Why Redesigning Live Products Without Context Does More Harm Than Good
As designers, we’re often encouraged to “redesign existing products” to showcase our skills. And honestly, that advice isn’t wrong. What is wrong, however, is how many of us go about it. Somewhere along the line, redesigns stopped being about learning and started becoming about publicly proving we’re smarter than the designers who built the original product. And that’s a problem.
The Rise of the ‘Call-Out Redesign’
You’ve probably seen it before:
“I redesigned WhatsApp settings and added a logout button because the original designers forgot it.” Or: “Here’s how I fixed Spotify’s terrible UX.”
The underlying message is always the same: “They were dumb. I’m better.” But here’s the truth most designers don’t want to hear:
- Redesigning a live product doesn’t mean the original designers failed.
- It doesn’t mean you understand the problem better than they did.
It often just means you’re designing without constraints.
What New Designers Often Don’t See
When you redesign an existing app, you’re seeing only the interface, not the reality behind it. You don’t see:
- The technical debt
- The legacy codebase
- The budget limitations
- The timeline pressure
- The business priorities
- The investors’ constraints
- The technology stack limitations
You’re designing in a vacuum, and vacuum design is easy.
A Real Experience From the Field
I once redesigned an existing product for a founder, the feedback was great, the redesign made sense, and everyone loved the direction. Months passed and nothing shipped. When I followed up, the response was simple: “We can’t afford to implement this right now.”
No bad design, no lazy developers, no incompetent UX team, just financial reality. Now imagine another designer comes online, redesigns the same app, and says: “This app needs a complete UX overhaul.” Without knowing:
- That the startup is bootstrapped
- That the backend can’t support certain interactions
- That upgrading the tech stack would cost more than the company can afford
This is how good intentions turn into unfair judgment.
Designing for Feasibility vs Designing for Aesthetics
There is a huge difference between:
- Designing to showcase skill
- Designing something that can actually be built
I’ve worked with developers who’ve told me plainly: “Bro, this can’t be developed with our current technology.” And guess what? That doesn’t make them bad developers. It makes them honest collaborators. Good UX design isn’t just about what looks better. It’s about what’s possible right now.
Why Shaming Designers Hurts You More Than Them
If you think publicly calling out brands or designers will get founders’ attention, think again. Founders don’t see: “Wow, this designer is bold.” They often see: “If they talk this way about others, how will they talk about us?” Shaming doesn’t signal confidence. It signals lack of professional maturity.
So, What Should Designers Do Instead?
Here’s a better approach:
- Redesign for learning
- Redesign for inspiration
- Redesign to explore alternatives
- Don’t redesign to mock
- Don’t redesign to prove superiority
And most importantly: You can redesign an app without calling out the brand behind it.
- Focus on the problem.
- Focus on your thinking.
- Focus on your process.
Not on tearing others down.
Final Thoughts
Every product you see has a story behind it; A story shaped by money, time, technology, and trade-offs. Before assuming a design is “bad,” remember: You’re seeing the outcome, not the constraints.
- Design to build empathy.
- Design to solve problems.
- Design to grow.
Design for inspiration, not shame.
