Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

But what if I want a faster horse?

rakhim.exotext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 632 posts

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#191

Post by beloch »

_kush wrote: post #116
cjs_ac wrote: post #16

For any given thing or category of thing , a tiny minority of the human population will be enthusiasts of that thing , but those enthusiasts will have an outsize effect in determining everyone else's taste for that thing . For example, very few people have any real interest in driving a car at 200 MPH, but Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Porsches are widely understood as desirable cars, because the people who are into car…

This is the cycle I keep seeing: Most great products start out for enthusiasts and often by enthusiasts. They’re opinionated, sharp, sometimes rough, but exciting. Then VC funding comes in, and the product has to appeal to a broader audience. Things get smoothed out and the metrics rule decisions. Eventually, the original enthusiasts feel left out. The product’s no longer for them. So a new product comes out, started…

To simplify:

1. Innovate.

2. Exploit.

You start by innovating a "fast horse". This gains you early adopters who pull in a larger audience. A horse can only be so fast, so continued innovation might lead to something more like a car. This will only cause you to bleed users. Stick to the horse.

Instead of continuing to innovate endlessly, you switch to exploitation. Fire the visionaries. They're just a waste of payroll. Bring in people who can squeeze every last dime out of your user base.

-----------------------

The above isn't anything new. However, it's clear that some companies are better at maintaining quality while exploiting. Are they doing something different, or is it just that their customers have to choose them repeatedly? e.g. Most people don't sign up with one car company for life. They'll buy several cars over their life and that's a choice that the car company must win each time. Meanwhile, people sign up for Netflix or Spotify and stay subbed. They don't look at the alternatives every few years. Porsche needs to keep up with the latest and fastest horses to continue exploiting their reputation, while Netflix can focus purely on making more money from their users. A faster horse may come along, but Netflix doesn't break down and need to be replaced.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#192

Post by ikanreed »

JackMorgan wrote: post #39
furyg3 wrote: post #9

The TikTok-ification of advertising supported platforms is terrible, but makes sense to me. LinkedIn pivoted from making money on subscriptions and fees for job postings to ads, which mean the leading drivers are 'engagement' e.g. time you spend doom scrolling on their platform. This will end in disaster for the platform as a place to find jobs or employees. Netflix I understand much less. They make money from subscr…

You've got it backwards, Netflix doesn't want people to just doom-scroll, the users want to doom-scroll. Attention destroying apps reduce the long term focus and reward centers such that doom-scrolling through the catalog probably feels better than just watching something. Most of the folks I know who start a movie or show immediately pull out their phones anyway to scroll elsewhere.

I can't agree.

Because my netflix subscription is cancelled specifically because the "Finding something I want to watch drains my energy" phenomenon. Gradually over the course of like a year I got more and more frustrated with being suggested things, and not having a good way to find things.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#193

Post by vladvasiliu »

shakna wrote: post #104
JKCalhoun wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say they're popular because they are expensive. It's bragging rights, conspicuous consumption…

If it was just expense, then Koenigsegg would be a household name. Most enthusiasts will know them, but the average person won't. There's something more that leads culture in such a way to uphold a particular brand.

Don't they make like 5 of those, and for absurdly high prices?

Ferraris, Porsches and similar are somewhat attainable, which, I think, helps with their being symbols, since most people have already actually seen them and know they're real. A Koenigsegg is as good as a story. Hell, I live in Paris and I've never actually seen one. Porches and Ferraris? They're seemingly everywhere.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#194

Post by wlesieutre »

kod wrote: post #155
wlesieutre wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Miata, BRZ, Nissan Z, and GT-R? Toyota's GR86 is BRZ derived but still counts, though their Supra is a BMW. Honda's closest thing is the Civic Type R, but they're bringing back the Prelude soon. Mitsubishi are the odd one out, all they have is an SUV recycling the Eclipse's name. There's no million dollar Japanese supercars competing against Lamborghinis and McLarens, but I wouldn't say they stopped making sports car…

I get where you're coming from, but describing the fastest production FWD car as the "closest thing" is really funny

Yeah I mean dedicated sports car models, rather than sportified versions of existing models

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#195

Post by red_admiral »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #52
sokoloff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Porsches For street usage, I think those cars are popular because they’re beautiful more than because they’re fast (or because enthusiasts like them). My utterly soulless Lexus will drive more than fast enough to get me in serious trouble. No one will look at it and feel stirred by its beauty, whereas the typical Ferrari or Porsche coupe will look at least appealing to most and beautiful…

I would say they're popular because they are expensive. It's bragging rights, conspicuous consumption…

Indeed, Andrew Tate's tagline when someone criticised him was "I drive a Bugatti and you don't".

