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

61–70 of 127 posts

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#61

Post by HPsquared »

Xelbair wrote: post #56
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…

>A new to the world software start up is trying to serve a need that is currently unserved. man, really? 99% of software is basically glorified CRUD view for some DB. it's nothing novel. If we venture outside of corporate software: most startups do not create anything novel - they just monetize existing businesses in a different(usually more predatory) way, or do X but digital. both usually go for 'virtual monopoly'…

Sounds like the restaurant business.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#62

Post by Xelbair »

Gravityloss wrote: post #59
Xelbair wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A new to the world software start up is trying to serve a need that is currently unserved. man, really? 99% of software is basically glorified CRUD view for some DB. it's nothing novel. If we venture outside of corporate software: most startups do not create anything novel - they just monetize existing businesses in a different(usually more predatory) way, or do X but digital. both usually go for 'virtual monopoly'…

That's the point. It's not supposed to be technologically novel, at least at start. It's a new business. The innovation is in the business part. When we were in Rome and exited the Colosseum, it started raining. Some random dude walked to us and sold us an umbrella. Great business, both of us were better off.

It's more akin to someone giving you an umbrella subscription(if it rains more than twice this year I'll save money!), killing our all the competition with dumping prices by running on loss for years, and then hiking up the prices, while also tracking you and telling every food vendor your favorite food so they can prepare a greeter for you.

if you think that's a sustainable model, and is good for society then you do you.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#63

Post by passwordoops »

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…

Though I appreciate the effort you put into your response, I think you're quibbling and missed the point.

His qualm is with companies developing what amounts to a good demo (whether you call it MVP, prototype, Beta product, etc), validate their hypothesis but then call it a finished product. Validation is supposed to be just that, validation. Instead he's arguing companies call that initial validation market success, then relabel the demo a working product, warts and all.

And, you're correct in saying the Vision Pro didn't flop because it wasn't developed properly. It flopped because no one wants what it has to offer, and that's a different problem from what the author describes

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#64

Post by _heimdall »

euroderf wrote: post #55
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…

> 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 feeling of satisfaction and completeness of taking an accomplishment to that level. This…

I've always looked at this a bit differently. For me the last 20% is fulfilling, but it's also a grind.

In a software job I rarely have to do that to get paid, I can spend most of my days on the easy stuff that gets far enough. The pay is good enough that I can spend my time outside of work doing what I want and put in the effort to grind through the last 20% and really feel proud if the end result.

This may be why so many software developers gravitate to wood working. If you have the time to put in the effort for that last 20% its very noticeable and satisfying.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#65

Post by evv555 »

globular-toast wrote: post #43
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…

> 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 to the world software start up is trying to serve a need that is currently unserved. I feel like it's completely the opposite. A new game doesn't need to "replace" old games. People have played those games. It only needs to be new and good enough to get people's attentio…

I don't really disagree but if you look at the most played games on steam many of them are now old. There's a growing inventory of games that are turning into classics.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#66

Post by spencerflem »

gunian wrote: post #50

If I had around 8-12 weeks to live and have a project that is 5% complete what would the right allocation of resources be?

Genuinely, if I had 8-12 weeks to live, the project would not be my priority, unless it was a welcome distraction. Prioritize whichever parts bring you joy, and do something about the 8-12 weeks if you can.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#67

Post by LawrenceKerr »

euroderf wrote: post #55
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…

> 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 feeling of satisfaction and completeness of taking an accomplishment to that level. This…

> Capitalism generates crap software.

As opposed to state-funded software development, which is renowed for its high quality and innovation.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#68

Post by marcosdumay »

knowhy wrote: post #27

> I think that the Pareto Principle is technically true in a lot of fields, but I also feel our society would be a lot better off if we didn’t know about it. I doubt that. From what I understand Vilfredo Pareto introduced it to describe the existing allocation of wealth in Italy on the brink of fascism. He claimed that the crops in his garden followed this principle. I highly doubt that that can be replicated. Ever s…

Hum?

There's pretty much a mathematical rule that states that variables free to have any values tend to distribute themselves like that, just like the one that states that variables that are bounded tend to distribute themselves normally.

Or are you talking about the specific numbers? Because yes, the specific numbers are almost never correct.

Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far

#69

Post by teamonkey »

caseyy wrote: post #38
pflenker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The most equivalent milestone to MVP in games is first playable (FP) or prototype. This is done at first pass/L1/greybox quality. Vertical slice (VS) is a type of beautiful corner — this is done at production quality. The purpose of FP is to prove the game loop and that a game is worth producing — that it is viable, or you could say that it has reached the minimum viable state. The purpose of VS is to try out the ent…

Though I totally agree with this, the MVP model can be used for titles released as Early Access
Post reply on HN