3 ms·

It sounds like a company that will profit more by saving money and giving their customers a worse product, and they don't have to worry about the consequences o

It sounds like a company that will profit more by saving money and giving their customers a worse product, and they don't have to worry about the consequences of that because every other company is doing it too.

conartist6 7mo ago
Yes, but what if some companies don't do it and instead make better products. Do we think that's impossible? Because with so many companies focused on making worse products more cheaply, it seems like it should be easier than ever to win the game by making good products...
- AndrewKemendo 7mo ago
  Consumers have voted over and over and over and they are very clear: The vast majority will choose cheap vs good Commodity products win in the long term and “better” products that are more expensive will go out of business
  - disgruntledphd2 7mo ago
    > Consumers have voted over and over and over and they are very clear: The vast majority will choose cheap vs good Snowflake customers have definitely not made this choice, as Snowflake is good but very, very expensive. They're basically the Oracle of cloud.
    - AndrewKemendo 7mo ago
      Isn’t Oracle the oracle of cloud? And this still fits, if snowflake is feeling pressure from lower cost entrants or demand from investors for more profit then it would track I don’t necessarily disagree that it’s a risk but people assume that companies optimize for product stickiness but in fact they don’t, most companies optimize for investor relationships
  - conartist6 7mo ago
    Yeah the real holy grail is a product that's both cheaper and better. If we're still climbing the ladder of abstraction, over time it does become possible to build products both cheaper and better.
    - LiquidSky 7mo ago
      But who cares about the long term when you could make a killing this year or even just this quarter and walk away with a fortune.
- LiquidSky 7mo ago
  >Do we think that's impossible? Yes. Even if it weren't, it doesn't even seem to matter anymore. Making better products doesn't seem to lead to more money than churning out shit and financializing it, so why would anyone bother?

conartist6 7mo ago

Yes, but what if some companies don't do it and instead make better products. Do we think that's impossible? Because with so many companies focused on making worse products more cheaply, it seems like it should be easier than ever to win the game by making good products...

AndrewKemendo 7mo ago
Consumers have voted over and over and over and they are very clear: The vast majority will choose cheap vs good Commodity products win in the long term and “better” products that are more expensive will go out of business
- disgruntledphd2 7mo ago
  > Consumers have voted over and over and over and they are very clear: The vast majority will choose cheap vs good Snowflake customers have definitely not made this choice, as Snowflake is good but very, very expensive. They're basically the Oracle of cloud.
  - AndrewKemendo 7mo ago
    Isn’t Oracle the oracle of cloud? And this still fits, if snowflake is feeling pressure from lower cost entrants or demand from investors for more profit then it would track I don’t necessarily disagree that it’s a risk but people assume that companies optimize for product stickiness but in fact they don’t, most companies optimize for investor relationships
- conartist6 7mo ago
  Yeah the real holy grail is a product that's both cheaper and better. If we're still climbing the ladder of abstraction, over time it does become possible to build products both cheaper and better.
  - LiquidSky 7mo ago
    But who cares about the long term when you could make a killing this year or even just this quarter and walk away with a fortune.
LiquidSky 7mo ago
>Do we think that's impossible? Yes. Even if it weren't, it doesn't even seem to matter anymore. Making better products doesn't seem to lead to more money than churning out shit and financializing it, so why would anyone bother?