Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I worked for a company where lots of managers and executives wanted to have their say. Product managers, purchasing department, sales, finance and of course the top-executives. They got the product ready more or less on time. When it was introduced on the market, demand exploded and in a positive way. They made hundreds of millions of dollars. Based on that, the endless meetings, the revisions, the compromises had all been worth it, right ? Not really. The writing had been on the wall from day one. The product looked ok on the outside. However, they had been using cheap and low quality electronic components that stopped working after xxx hours. And they had problems with the grounding, due to a low-cost design decision. That made matters worse because it damaged other components. They ended up replacing the components of the circuit boards and rewriting the software. They did up to 3 retakes. It was crazy expensive. And don't think for a second that was the end of it. The customers were leasing the product and they had a purchase option after 3 years. Guess what they ended up doing ? Some no longer wanted the product and some negotiated the price down.

The entire company took a huge loss, a restructuring took place, the division was shut down, people were fired, some were moved to another division, the CEO was replaced and yeah, fast forward : it's not done yet ...

Lesson learned: Cross-team communication is necessary and productive, but you've got to know who to listen to.



This is pretty key.

Nobody sets out to achieve mediocrity. Nobody actually strives to put a half-assed product into the market. Mediocrity is a byproduct, not a goal, of designing to the downside: making every single decision about cutting corners, reducing costs, and mitigating risks. Most companies try their damndest to manage downside. They don't swing for the fences; they're simply trying not to strike out.

Thing is, it's pretty hard to hit homeruns when you're not putting your weight into your stance and swinging hard for them. I can't carry the baseball metaphor much further without bordering on the ridiculous, but my point is that Apple defies the conventional operating procedure in consumer product development. Conventional wisdom says your primary concern is managing risk and aiming for incremental gains in market share and operating profit. Apple's strategy, by contrast, is about making fewer, bigger bets. There's bigger downside risk in such an approach, but there's also much bigger upside potential.


I tried to vote this up, but I missed the button, and clicked the downarrow instead. (Sorry!) I wish that there was a way to undo votes, or that the arrows weren't placed so close together. I did find a couple of your other posts that I liked, and I did upvote those. I hope that helps.


LOL, thank you!

Truth be told, however, I don't lose a lot of sleep over downvotes -- be they accidental or intentional. Life's too short. Also, I'm of the (perhaps slightly perverse) opinion that I'm not being interesting if I'm not getting at least a few downvotes every now and then.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: