What I'm thinking of here is when someone develops a web based service, and you have a login so you can do your whatever on the website. Then they get bigger and introduce multiple users, but there are still signs that the architecture still has the concept of a single founding user.
PayPal
PayPal is an example of this. It started off as a payment service alongside eBay so people could pay for their auction wins. As such there was just one user - you - for your account. Then PayPal for Business came along and of course you need multiple users for a given business. However it still has a single all-powerful user who can do everything. That's fair enough in some ways, but if that person leaves the company you can't transfer the powers to another user, you have to just rename the main user and change their password.
Campaign Monitor
This is where the screenshot above comes from. "My" templates contains all the templates associated with our account, not just the ones I created. I can only guess that when it started off it was intended as a tool for a single person to send out an email newsletter.
FormAssembly
When we first signed up with this they said to use a non-personal integration-type user as your login. Then they insisted on separate users, citing security reasons (which is fair enough), but with quite a price hike at the same time.
No billing user
This is another sign of small beginnings. If you're the person who set up the account to do the thing, but you don't have the power to approve invoices then some small sites just email the invoices to you. There's no option to have a separate user (or even just an email address) for sending the invoices to.
Counterexamples: Stripe, Facebook and Adobe
All of these have the concept of a single user that can access different setups (Stripe) or keep their personal and work personas separate (Facebook and Adobe).
No comments:
Post a Comment