3 ms·

While I mostly agree with the premise, I'm worried many people will internalize the wrong lesson. It seems to imply that quality, as implicitly defined by the e

While I mostly agree with the premise, I'm worried many people will internalize the wrong lesson. It seems to imply that quality, as implicitly defined by the examples provided, is a barometer of success. The reality is that there are numerous vectors that you can compete on outside of quality and still be wildly successful. I'd be happy to have 3 lines of subpar code if it gave me an advantage on other competitive angles.

InclinedPlane 12y ago
Sure, there are many routes to success. In general though I think quality is one of the strongest and can lead to the most enduring products and companies. Nevertheless, "quality" is an ill-defined concept, and it's easy to be led astray in pursuit of notional quality at the expense of real-world practical improvements to your product. For example, cost and ease of use are not independent factors. Consider VHS vs. BETAMAX video recording as a classic example. BETAMAX had superior recording fidelity, but it was significantly more expensive, and expense plus network effect was a major factor in the adoption of video tape standards. Part of the "quality fractal" are meta-features such as robustness, elegance, usability, performance, and cost. It doesn't matter how theoretically perfect your product is if it's not practical or it's too expensive to serve the market effectively. A Bugatti Veyron may seem in many respects to be a "perfect" automobile, but it's not. The luxurious interior, amazing build quality, and high performance make it easy to overlook the downsides such as the extreme cost, low mileage, low lifetime of many components (such as the tires), high maintenance cost, etc. In most regards a Toyota Camry is a superior car to a Veyron. That's a result that it's very difficult to arrive at if you focus too myopically on the ideal of "quality" without looking at things holistically. Compare, for example, consider the world-wide-web vs. project Xanadu, or Linux vs. Hurd. It's so easy to let perfect be the enemy of good. The concept of "worse is better" is on the surface a refutation of the importance of quality but in reality it's just a reminder that "quality" isn't always what we think it is and practicality is always by far the most important quality.

InclinedPlane 12y ago

Sure, there are many routes to success. In general though I think quality is one of the strongest and can lead to the most enduring products and companies. Nevertheless, "quality" is an ill-defined concept, and it's easy to be led astray in pursuit of notional quality at the expense of real-world practical improvements to your product. For example, cost and ease of use are not independent factors. Consider VHS vs. BETAMAX video recording as a classic example. BETAMAX had superior recording fidelity, but it was significantly more expensive, and expense plus network effect was a major factor in the adoption of video tape standards. Part of the "quality fractal" are meta-features such as robustness, elegance, usability, performance, and cost. It doesn't matter how theoretically perfect your product is if it's not practical or it's too expensive to serve the market effectively. A Bugatti Veyron may seem in many respects to be a "perfect" automobile, but it's not. The luxurious interior, amazing build quality, and high performance make it easy to overlook the downsides such as the extreme cost, low mileage, low lifetime of many components (such as the tires), high maintenance cost, etc. In most regards a Toyota Camry is a superior car to a Veyron. That's a result that it's very difficult to arrive at if you focus too myopically on the ideal of "quality" without looking at things holistically. Compare, for example, consider the world-wide-web vs. project Xanadu, or Linux vs. Hurd. It's so easy to let perfect be the enemy of good. The concept of "worse is better" is on the surface a refutation of the importance of quality but in reality it's just a reminder that "quality" isn't always what we think it is and practicality is always by far the most important quality.