When evaluating the things Tiny Speck does, I think this question is of paramount importance.
"Slowing Down The Game" isn't innately fun. it may be more profitable for TS in that more time spent in game equals more opportunity for clothing use and a greater need for teleportation token purchase to fight the slow-down .. but if the end result isn't more fun for you, i'm not sure that is a good reason to like a change.
"Balance" and "Fairness" isn't innately fun. Balance for its own sake should not be a criteria for evaluating whether a decision is good. If the game becomes less fun for Gardeners relative to Miners, for example, making the game more tedious and less fun for Miners does not address the problem.
"Profit for Tiny Speck" isn't innately fun. There are many ways to convince people to give you money that does not then translate into fun for those people.
"Slowing Down the Game, "Balance/Fairness" and "Profit for Tiny Speck" *may or may not* lead to increased fun for players, but i think that as players evaluating the game and changes within it, the concept "Fun" should be used far more than the above concepts. Like recently the Gardening changes were framed in terms of "reasonableness" rather than "fun-ness". Sometimes we [and i include myself in this] get so wrapped up in the meta that we convince ourselves that something should be Fun or help support 'Fun Having' because we think the right ingredients are present, when in fact the specific ingredients don't innately lead to fun.
which is to say that if we as players focus primarily on "Fun related issues" first, and issues of fairness or speed or meta-business stuff only as they relate to the having of Fun, then that might be a good thing and a better way to frame our discussions.