3 ms·

> Let's assume that if you guessed a technical solution, the cost of 'guessing' is 0, and the cost of picking the wrong solution is 'low'. Should I waste time d

by wahern 8y ago

> Let's assume that if you guessed a technical solution, the cost of 'guessing' is 0, and the cost of picking the wrong solution is 'low'. Should I waste time doing anything other than guessing? If the cost of 'do what google does' is 0, or near 0, and better average chance of working, why not pick it? That makes more sense if you s/cost/risk/. The answer to why you shouldn't just do whatever Google is doing is because trying to copycat the leader is the one thing that will guarantee your _failure_ in the market place. Same with AWS. AWS Lambda was built to solve existing problems. Everybody will use it to solve the same problems it's designed for, but only a tiny number of people will actually succeed in the marketplace because it just becomes a numbers game. If you want to win you have to play a different game--look for problems where AWS Lambda is a poor fit. If you're doing the same thing as everybody else you're by definition just reinventing the wheel. Why bother?

staticassertion 8y ago
I mean cost in terms of 'time to make a decision', without considering 'cost of making the wrong decision', which is closer to risk. > The answer to why you shouldn't just do whatever Google is doing is because trying to copycat the leader is the one thing that will guarantee your _failure_ in the market place. The article seems to demonstrate the opposite - decisions following the leader, and paying for it later, but surviving in the interim. > If you're doing the same thing as everybody else you're by definition just reinventing the wheel. Why bother? I don't really agree. When it comes to something like a DB or architecture, that's probably not where you need to be inventing new solutions - products are rarely sold based on their technical implementation, and more about the results they drive. If you were building a new Google search, and you used all of the same tech, that's probably a bad idea. But if I'm building a product for a completely isolated domain, who cares if it's solved using the same tools that Google solves search? Regarding lambda, there's likely tons of room for competitors even within a domain to implement off of the same technology - again, it's just a tool, and not likely to be the differentiator.

by wahern 8y ago

staticassertion 8y ago

I mean cost in terms of 'time to make a decision', without considering 'cost of making the wrong decision', which is closer to risk. > The answer to why you shouldn't just do whatever Google is doing is because trying to copycat the leader is the one thing that will guarantee your _failure_ in the market place. The article seems to demonstrate the opposite - decisions following the leader, and paying for it later, but surviving in the interim. > If you're doing the same thing as everybody else you're by definition just reinventing the wheel. Why bother? I don't really agree. When it comes to something like a DB or architecture, that's probably not where you need to be inventing new solutions - products are rarely sold based on their technical implementation, and more about the results they drive. If you were building a new Google search, and you used all of the same tech, that's probably a bad idea. But if I'm building a product for a completely isolated domain, who cares if it's solved using the same tools that Google solves search? Regarding lambda, there's likely tons of room for competitors even within a domain to implement off of the same technology - again, it's just a tool, and not likely to be the differentiator.