Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
bobbylox.com
Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
1–10 of 127 posts
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#2In 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 feeling of satisfaction and completeness of taking an accomplishment to that level.
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#3[flagged]
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#4[flagged]
Please don't post like this. I actually banned you until I double-checked and saw that you're a legit user.
Your comments have veered too far in the direction of ideological battle and flamewar. That's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. Please veer back.
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#5In 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…
this satisfaction sells. there are companies built on the premise that after the last 1% of effort the sales skyrocket. the marketing narrative of having a complete, high quality product helps to stand out.
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#6Doesn't this fundamentally misunderstand the Pareto principle? The 80% and 20% of causes in standard examples don't refer to portions of a sequential effort, but rather slices of competing agents/producers/customers in an economic system. Like, 20% of clients account for 80% of sales, that kind of thing.
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#7[flagged]
Please don't post like this. I actually banned you until I double-checked and saw that you're a legit user. Your comments have veered too far in the direction of ideological battle and flamewar. That's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. Please veer back. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Uhhh why is my comment a flamewar?
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#8Doesn't this fundamentally misunderstand the Pareto principle? The 80% and 20% of causes in standard examples don't refer to portions of a sequential effort, but rather slices of competing agents/producers/customers in an economic system. Like, 20% of clients account for 80% of sales, that kind of thing.
Seems analogous to me. “20% of the functionality (in a product) is 80% of the work (to implement it)”
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#9While 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 to the world software start up is trying to serve a need that is currently unserved. The test is whether there is any market at all for this product (PMF). The 80/20 rule is about getting some validation that the thing you are building is worth building in the first place - not that it can be done, but that it should be done.
There aren't a ton of specific examples listed, but the images might insinuate some products that the author has in mind. I would just point out that Magic Leap, Humane were both hardware products that spent >5 years in development. They cam out as completed fully finished products that were complete by any standard. The problem wasn't that these products shipped with missing features, it was that nobody wanted what they were selling (see also the Apple Vision Pro, which is technically phenomenal in terms of design/engineering/manufacturing, but not really very useful). These products did the opposite of the Lean Methodology and show the risk of trying something brand new and not validating the assumptions as quickly as possible.
Re: Tech takes the Pareto principle too far
#10In 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…
For yourself, sure. But likely not for your users. In fact, I would bet Pareto is not extreme enough in this scenario.
E.g. Excel or git, or their potential eventual successors. Former and latter has largely being the same commands and feature set used by 99% of users since V1. They are now old, storied projects with enhancements and features/improvements that go decades long, and even inspired or spun out new products/projects out of the ideas built within.
For the article itself, Pareto exists as a reminder that work expended is rarely if ever equal to results produced. There are instances where it pays off. But you always pay a price. Make sure you're willing to pay that price.
Sometimes a chair with 3 legs is all you need or care for. That 4th leg might give you more balance in an uneven plane, but I work in a decently flat garage and I'm not paying the premium for that 4th leg.