The Problem With Superapps: it has nothing to do with product

*note: this applies specifically to early-stage start-ups, and is less true as you scale.

Superapps are easy to conceive in theory, but harder to conceive in practice.

There is a fundamental reason why Superapps rarely work, and it is not a product problem, but a human one.

A Superapp refers to a platform for multiple apps, or microservices, which perform different functions to solve different problems (known as “jobs to be done”).

think: one app where you can shop for groceries, book your appointments, hire a contractor, navigate on maps, manage your bank account, share media with friends, etc.

The prospect of bringing together all services and functions in one place is compelling for the user using it, and the resulting aggregation of all value transfers and exchanges is attractive for the business profiting from it.

This model has been successfully executed and adopted in China with WeChat, and has been re-emerging in the West with what Elon Musk wants to do with X (or Twitter).

The motivation to pursue the Superapp vision is very well justified, but the reality is often dissociated from the vision — especially in the context of start-ups.

I will outline the 6 main problem areas I have observed, and how they reflect something more fundamental about ourselves.

In another post, I will attempt to invalidate my statements, and offer an alternative view on the Superapp: how they can work, but differently.

The Trade-Off

The thesis around Superapps is that they make it easier and more efficient for the user to access all his or her needs in one place. Convenience is therefore the primary value proposition for the user.

For a business, the vertical integration of all services presents a greater surface area for profit, and a good foundation for revenue stream diversification. This is not only advantageous for value capture, but also to minimise risk by hedging across lines of businesses.

But bringing everything into one place comes at the cost of complexity, both for the user and the business (or team).

In the case of Superapps, it can lead to the following problems:

• UX Problem

• Target Market Problem

• Product Problem

• Positioning Problem

• Go-To-Market Problem

• Optimisation Problem

  
  

1. UX Problem

Different services require different experiences: onboarding, user-flows, interfaces, interactions, designs and graphics, etc.

As a result, the superapp experience is often disjointed and inconsistent, which makes it harder to navigate and less intuitive for the user to understand.

This is not only true for the user interface, but also for the brand values that you want to associate with the service you are delivering. For example, a financial product might want to associate with security and trust, while a social chat app might want to be more friendly and approachable, both of which require a different visual language to convey.

The aggregate diversity of UI/UX inputs imposes cognitive load on the user, adding friction, and often delaying time to value.

2. Target Market Problem

Addressing multiple “jobs to be done” solves different problems (or fulfills different tasks), for different people, in different contexts.

This results in misaligned customers with different motivations, requirements, and incentives, which confuse team priorities. (sometimes to the point of paralysis)

This is true not only for marketing, but also product and customer success.

3. Product Problem

With too many divergent priorities, resources are spread out across features and lines of businesses (often the different services offered) instead of being concentrated where your product wins.

As a result, the superapp often becomes average everywhere, rather than exceptional somewhere.

This makes it harder to compete against products and teams that focus everything on the core “job to be done” of each of your LoBs, but also leaves higher profit on the table from being distracted away from what you are best positioned to do and what you can capture the most value from.

4. Positioning Problem

Marketshare is based on mindshare.

If you do not occupy a clear space in a user’s mind, you will be displaced by something else in each of the categories you play in.

Having multiple value propositions puts you everywhere and nowhere at once.

Also known as “Jack of All Trades, and Master of None.”

5. Go-To-Market Problem

Creating strong brand and product heuristics relies on narrative.

Trying to consolidate everything for everyone in a unified narrative is challenging for superapps, and often leads to “messaging dilution”.

Superapp narratives are either too broad or too abstract (by attempting to encapsulate everything), or inconsistent and fragmented (caused by different interpretations of different value propositions).

Broad and abstract narratives lose meaning (or just get lost).

Inconsistent and fragmented WOM struggles to spread and scale.

6. Optimisation Problem

Spreading resources to cover it all means that you have to do more with less to complete with those that concentrate them.

Resources are not only money, but also time, energy, people, mindshare, etc.

Limited resources lead to compromise, and what to compromise is not always obvious with many divergent interests across your users and teams.

Each area of optimisation comes at the expense of another, or you don’t optimise at all.

The Complexity Tax

These problems are all externalities of the “complexity tax” of Superapps.

The result is that it becomes more challenging to use, more challenging to understand, more challenging to articulate, and more challenging to spread.

This is especially significant for start-ups, that need to make adoption and growth as frictionless as possible to overcome established market barriers.

For teams, the lack of product focus leads to misaligned priorities, suboptimal resource allocation, and a missed opportunity to be recognised for something outstanding (and profit from it).

What We Can Learn From The Superapp Problem

The fundamental takeaway of this actually has nothing to do with product, but with the humans interacting with it.

Human cognition is limited by the volume and velocity of inputs it can consume.

With all of the new tech and capabilities, it is always tempting to want to add more to the things we build and create because we can, but we forget the human we are building and creating for.

The constraints used to be technological, and now they are human.

side note: this is why I always say the “Job to Be Done” is the only useful framework I come back to, because it enables me to reduce products to what my brain can process and comprehend.

It's about product-brain compatibility.

The more you can reduce a product, design, message, brand, team to its core, the more effective it will be.

An app (or anything else for that matter) is super not because it is everything, but because it is something. (and something, to someone).