So it seems like the main argument here is this: perfectionism in product development is a good thing because (in the author's experience) products succeed if a

So it seems like the main argument here is this: perfectionism in product development is a good thing because (in the author's experience) products succeed if and only if the team is perfectionist. This requires obsession and investing yourself personally into what you are creating, as if the products you produce are a performance of your soul. First of all, I think this ignores various different effects that also influence success, such as mainstream tastes, the first mover advantage, PR/marketing/sales/branding/whatever, monopolies/antitrust, being an established player, and the overall utility of an idea independent of its execution. If you have enough of these things, perfectionism doesn't matter, as long as you're defining success in capitalist terms. But let's say perfectionism IS required to succeed; in that case I'm still not sure it's helpful in the long run. Growing up as a superachiever, I used to embrace perfectionism more than anyone else I knew personally. (Then I met someone who was more obsessive than I am and he got cancer and I slowed down a bit.) It does work if you want to make a certain kind of beautiful thing - a transcript, a CV, a piece of software, a meal - but it's psychologically hard on the perfectionist and by extension the people the perfectionist works with. It's not a sustainable model. It is notoriously ungood for healthy relationships; God help you if you try to perfect your relationship partner. In the end, our work and personal lives are complex, and you simply cannot optimize all the variables. Enjoy things for what they are, rather than what they should be. In my personal experience, perfectionism is a defense mechanism that seeks to fill up a desperate emptiness inside.