design didn’t just gain acceptance – it redefined the entire smartphone industry and set a new standard.

As of early 2024, Apple Inc.’s market capitalisation has surpassed 3 trillion dollars—about seven times the GDP of Norway, or as one GDP of France — with iPhone sales playing a major role in that success.

Spotify

Similarly, take Spotify’s impact on how we listen to music. Instead of purchasing albums, users can now access vast song libraries for a subscription fee. While subscription-based services were already trending, Spotify played a key role in transforming global listening habits.

As of early 2024, Spotify has over 250 million paying subscribers — which, coincidentally, is exactly how many people would live in my hometown… if 249 million of them suddenly moved in.

Humane

However, not all innovations lead to resounding success. In 2024, the now-infamous company Humane launched Ai Pin, an AI-powered wearable device, which was met with lukewarm response – partly due to technical shortcomings. Tech influencer Marques Brownlee called it the worst gadget he’d ever reviewed—and he’s reviewed plenty. Shortly after, Ai Pin sales were halted, and Humane was acquired by HP for around $116 million.

Marques Brownlee with Ai Pin - YouTube video preview

The Cost of Change

While preparing this article, a core idea emerged that I’d like to frame as the main thesis: any change you introduce demands effort from the user. Users, consciously or not, always assess the benefit-to-effort ratio. If your new product or updated interface doesn’t offer clear benefits that justify the effort required to adapt, users simply won’t embrace it. It’s also important to recognise that existing products, interfaces, or workflows always have a built-in advantage: users already know how to use them. It is also important to notice that even if a new product offers significant benefits with a small investment in adaptation, users are more likely to choose not to undergo adaptation.

Take this: if a task used to take two clicks, and now it takes three — the added friction can kill any sense of improvement. If it still takes two, the user’s natural question is: “Why bother learning it all over again?” And even if it takes one click less, the gain might still not be worth the effort of re-learning.

The importance of adaptation versus the value of change

Personally, all of Tesla’s impressive features lose their appeal the moment I have to wrestle with those unconventional door handles. (By the way, I’d love to hear your take on Tesla’s door handles—feel free to share in the comments!)

Delivery Principles

So, how can we introduce major changes without triggering strong user resistance? How can we make new products feel familiar?

Throughout my career in product management — and while compiling this article — I’ve identified several key principles that guide my approach to delivering change. I hope you find them useful too:

Use familiar patterns: Don’t reinvent the wheel or introduce new patterns without a clear necessity. Adopting proven, familiar solutions is not only acceptable—it’s often the smarter choice.
Consider the broader context: The world doesn’t revolve around your product. Users won’t spend hours learning unless the value of change is obvious. If your changes aren’t intuitive, users won’t hesitate to move to a competitor.
Provide clear instructions: Even seemingly obvious features can be confusing. Create guides, release notes, onboarding screens to clearly communicate “what’s new” and how to use it.
Test on yourself: Always use your product before release. If you find something frustrating or inconvenient, chances are your users will too. Keep using your product after release, continuously, whenever possible.
Measure and analyse: Track your metrics and set up product dashboards. Pay close attention to user churn dynamics and analyse behavioural metrics thoroughly.
Listen to feedback: Conduct product interviews, listen to your customers, collect their feedback, and pay special attention to their criticism. Learn to distinguish temporary resistance from genuine product issues. Don’t seek praise—it won’t help you to improve the product.
Validate hypotheses: Run usability tests, and if applicable, perform A/B tests. Try to understand exactly how users interact with your product. Conduct “corridor testing” during concept development, build prototypes in Figma, draw diagrams and wireframes — it’s cheaper than developing features or redesigns nobody needs. Debate, discuss, research competitors, and assess market demand.
Establish clear communication: Communicate upcoming changes clearly and transparently to all employees. Explain what’s changing and, more importantly, why. Transparent communication helps reduce resistance. Make sure your colleagues have the full context — don’t work in isolation.
Create value around changes: Users need to see clear benefits from new features or interfaces. Even when the change is mandatory, it’s crucial to actively communicate the value in every possible way. A user who chooses to adopt a feature will always be more satisfied than one who feels forced into it.
Ensure a smooth transition: Start by testing changes internally with your team, then roll them out gradually to small groups of users. Provide users with a temporary option to switch back to the old interface. Gradual rollouts are especially important for large client bases — many services launch updates to only a small percentage of users at first to monitor feedback and minimize risk.

Evolution over Revolution

One principle I want to emphasize above all others is this:

Evolution Over Revolution.

Ultimately, prioritize evolution over revolution. Users don’t want change just for the sake of change. They’re willing to learn something new—but only if it’s clearly worth the effort. That doesn’t mean you should avoid bold, groundbreaking features. After all, great products can — and do — change the world, and taking risks is part of doing business.

What I’m cautioning against are revolutionary changes that lack clear, obvious value. If you’re going to introduce a major shift, make sure it delivers benefits that clearly outweigh the effort required for users to adapt.

What principles do you follow to introduce changes without overwhelming your users?

Share your thoughts in the comments — I’d love to hear them!

Why you love bad products