3 ms·

This is one of the key "inefficiencies" of the private sector - there might be one winner at the end of the day providing the product that fills the market nich

This is one of the key "inefficiencies" of the private sector - there might be one winner at the end of the day providing the product that fills the market niche, but there was always multiple competitors giving it a go in the mean time. A recent example, Mitchell Hashimoto was pointing out that he wasn't "first to market" with his product(s), he was (at least) SEVENTH

roncesvalles 7mo ago
Almost tautologically it's not "inefficient" to do so, because free market economics has decided that all the attempts are mathematically worth it, for a high-margin low-marginal-cost product like software.
- awesome_dude 7mo ago
  I'm a little lost as to why seven teams duplicating effort is more "efficient" in any sense of the word than one or two teams working iteratively toward the same goal. If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem, people would lose their minds over the 'waste' But when private companies do it, we call it efficient market competition. The duplication is the same - we just frame it differently. Edit: fixed some typos caused by fat fingers on a phone keyboard
  - roncesvalles 7mo ago
    The benefit from having a 5% better product that hundreds of millions of people will use is worth the duplicated effort in the beginning. The numbers just make sense. >If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem The problem here is "government funded" - the trials are not rationalized by free-market economics. That is, a 5% better product in the end would not be worth seven competing developments initially.
    - awesome_dude 7mo ago
      > The benefit from having a 5% better product that hundreds of millions of people will use is worth the duplicated effort in the beginning. The numbers just make sense. This assumes that the duplicated effort arrives at a solution that is better than if it were done by a single team. > >If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem > The problem here is "government funded" - the trials are not rationalized by free-market economics. That is, a 5% better product in the end would not be worth seven competing developments initially. I think you're saying that 5% is worth it when the free market does it, but 5% gain isn't when the government does it? I'm hoping you're not because that's impossible - the end result is precisely the same
  - 9rx 7mo ago
    > The duplication is the same It is not. Seven teams all working under one leadership is quite different to seven leaderships each working with one team. When different governments (e.g. USA and USSR), and thus different leaderships, are both trying to solve the same problem (e.g. travel to the moon), that too is considered efficient competition.
    - awesome_dude 7mo ago
      Oh, so seven /leaderships/ is what's made the difference? If a government did this (e.g., seven independent agencies competing for a moon landing), people would call it "fragmented," "uncoordinated," and "bureaucratic infighting."
      - 9rx 7mo ago
        Seven independent government agencies are still an arm of the same leadership. When complete organizational separation is introduced, the concerns you speak of go away. In the USA, the ARPA (you might recognize that name from the thing you're using right now) program regularly enables "seven" independent leaders to tackle a problem and this is widely considered a resounding success.
        awesome_dude 7mo ago
        No real scotsmen
        9rx 7mo ago
        Remember, when it comes to government — at least a democratic one — the people complaining are also the leadership. Think about it from their perspective: - If they do a good job with leadership, only one team will be necessary. Anything else is truly a waste. - If they do a poor job with leadership, every team will fail. Any more than one is also truly a waste[1]. The latter is the most likely outcome, of course. Now, when you absolve yourself from the process then those points still apply, but now you have several leaders duking it out to see which one doesn't fail. But, for the same reasons, those leaders each only benefit from having one team. [1] You could argue that all teams are truly a waste, but one team is necessary to show that leadership failed. That brings abstract value, even if it fails to deliver the intended value. You don't know until you try.

roncesvalles 7mo ago

Almost tautologically it's not "inefficient" to do so, because free market economics has decided that all the attempts are mathematically worth it, for a high-margin low-marginal-cost product like software.

awesome_dude 7mo ago
I'm a little lost as to why seven teams duplicating effort is more "efficient" in any sense of the word than one or two teams working iteratively toward the same goal. If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem, people would lose their minds over the 'waste' But when private companies do it, we call it efficient market competition. The duplication is the same - we just frame it differently. Edit: fixed some typos caused by fat fingers on a phone keyboard
- roncesvalles 7mo ago
  The benefit from having a 5% better product that hundreds of millions of people will use is worth the duplicated effort in the beginning. The numbers just make sense. >If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem The problem here is "government funded" - the trials are not rationalized by free-market economics. That is, a 5% better product in the end would not be worth seven competing developments initially.
  - awesome_dude 7mo ago
    > The benefit from having a 5% better product that hundreds of millions of people will use is worth the duplicated effort in the beginning. The numbers just make sense. This assumes that the duplicated effort arrives at a solution that is better than if it were done by a single team. > >If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem > The problem here is "government funded" - the trials are not rationalized by free-market economics. That is, a 5% better product in the end would not be worth seven competing developments initially. I think you're saying that 5% is worth it when the free market does it, but 5% gain isn't when the government does it? I'm hoping you're not because that's impossible - the end result is precisely the same
- 9rx 7mo ago
  > The duplication is the same It is not. Seven teams all working under one leadership is quite different to seven leaderships each working with one team. When different governments (e.g. USA and USSR), and thus different leaderships, are both trying to solve the same problem (e.g. travel to the moon), that too is considered efficient competition.
  - awesome_dude 7mo ago
    Oh, so seven /leaderships/ is what's made the difference? If a government did this (e.g., seven independent agencies competing for a moon landing), people would call it "fragmented," "uncoordinated," and "bureaucratic infighting."
    - 9rx 7mo ago
      Seven independent government agencies are still an arm of the same leadership. When complete organizational separation is introduced, the concerns you speak of go away. In the USA, the ARPA (you might recognize that name from the thing you're using right now) program regularly enables "seven" independent leaders to tackle a problem and this is widely considered a resounding success.
      - awesome_dude 7mo ago
        No real scotsmen
        9rx 7mo ago
        Remember, when it comes to government — at least a democratic one — the people complaining are also the leadership. Think about it from their perspective: - If they do a good job with leadership, only one team will be necessary. Anything else is truly a waste. - If they do a poor job with leadership, every team will fail. Any more than one is also truly a waste[1]. The latter is the most likely outcome, of course. Now, when you absolve yourself from the process then those points still apply, but now you have several leaders duking it out to see which one doesn't fail. But, for the same reasons, those leaders each only benefit from having one team. [1] You could argue that all teams are truly a waste, but one team is necessary to show that leadership failed. That brings abstract value, even if it fails to deliver the intended value. You don't know until you try.