Some people insist Tencent’s products have excellent user experience. They point to how smooth QQ can feel, how many little details seem polished, how convenient everything is. If the discussion stops at isolated interface tricks or product features, I can agree with part of that. Some QQ products are indeed easy to use.
But that is only the surface.
There is a line from Scott Meyers, the author of More Effective C++: “Beautiful is only skin deep.” Borrowing that idea, treating QQ as a “good product” simply because it looks convenient is a shallow judgment.
A lot of things are easy to forget. The many discussions about QQ scanning hard drives, about collecting user data, about the 3Q conflict and that so-called “difficult decision,” about the long-running complaints and ridicule Tencent has attracted over the years, even the absurd claims that QQ somehow helps prevent crime. All of that fades quickly. People get dazzled by the immediate experience of using the software and start talking as if QQ were unbeatable. They praise its attention to detail, get excited over tiny gestures in the Mac version, and mistake that excitement for trust.
So let’s set aside the broader political and moral arguments for a moment. Suppose we talk only about the technical side, only about “product experience.” Then here is a real case.
Two days ago, my QQ account was locked because of a malicious complaint. Tencent pushed me into the account appeal process. The steps looked like this:
- Enter my real name, ID number, address, and other real personal information. (A thief could fill this in too.)
- Enter a mobile phone number, then use that phone to send Tencent a text message and receive a verification code. (The thief can use their own phone.)
- Enter passwords I used for this QQ account in the past. (A thief may already know stolen passwords.)
- Enter when and where the QQ account was registered. (A thief can simply say they forgot.)
- Enter where I had used QQ over the last three years. (A thief can also say they forgot.)
- Invite QQ friends to help with the appeal. The more the better. This requires entering those friends’ QQ numbers and real names. (A thief can use their own alternate accounts after adding you as a friend.)
This is not a normal recovery flow.
What does this process really show?
- It gathers user data: name, address, ID number, mobile number, and even the real names of your friends.
- It gathers and verifies historical information about your account, including old passwords and places where you used QQ.
- It does not actually guarantee security. There is almost no real technical sophistication in it.
That leads to some obvious questions.
- What other product allows someone else to disable your account through an appeal process?
- What other product relies on collecting your real personal data and your friends’ information to recover a password?
- What other product asks for little or no real identity information at signup, but suddenly demands it during password recovery?
If identity is so important, then collect it at registration. Have you ever seen a bank open an account without checking your ID, then demand ID only when you try to withdraw money or report a loss? If Tencent wants, all it has to do is throw up a pop-up window and slowly push everyone through this “appeal” channel, one by one, collecting real-world identity information along the way.
That is why this process does not look nearly as innocent as it pretends to be.
And this is supposed to be good user experience?
If someone still wants to defend this design, then they should seriously look at how other systems and software handle account recovery. Honestly, a phone number and a secondary email address are usually enough.
A friend once summed it up with brutal precision: the difference between using QQ and running naked is that “running naked” is voluntary.
That line is vulgar, but it captures the point. People keep saying Tencent had no choice, that the company was forced into these measures, that users should understand. Fine—if that is the argument, then perhaps the problem is not that Tencent is foolish, but that users are willing to accept almost anything.
And that is where the sarcasm writes itself: some people seem positively delighted by the experience of being exposed, as long as the interface feels smooth while it happens.
None of this means Tencent makes only bad products. Things are rarely that simple. It is more accurate to say that Tencent is a mix of angel and devil. Its products can still be useful, and people may continue using them when it makes sense. But it is better to use them with clear eyes—to understand what kind of tradeoff is being made, instead of confusing convenience with trustworthiness.