Four years ago I posted this image on LinkedIn:
From my LinkedIn page
The image shows then-and-now screenshots of Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter — how the apps looked when they launched and how they looked now (well, now in 2020). The point I was making was how over time, these three social media platforms, founded at different times (Instagram launched in 2010; Twitter launched in 2006; LinkedIn launched in 2002) and with very different purposes had all evolved to look essentially the same.
Instagram started as a platform to share photos. LinkedIn started as a professional networking platform. Twitter started as a micro-blogging site. How could these three platforms end up at the same spot, UX-wise?
Let’s take a look at what these three platforms look like today. Of course, Twitter is now X.
Social media platforms in 2025
The three platforms don’t look as much like dupes of the others as they did in that old post, but they’re certainly more alike each other than at their founding. They still share a lot in terms of UI structure, what you can do functionally, and overall architecture. The platforms are shifting focus to video, compared to other content types. Instagram highlights Reels. LinkedIn has added a “video” tab to their main navigation. X appears to feature more videos in their feed.
These platforms were created to serve very different missions and yet they still continue to converge.
One thing I think about with these three companies is the cache they carry (or used to carry in the case of X, formerly Twitter). Each is a massive brand in the tech world. And that type of recognition attracts talent. People want to work for them. Designers want to work on these products. And it’s true that each company employs hundreds, if not thousands of designers around the globe. There is no shortage of design talent to support these companies.
The job of design is not just to “make it look good.” We do do that, but it’s a byproduct of our process. What we do, what we excel at is identifying a problem or opportunity and then developing a unique, tailored solution that addresses that problem or opportunity.
So I ask the question again — how could three prestige tech companies, each employing an army of the most talented product designers and UX practitioners, each attempting to solve a unique problem for a different audience end up in the same spot, UX-wise?
There’s another social media platform that wasn’t on my radar four years ago when I made that comparison, one that’s focused on video and has been since conception.
I’ve included next to TikTok (left) a screenshot of Instagram’s Reels (right) which Meta launched as a direct competitor in the summer of 2020. I would argue this is not even about converging UX patterns but rather a blatant copy. At least in this case the product is for the same purpose — short form video content.
The tyranny of testing
A lot goes into building and growing and updating a product. A lot of people from lots of different specialties weigh in, competing interests or ideas, different understandings of the problem or opportunity, various limitations and trade-offs (time, effort, money) to consider. Rarely is there one person making a decision about the direction of a product in the day to day process. It’s all very messy and noisy and most of all seemingly non-linear.
Everyone involved in building digital things knows this (at least the experienced ones) and so there is a drive to take that confusion and messiness out of the equation. An incredible pressure is on to quantify these decisions. What does the data show?
So we user test. We A/B test. We put the new idea out there in front of users and measure their reactions. We keep running users through the old design and we measure that reaction and then we compare the two numbers. Which did better? That’s what we go with.
Product teams led by product managers want assurance. They want to be confident that what they launch will work, will be the next big thing to move the numbers. Ring out as much of the guesswork and ambiguity and I-don’t-knows out of the process. “Because” is never a satisfactory answer. But if everything gets reduced to a number — if the feature that “won” the head-to-head test is always selected — is a decision really being made?
I remember an occasion where we were pushing a brand refresh for the company. As we were pushing the updates, I was paused by an overzealous Director of Product who wanted to make sure these changes were beneficial. So she ran an A/B test of the new primary button color. Test took a week. Initially the new color failed by a fraction of a percent. She wasn’t going to allow the brand refresh to go forward. Then they realized their testing protocol was administered incorrectly. The determination was then that the color change had no impact on conversion. I was allowed to proceed.
It’s this instinct to test everything that I want to consider. If everything is reduced to numbers, where is the art and experience?
Dan Mall, who publishes the popular design newsletter Dan Mall Teaches argues that design is the act of deciding. The best designers are good at making decisions. Design is a series of decisions, stacked upon each other leading to a unique and original work.
That’s the paradox that makes design so challenging for even the most experienced designers. What makes a design great is when we apply our judgment, picking a few choice candidates from thousands of typefaces and millions of colors.
There is truth to this, and it’s something that’s perhaps lost in the drive to test everything, and thus not make a decision ourselves.
Be measured. Be decisive.
Being data-driven, certainly data-informed is good. Designers need to quantify their impact. And they should be able to judge their work by real-delivered value. Measuring the work and adjusting as necessary is good and proper.
But designers decide. They make many decisions in composing a solution, each one laid atop the previous one, building upon the progress they make. That is the method and the process of design.
From UP Studio’s post: Senior Designer vs. Junior Designer
Removing the act of deciding, the designer’s innate learned sense of what works out of the process will lead not to transcendent work but to bland sameness.
Design is not a science of perfect optimization, but an art of purposeful choice. Truly original and innovative design comes not from algorithms and A/B tests, but from designers who go beyond the data, relying on their practiced and honed creative judgement.