Live data from Hacker News

Built to Fail: What Google, Ideo, and 37signals have in common

andrewchenblog.com

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: Built to Fail: What Google, Ideo, and 37signals have in common

#21
post #2

The standout there is Apple. Apple builds great products, doesn't do focus groups. They probably do multiple iterations but without large betas, the audience of those iterations is probably very limited. Their releases are not cheap - once you announce a new iPhone, you cannot change the hardware before release so you really need to get it right. The soonest you can update it is a year or so. Most of all,Apple is the…

Doesn't do focus groups on products designed and designed again from the bottom to the top? They even say so in their jobs faq: Apple hires quality assurance engineers for internal product testing...We also create focus groups to provide feedback on our products. http://www.apple.com/jobs/us/pro/inside/questions.html

Doing focus groups to get feedback on your existing product isn't the same as doing them for products in development.

Re: Built to Fail: What Google, Ideo, and 37signals have in common

#22
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going by Ive's interview plus off-hand comments I've heard from ex-Apple employees http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/07/01/a-fireside-c...

When you have 10,000 employees (or however many they have now), it's very possible to do focus groups and usability testing completely internally. A startup with 3 guys, not nearly as easy.

Hmm.. maybe, expert focus groups for a non-expert product. That's actually sort of interesting.

Re: Built to Fail: What Google, Ideo, and 37signals have in common

#23
post #2

The standout there is Apple. Apple builds great products, doesn't do focus groups. They probably do multiple iterations but without large betas, the audience of those iterations is probably very limited. Their releases are not cheap - once you announce a new iPhone, you cannot change the hardware before release so you really need to get it right. The soonest you can update it is a year or so. Most of all,Apple is the…

The downside of the "great man" setup is that Apple was not at all impressive without Steve Jobs at the helm. Uninspiring to outright bad Mac models, Microsoft putting out a superior OS for a time, etc. To be glib, with Jobs, you get the Wired "Evil Genius" cover story on Apple - and without Jobs, you get the old "Pray" cover story on Apple.

When was the time MS had the superior OS? Windows 2000 vs. System 9? I'm not sure that counts when you put Millennium into the mix.

Re: Built to Fail: What Google, Ideo, and 37signals have in common

#24
Speaking of failure, my mantra on a personal entrepreneurial level has always been "build to fail" seriously. 0 risk = 0 reward. Don't have the guts to fail, and fail terribly... stick to a 9-5.

Be ruthless, and whatever you do, make sure it passes the deer-stuck-in-the-headlights-of-an-oncoming-car test. If it doesn't stir emotions to spread life, stick it out until you get that polished diamond in the ruff.

iPhone wasn't an overnight success, there's no such thing. Plan accordingly.

---

And there's one thing missing from that comic strip. "I see... well laugh as you may. Eventually I'll be laughing all the way to the bank."

Re: Built to Fail: What Google, Ideo, and 37signals have in common

#26
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downside of the "great man" setup is that Apple was not at all impressive without Steve Jobs at the helm. Uninspiring to outright bad Mac models, Microsoft putting out a superior OS for a time, etc. To be glib, with Jobs, you get the Wired "Evil Genius" cover story on Apple - and without Jobs, you get the old "Pray" cover story on Apple.

When was the time MS had the superior OS? Windows 2000 vs. System 9? I'm not sure that counts when you put Millennium into the mix.

What's the answer? Systems 6, 7, and 8 certainly weren't worse than the competing Windows.

Re: Built to Fail: What Google, Ideo, and 37signals have in common

#27
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "We don’t do focus groups" statement from that article is referring to how Apple decides what products to build, not how they are built.

You're probably correct. I doubt that even Jobs and Ive are superhuman enough to build the right product at the beginning. I do wonder how they do this with their culture of secrecy. Any focus group they run must be quite small or they must be splitting up their focus group tests. For example, I remember reading a story about someone testing out the iPhone UI alone in a contraption in a box as opposed to the real har…

For example, I remember reading a story about someone testing out the iPhone UI alone in a contraption in a box as opposed to the real hardware.

Why is this a problem? Other than having multitouch capability, the UI didn't depend on the hardware at all.

Re: Built to Fail: What Google, Ideo, and 37signals have in common

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you have 10,000 employees (or however many they have now), it's very possible to do focus groups and usability testing completely internally. A startup with 3 guys, not nearly as easy.

Hmm.. maybe, expert focus groups for a non-expert product. That's actually sort of interesting.

Surely Apple must have shazillions af accountants, lawyers, logistics professionals, etc., that is people who are neither technology nor marketing experts.

Re: Built to Fail: What Google, Ideo, and 37signals have in common

#29

Where all these companies just put there for their names? Article just doesn't make sense. There is the talk by Jason from 37signals, where he specifically talks how he does not get this obsession with failing: http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1798-jasons-talk-at-big-o...

I have to agree, seems like a HN-tailored puff piece.

Re: Built to Fail: What Google, Ideo, and 37signals have in common

#30
I think the author is confused with three different concepts: fault tolerant system, idea generation and agile development.

A system being fault tolerant, like googke, just means that it can rollforward/rollback when an error occurs. It is nothing more than a technical concept.

People in design industry often use brainstorming to generate and screen ideas. IDEO is just one of them. Brainstorming is not an explaination of either how they succeed or why they succeed.

And the framework Ruby on Rails characterizing convention over configuration and don't repeat yourself even has nothing to do with "failure-tolerance", thought it emphasizes fast iteration in development.

The over generalization in the article make its conclusion very unconvincing.

Post reply on HN