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

Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

bobbylox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 127 posts

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#11

Post by jwrallie »

shswkna wrote: post #2

In terms of economics and utility, the last 80% of effort produces 20% of the result. But the last 80% give us something much more that isn’t quantified: The feeling of having completed something of value, and having done it properly, carries an inherent value that surpasses the last 20% output. It is unquantifiable and priceless. This is when work or products become timeless and truly valuable. Not to mention that f…

Exactly, the extra effort to complete it is worth it, but it is costly. I think this can be explored in a positive way by selling incomplete things cheaper to the end user while using this money to sustain the development of the last 20%. I think Minecraft is a well known example of applying this model that was fair for both the developers and end users.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#12

Post by bigmattystyles »

I feel like every concept can be taken too far or is expected to perfectly encapsulate every situation.

The few principles I live by are vague to avoid that predicament-

1. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good 2. Under promise, over deliver 3. Graveyards are full of indispensable men

1 took me a long time to really learn

2 In my case, where I've sucked at estimations, it's really not over deliver, but deliver my under promise.

3 is a De Gaulle quote and my favorite - when I think I can't be replaced because I've had an ego boost from a recent accomplishment. Alternatively, it can also be interpreted as 'the world goes on'.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#13

Post by awesome_dude »

blululu wrote: post #9

While I appreciate that the author put in the time and effort to write this, I have to say that I disagree with pretty much all of this. Beyond quibbling about specific points, the MVP and the Vertical Slice are functionally similar they totally different in their purpose. Video Games are generally competing for a slice of a large preexisting market. The test is whether it can compete against existing products. A new…

[flagged]

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#14

Post by awesome_dude »

My thought on the article is - by and large most people don't care if the product that have is perfect, they (myself included) only really care that it does whatever job it's supposed to do to a level that's passable.

I was, and still am, prepared to use a large number of things that aren't perfect - housing, transport, furniture, computers, clothing, FOOD, and more.

edit: Added Food, I don't get the best chef on the planet to prepare my meals every day, or any chef for the most part, not only because I don't have the money, but also because I don't value that sort of thing enough - I'm more than happy with my own cooking for the most part.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#15

Post by [deleted] »

awesome_dude wrote: post #13
blululu wrote: post #9

While I appreciate that the author put in the time and effort to write this, I have to say that I disagree with pretty much all of this. Beyond quibbling about specific points, the MVP and the Vertical Slice are functionally similar they totally different in their purpose. Video Games are generally competing for a slice of a large preexisting market. The test is whether it can compete against existing products. A new…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#16

Post by [deleted] »

awesome_dude wrote: post #13
blululu wrote: post #9

While I appreciate that the author put in the time and effort to write this, I have to say that I disagree with pretty much all of this. Beyond quibbling about specific points, the MVP and the Vertical Slice are functionally similar they totally different in their purpose. Video Games are generally competing for a slice of a large preexisting market. The test is whether it can compete against existing products. A new…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#17

Post by isoprophlex »

awesome_dude wrote: post #13
blululu wrote: post #9

While I appreciate that the author put in the time and effort to write this, I have to say that I disagree with pretty much all of this. Beyond quibbling about specific points, the MVP and the Vertical Slice are functionally similar they totally different in their purpose. Video Games are generally competing for a slice of a large preexisting market. The test is whether it can compete against existing products. A new…

[flagged]

Who cares. The meaning is apparent and the structure is coherent. A well written comment, so these things seem too minor to call out IMO.

What's more, these days if you include some strategic typos, you help convince me that you're not a lazy slop-poster, or an outright bot.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#18

Post by scarab92 »

If the MVP finds product market fit and the market is large enough, then the economic incentive to finish the remaining 20% will exist.

If the market isn’t large enough, then the customer still got 80% of the value whereas in the authors idealised world, they likely wouldn’t have gotten anything at all, since the minimum cost to develop it was 5x higher (assuming 80/20 holds).

Overall it seems we’re better off with startups following the Pareto principal than not following it, and the authors real issue is just with bad product management decisions afterwards.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#19

Post by throwup238 »

isoprophlex wrote: post #17
awesome_dude wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Who cares. The meaning is apparent and the structure is coherent. A well written comment, so these things seem too minor to call out IMO. What's more, these days if you include some strategic typos, you help convince me that you're not a lazy slop-poster, or an outright bot.

[flagged]

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#20

Post by pflenker »

blululu wrote: post #9

While I appreciate that the author put in the time and effort to write this, I have to say that I disagree with pretty much all of this. Beyond quibbling about specific points, the MVP and the Vertical Slice are functionally similar they totally different in their purpose. Video Games are generally competing for a slice of a large preexisting market. The test is whether it can compete against existing products. A new…

I think it’s also worth mentioning that the author fundamentally misunderstands a MVP. A vertical slice video game presentation _is_ a kind of MVP, and there are tons of anecdotes e.g. from the E3 that tell us just how minimal these can be. MVPs take different shapes and forms, a polished but limited video game level is no different than a polished landing page with functionality limited to e.g. sign up.
Post reply on HN