I do think a lot of companies are hobbled by making mediocre stuff.
Chuwi is an interesting example of this to me, while still being very value/low-end focused. They sell a variety of laptops & cubes, for very low prices, with generally great screens, strong solid metal builds, decent keyboards. They often use 2 or 3 generation behind cpus though. But to most people, that's fine. They're still getting a very cheap relatively wellade laptop with many of the premium aspects intact.
It seems like most companies engage in some real bargaining with the devil when they create low and mid-tier products. Costs are cut not because theyake financial sense, but simply to coerce more poeple into buying something else, something higher tier. The markets seem self-polluting, and I think it hurts companies a lot to behave like this.
In software the real lesson here isnt quite as clear. I do think a lot of companies lack the "no" filter, build things then never reconsider whether it was a good or positive thing. Like law/government & so much in this world, it feels sometimes like things only ever accrue, accumulate, accrete. Refinement & will, redeciding, sifting between whst is of worth & what to get rid of, is under-performed, is hard to make a practice. Rejecting part of your own product & going back, not forward, is rarely rewarded or visible work. Jobs being someome who said "no" a lot was a key function many companies cant do.
I always like to compare business strategies like this to McDonalds. McDonalds reached something I like to call “peak mediocrity with consistency.” Everything on the menu is consistently “ok,” and I believe that this is the reason it is appealing to such a broad audience. And of course, the price is right.
I had a neighbor who used to say “you can get used to hanging if you hang long enough.” I think that this anecdote also applies. Think of all of the products we use on a daily basis that are just “ok,” but the reason we continue to use them is because we at least get it consistently.
Amazon used to be in this zone of consistent mediocrity, but now it is teetering on the edge of failing at this: 2-day shipping for Prime is inconsistent, product quality is hit or miss, dramatic price gouging is now the norm, etc.
I agree with getting rid of crap, but I really believe that “good enough” and “consistent” is where the magic is.
Chuwi is an interesting example of this to me, while still being very value/low-end focused. They sell a variety of laptops & cubes, for very low prices, with generally great screens, strong solid metal builds, decent keyboards. They often use 2 or 3 generation behind cpus though. But to most people, that's fine. They're still getting a very cheap relatively wellade laptop with many of the premium aspects intact.
It seems like most companies engage in some real bargaining with the devil when they create low and mid-tier products. Costs are cut not because theyake financial sense, but simply to coerce more poeple into buying something else, something higher tier. The markets seem self-polluting, and I think it hurts companies a lot to behave like this.
In software the real lesson here isnt quite as clear. I do think a lot of companies lack the "no" filter, build things then never reconsider whether it was a good or positive thing. Like law/government & so much in this world, it feels sometimes like things only ever accrue, accumulate, accrete. Refinement & will, redeciding, sifting between whst is of worth & what to get rid of, is under-performed, is hard to make a practice. Rejecting part of your own product & going back, not forward, is rarely rewarded or visible work. Jobs being someome who said "no" a lot was a key function many companies cant do.