3 ms·

The reason all those examples you cite became as successful as they did is because they spent that extra 20% to get it right. They didn't just ship some MVP out

The reason all those examples you cite became as successful as they did is because they spent that extra 20% to get it right. They didn't just ship some MVP out the door. They spent a huge amount of time and energy to get the product as close to perfect as they could before shipping. Steve Jobs, famously, became concerned about the aesthetics of the traces of the circuit board on the original Macintosh [1], spending $5000 (16,330 in 2023 dollars) and a couple of weeks, to have a circuit board created with better aesthetics. Then they threw that board away because, it turned out that aesthetic traces don't actually correspond to good signal propagation. That's the reason that Apple, especially, has been so successful. It's not because they launched at some perfect time window. It's because they launched damn good products. If the iPhone had launched in 2008, or even 2009, it would have been just as successful. We just would have had another two years of mediocre Windows Mobile/Symbian OS/Blackberry devices. [1]: https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=PC_Board_Esthetics.txt https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
I think that's an oversimplification. The original Mac was a terrible computer. It was slow, it had too little memory, it overheated, it wasn't expandable, the keyboard was deliberately crippled by removing the arrow keys, it had a single button mouse, and it required almost endless floppy swapping. The graphic UI and the case design were distinctive. But what really sold it was an incredibly sophisticated ad campaign that carpet bombed key media outlets with super-expensive exposure. The problem with Symbian/Blackberry/Palm wasn't just mediocre technology, but a lack of dazzle. The products were functional but mediocre. But they were also marketed in mediocre geeky/corporate ways that just weren't that interesting to most consumers. The original iPhone was barely more functional. But again, exterior aesthetics and a huge marketing and PR campaign forced open a consumer market for a product that was - like the original Mac - barely finished. The problem Google has is that its products and its branding are heading rapidly towards mediocrity. It reminds me of DEC - an engineering giant in the 70s and 80s, which forgot how to read the market and innovate in the 90s, and crashed far more quickly than anyone would have predicted.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

I think that's an oversimplification. The original Mac was a terrible computer. It was slow, it had too little memory, it overheated, it wasn't expandable, the keyboard was deliberately crippled by removing the arrow keys, it had a single button mouse, and it required almost endless floppy swapping. The graphic UI and the case design were distinctive. But what really sold it was an incredibly sophisticated ad campaign that carpet bombed key media outlets with super-expensive exposure. The problem with Symbian/Blackberry/Palm wasn't just mediocre technology, but a lack of dazzle. The products were functional but mediocre. But they were also marketed in mediocre geeky/corporate ways that just weren't that interesting to most consumers. The original iPhone was barely more functional. But again, exterior aesthetics and a huge marketing and PR campaign forced open a consumer market for a product that was - like the original Mac - barely finished. The problem Google has is that its products and its branding are heading rapidly towards mediocrity. It reminds me of DEC - an engineering giant in the 70s and 80s, which forgot how to read the market and innovate in the 90s, and crashed far more quickly than anyone would have predicted.