5 ms·

I was rather let down by this. The author does a fantastic job of establishing that, through metaphorical thinking, he has hit upon some good wisdom for market

I was rather let down by this. The author does a fantastic job of establishing that, through metaphorical thinking, he has hit upon some good wisdom for marketing and development of new products. Good, good. That this wisdom invalidates Lean Startup theory, MVP, etcetera. Ok, controversial, but I can dig it. He alludes to the process he went through to nurture this wisdom, and how it has been subconsciously applied by many, to great success. Getting inspirational, I love it. Then he says that he won't be sharing what he's come up with. The end. Excuse me? Sure, given the premise, I can do my own musing on the subject and come to my own conclusions. But I don't have the same degree of experience as this author. I don't blog about "refactored perception", I don't think about these sorts of things very often (I work in a very different industry), so I would love the insight of someone who does. I'm interested in seeing the arc of his thinking, going from the initial abstract musing with calves and cows, to a fascinating new approach to practical process. That sounds like a great arc to see, even if I won't be following it myself. In hindsight, this just feels a bit like Article Bait or Concept Bait (as opposed to link bait). It promises a "refactored perception", and delivers a "redacted prescription". ADDENDUM: Yes, it's a great read. I really enjoyed reading it. It'll give me some good things to think about. But the ending is a complete cop-out, only conceding the tiniest hint that he might follow up on this in the future. I agree, better to not have the last section at all. Better still, to say that he will indeed write more if people show interest. I would love to read more about this.

unignorant 15y ago
I had the same reaction. I can't help but suspect that something meta is going on, "slow marketing" and all...
v21 15y ago
Yeah, I too felt a bit swizzed at the end. But if it wasn't for that last paragraph teasing more, it would have felt fairly substantial. Although I don't think you get to say things like "[The Milo Criterion] is the dominant dynamic for successful products." without a hell of a lot more evidence.
lloeki 15y ago
One thing that emphasizes the effect (as is the case with most blogs recently) is that the scroll bar shows a lengthy page but the content only makes a small part at the top. End result: Unbeknownst to me, the page is comment-filled, so I was happily reading and scrolling down expecting content that up till now was really enjoyable, and was suddenly struck by The End. What a let down. I really like the Ars Technica approach of initially hiding the comments. It really helps not raising expectations length-wise.
- justincormack 15y ago
  You didnt read the comments then? Including the one where he says "Oh well, I said I wouldn’t post my actual critique, but looks like I’ve gotten sucked into doing so in the comments." they are laregly an extension of the article, all high quality...
notahacker 15y ago
The other problem is to the extent that he does elaborate on this theory, the author is rather undermined by poor choice of examples to illustrate his point. If anything the examples he's chosen better illustrate the argument that early-adopting consumers are extremely willing to adapt to change in immature products, and have to make much of that adaptation up front. The basic mechanics of learning to control a car in 1911 were much closer to that of controlling a car in 2011 than they were to driving a horse (it was a bit closer to the horse in 1896). We've added traffic, road layouts to cope with the traffic and a few digital devices supposed to make driving easier since then, but the pioneers of driving overcame pretty much the full learning curve at the very beginning. Aviation is another great example of an area where there was vastly more conspicuous and rapid iteration and innovation when the industry was young. In the first 50 years the general public went from scepticism about the possibility of heavier-than-air machines flying to long-haul flights in the pressurised cabin of a Boeing narrowbody. There was a significant leap of faith by the early passengers just to trust the plane would land safely, and the amount of iteration in the design of airliners over a relatively short period was remarkable. In the same period of time since then, the consumer has had to learn to adapt to security procedures (and made a fuss about them) and more creative airline pricing and ticketing models.

unignorant 15y ago

I had the same reaction. I can't help but suspect that something meta is going on, "slow marketing" and all...

v21 15y ago

Yeah, I too felt a bit swizzed at the end. But if it wasn't for that last paragraph teasing more, it would have felt fairly substantial. Although I don't think you get to say things like "[The Milo Criterion] is the dominant dynamic for successful products." without a hell of a lot more evidence.

lloeki 15y ago

One thing that emphasizes the effect (as is the case with most blogs recently) is that the scroll bar shows a lengthy page but the content only makes a small part at the top. End result: Unbeknownst to me, the page is comment-filled, so I was happily reading and scrolling down expecting content that up till now was really enjoyable, and was suddenly struck by The End. What a let down. I really like the Ars Technica approach of initially hiding the comments. It really helps not raising expectations length-wise.

justincormack 15y ago
You didnt read the comments then? Including the one where he says "Oh well, I said I wouldn’t post my actual critique, but looks like I’ve gotten sucked into doing so in the comments." they are laregly an extension of the article, all high quality...

notahacker 15y ago

The other problem is to the extent that he does elaborate on this theory, the author is rather undermined by poor choice of examples to illustrate his point. If anything the examples he's chosen better illustrate the argument that early-adopting consumers are extremely willing to adapt to change in immature products, and have to make much of that adaptation up front. The basic mechanics of learning to control a car in 1911 were much closer to that of controlling a car in 2011 than they were to driving a horse (it was a bit closer to the horse in 1896). We've added traffic, road layouts to cope with the traffic and a few digital devices supposed to make driving easier since then, but the pioneers of driving overcame pretty much the full learning curve at the very beginning. Aviation is another great example of an area where there was vastly more conspicuous and rapid iteration and innovation when the industry was young. In the first 50 years the general public went from scepticism about the possibility of heavier-than-air machines flying to long-haul flights in the pressurised cabin of a Boeing narrowbody. There was a significant leap of faith by the early passengers just to trust the plane would land safely, and the amount of iteration in the design of airliners over a relatively short period was remarkable. In the same period of time since then, the consumer has had to learn to adapt to security procedures (and made a fuss about them) and more creative airline pricing and ticketing models.