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#196

Post by nonrandomstring »

bluGill wrote: post #129
_kush wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the cycle I keep seeing: Most great products start out for enthusiasts and often by enthusiasts. They’re opinionated, sharp, sometimes rough, but exciting. Then VC funding comes in, and the product has to appeal to a broader audience. Things get smoothed out and the metrics rule decisions. Eventually, the original enthusiasts feel left out. The product’s no longer for them. So a new product comes out, started…

Can can git rich by growing slowly in many cases - but it will be a long hard road. You could instead sell out today and get rich instantly. If you start the slow growth path at 30 and retire at 65 you will overall make more money from that thing vs someone who sells out at 35. There are some catches though. The person who sells out can go on to the next thing which in sum total may be more sell out enough to make fa…

I see the problem not as VC money, but the ridiculous idea of the optimised one-size mass-marketable product. The myth of "what people want" (which is art entirely pulled out of the air of marketing, public opinion, focus groups in the 1980s) goes against the impetus that consumer digital technology originally emerged from... namely that the microprocessor revolution replaced giant fixed-function pieces of iron with agile, modular, user-definable, technology. We've gone full circle on that. We're back to a world where 5 giant monopolies make stuff offering two choices; take it or leave it. Life happens at the margins, and the only thing in the middle of the road, is roadkill.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#197

Post by pavel_lishin »

_kush wrote: post #116
cjs_ac wrote: post #16

For any given thing or category of thing , a tiny minority of the human population will be enthusiasts of that thing , but those enthusiasts will have an outsize effect in determining everyone else's taste for that thing . For example, very few people have any real interest in driving a car at 200 MPH, but Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Porsches are widely understood as desirable cars, because the people who are into car…

This is the cycle I keep seeing: Most great products start out for enthusiasts and often by enthusiasts. They’re opinionated, sharp, sometimes rough, but exciting. Then VC funding comes in, and the product has to appeal to a broader audience. Things get smoothed out and the metrics rule decisions. Eventually, the original enthusiasts feel left out. The product’s no longer for them. So a new product comes out, started…

> Then VC funding comes in, and the product has to appeal to a broader audience. Things get smoothed out and the metrics rule decisions.

> Eventually, the original enthusiasts feel left out. The product’s no longer for them.

I am immediately reminded of when Slack got rid of markdown-style inline formatting, in favor of a WYSIWYG interface, and the internet (or at least, the corner I live in) collectively (and, imo, correctly) lost its shit at them.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#199

Post by nthingtohide »

beloch wrote: post #191
_kush wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the cycle I keep seeing: Most great products start out for enthusiasts and often by enthusiasts. They’re opinionated, sharp, sometimes rough, but exciting. Then VC funding comes in, and the product has to appeal to a broader audience. Things get smoothed out and the metrics rule decisions. Eventually, the original enthusiasts feel left out. The product’s no longer for them. So a new product comes out, started…

To simplify: 1. Innovate. 2. Exploit. You start by innovating a "fast horse". This gains you early adopters who pull in a larger audience. A horse can only be so fast, so continued innovation might lead to something more like a car. This will only cause you to bleed users. Stick to the horse. Instead of continuing to innovate endlessly, you switch to exploitation. Fire the visionaries. They're just a waste of payroll…

Are you ignoring the benefits of network effects? Network effects should ideally improve recommendations for all subgenres of people.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#200

Post by conradev »

kccqzy wrote: post #171
_kush wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the cycle I keep seeing: Most great products start out for enthusiasts and often by enthusiasts. They’re opinionated, sharp, sometimes rough, but exciting. Then VC funding comes in, and the product has to appeal to a broader audience. Things get smoothed out and the metrics rule decisions. Eventually, the original enthusiasts feel left out. The product’s no longer for them. So a new product comes out, started…

Doesn't even have to involve VC funding coming in. Just need a clueless product manager.

Doesn’t even have to involve project managers. Just someone who isn’t an enthusiast and/or doesn’t care at the helm.
Post reply on HN