wired.com— Entire markets have been transformed by products that trade power or fidelity for low price, flexibility, and convenience.— Erin Biba
Aug 24, 2009View in Crawl 4
The problem is mixing up two unrelated definitions of "reduced quality". One is a reduced feature set. Another is the quality of implementing the feature set. Take the "predator" as an example. Sure, it carries only two missiles and is slow and so on. But it is designed and manufactured to the same high quality standards as all military hardware. The fact it does less does not mean they use shoddy materials, questionable manufacturing practices or skimp on their QA. The same principle holds for all the other example products. They do _less_ but they do it *well*.In the software world, too many managers make this mistake; they think that just because it is better to release early a lower-scope product (it is!), it is also better to "save" on the cost of sound engineering practices, development tools, and QA practices (it is not!). Doing less but doing it well requires keen understanding of what is important to the user and what is not; this is "product management" at its best. Cutting features only because they are expensive, creating an anti-quality culture in an organization to get things done faster - this is PHB management at its worst , and it does not lead to a successful product.
True, but it's not as though the iPhone didn't have features that stood out at the time of its release. The large, decent quality screen, the touch-only keyboard, and the video capability were all features that people valued. I realize none of these features were unique to the iPhone, and there is an overall simplicity of form and function to the device, but there were still enough features to compel crabby old men to kvetch that they would never buy one because "all they need is a phone."Still, it's true that "cheap" and "simple" are not synonymous. And really, one of the main examples the author used - the mp3 - wasn't really simple. You can't get much simpler than buying a CD, sticking it in a player and hitting play. People liked the utility of mp3s, but they first had to rip their CDs and rename each track individually before they could do anything useful with them (I think I still have a few named track 3, track 2, etc. on my system). Mp3s were cheap because one could get them free on Napster, but then people would often just burn CDs with the music they downloaded. It took a while for the mp3 player market to mature to the point that folks were willing to buy mp3s.
if you're ever looking for tools, find an estate sale. Most of them have a pretty nice 50 year old set for not much more money than your walmart tools. That and they last longer, work better, have less of an environmental impact and you're not sending your money over to the chinese.
Great point about the DVD/Blu-Ray thing. Goes to show exactly why BluRays are not going to "catch on" and be the "big thing" any time soon.
orenbenkikiAug 25, 2009
The problem is mixing up two unrelated definitions of "reduced quality". One is a reduced feature set. Another is the quality of implementing the feature set. Take the "predator" as an example. Sure, it carries only two missiles and is slow and so on. But it is designed and manufactured to the same high quality standards as all military hardware. The fact it does less does not mean they use shoddy materials, questionable manufacturing practices or skimp on their QA. The same principle holds for all the other example products. They do _less_ but they do it *well*.In the software world, too many managers make this mistake; they think that just because it is better to release early a lower-scope product (it is!), it is also better to "save" on the cost of sound engineering practices, development tools, and QA practices (it is not!). Doing less but doing it well requires keen understanding of what is important to the user and what is not; this is "product management" at its best. Cutting features only because they are expensive, creating an anti-quality culture in an organization to get things done faster - this is PHB management at its worst , and it does not lead to a successful product.
Closed AccountAug 25, 2009
I just read this article a few days ago in the physical magazine...this concept is so simple, yet it's so effective.
boolagAug 25, 2009
Riveting tale, chap!
oneordinarylifeAug 25, 2009
Yeah, fresher fries and meat, thicker and more natural shakes, plus animal style = one happy In N Out customer.
naptowner3000Aug 25, 2009
True, but it's not as though the iPhone didn't have features that stood out at the time of its release. The large, decent quality screen, the touch-only keyboard, and the video capability were all features that people valued. I realize none of these features were unique to the iPhone, and there is an overall simplicity of form and function to the device, but there were still enough features to compel crabby old men to kvetch that they would never buy one because "all they need is a phone."Still, it's true that "cheap" and "simple" are not synonymous. And really, one of the main examples the author used - the mp3 - wasn't really simple. You can't get much simpler than buying a CD, sticking it in a player and hitting play. People liked the utility of mp3s, but they first had to rip their CDs and rename each track individually before they could do anything useful with them (I think I still have a few named track 3, track 2, etc. on my system). Mp3s were cheap because one could get them free on Napster, but then people would often just burn CDs with the music they downloaded. It took a while for the mp3 player market to mature to the point that folks were willing to buy mp3s.
deathandtavernsAug 25, 2009
if you're ever looking for tools, find an estate sale. Most of them have a pretty nice 50 year old set for not much more money than your walmart tools. That and they last longer, work better, have less of an environmental impact and you're not sending your money over to the chinese.
theblacknightAug 27, 2009
Except for all the missing pieces.
zzyxxJan 19, 2010
Great point about the DVD/Blu-Ray thing. Goes to show exactly why BluRays are not going to "catch on" and be the "big thing" any time soon.