3 ms·

I think this is sort of a "barbell effect" thing. Both models can work very well, but you can't really do both, you have to pick your approach and commit to it.

I think this is sort of a "barbell effect" thing. Both models can work very well, but you can't really do both, you have to pick your approach and commit to it. This reminds me of something I realized fairly late (maybe embarrassingly so) into my career. For the longest time, I had all these opinions about how software should be made, that is, universally, and would often feel very frustrated and discontented because nobody seemed to want to do things the right way. But then I finally realized at some point that what was really going on was that different projects can be very different, and different approaches make more sense for different things. To use extreme examples, a single instance of a typical website-with-some-behavior vs. the control systems for a spacecraft. It's perfectly fine to build that website in a blitz using a CMS or framework with bog standard components and limited testing. But all you're going to manage with that same approach in the latter case is to crash your spacecraft. But I also realized that where I was going wrong was in trying to impose my desires onto whatever project I happened to be working on, rather than imposing them onto my choice of what to work on. So I started thinking harder about what kinds of things I wanted to do, and being more deliberate in finding those projects, and convincing people to bring me onto them. (With somewhat mixed success of course... career development is hard enough when just going with the flow, let alone adding on conditions...) To bring it back on topic, the analogy I'm drawing is: If you really want to do formal verification in all your projects, you shouldn't work on websites! And if you really want to pay attention to all the small little niceties, you shouldn't build a business with tight margins that are made up in volume!

staticfish 2y ago
> you have to pick your approach and commit to it. I somewhat agree with this, especially when we are talking about higher brand companies appeasing cheaper consumables. However, the other way around, it can be done effectively. Take for IKEA instance. They made inroads into Europe and American homes, and did it by offering cheaper, well-designed and modern alternatives made of particle board. After seeing some customers wanted higher-quality products with the same design aesthetic, they introduced a sliding scale of products from cheap-and-cheerful, to better constructed, yet still flatpacked materials. Customers could then choose the desired range and quality on a sliding scale for each product. This model seems to have worked well for them.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  That's sort of what Mercedes does, with their C-class cars. I understand that European cabs are yet another class, that is not available, on this side of the pond. The other day, I was stopped behind a brand new Tesla Model S. Looked like about a $90,000 USD trim package. The trunk was out of square. Not that much, but noticeable. I don't think the cheapest Mercedes would ever go out the door, with that kind of flaw. It's a matter of a couple of tweaks with an Allen wrench, to fix.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  Yeah good call. My statement was definitely not nuanced enough. I think it's more like: The base case is that it works best to pick an approach and stick with it. But sometimes there is a strategic opportunity to change approaches, which can be high reward, but also carries high risk. I think it's also rare to successfully go the opposite direction, taking a high value brand mass market. I mean, I think it's a common "successful" cash grab strategy, but not a success in the sense of improving the long term fundamentals of the business.

staticfish 2y ago

> you have to pick your approach and commit to it. I somewhat agree with this, especially when we are talking about higher brand companies appeasing cheaper consumables. However, the other way around, it can be done effectively. Take for IKEA instance. They made inroads into Europe and American homes, and did it by offering cheaper, well-designed and modern alternatives made of particle board. After seeing some customers wanted higher-quality products with the same design aesthetic, they introduced a sliding scale of products from cheap-and-cheerful, to better constructed, yet still flatpacked materials. Customers could then choose the desired range and quality on a sliding scale for each product. This model seems to have worked well for them.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
That's sort of what Mercedes does, with their C-class cars. I understand that European cabs are yet another class, that is not available, on this side of the pond. The other day, I was stopped behind a brand new Tesla Model S. Looked like about a $90,000 USD trim package. The trunk was out of square. Not that much, but noticeable. I don't think the cheapest Mercedes would ever go out the door, with that kind of flaw. It's a matter of a couple of tweaks with an Allen wrench, to fix.
sanderjd 2y ago
Yeah good call. My statement was definitely not nuanced enough. I think it's more like: The base case is that it works best to pick an approach and stick with it. But sometimes there is a strategic opportunity to change approaches, which can be high reward, but also carries high risk. I think it's also rare to successfully go the opposite direction, taking a high value brand mass market. I mean, I think it's a common "successful" cash grab strategy, but not a success in the sense of improving the long term fundamentals of the business.