Comments on: When ‘good enough’ is better than ‘best’ http://www.teleread.org/2009/09/03/when-good-enough-is-better-than-best/ News & views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:42:20 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mechaman http://www.teleread.org/2009/09/03/when-good-enough-is-better-than-best/comment-page-1/#comment-1142763 Mechaman Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:19:21 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/2009/09/03/when-good-enough-is-better-than-best/#comment-1142763 I don't know. Considering the last quote I heard from some of the recent freshmen moms at work, I think they're competing quite well with the Kindle. (Locked in audiences are always such fun). I don’t know. Considering the last quote I heard from some of the recent freshmen moms at work, I think they’re competing quite well with the Kindle. (Locked in audiences are always such fun).

]]> By: Christine http://www.teleread.org/2009/09/03/when-good-enough-is-better-than-best/comment-page-1/#comment-1142670 Christine Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:07:53 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/2009/09/03/when-good-enough-is-better-than-best/#comment-1142670 My mom preferred instant coffee to brewed. It's just not right. Kindle isn't cheap, I think all the readers are way too expensive. But they are good enough to read with, depending on what you're reading. I don't expect they're going to even compete with paper and ink for textbooks, reference, technical type non-fiction until they have more comparable features. My mom preferred instant coffee to brewed. It’s just not right.

Kindle isn’t cheap, I think all the readers are way too expensive. But they are good enough to read with, depending on what you’re reading.

I don’t expect they’re going to even compete with paper and ink for textbooks, reference, technical type non-fiction until they have more comparable features.

]]> By: Felix Torres http://www.teleread.org/2009/09/03/when-good-enough-is-better-than-best/comment-page-1/#comment-1142088 Felix Torres Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:21:21 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/2009/09/03/when-good-enough-is-better-than-best/#comment-1142088 Everything in the article is true except the idea that "good enough" is new or revolutionary. "Good enough" has always been with us as has its counter-part; "gold-plating" aka kitchen-sink or checklist design. In engineering design both approaches have been around since, well, forever. The latter appeals to the Madison Avenue hucksters who prey on the uninformed by dazzling them with long list of features (to extract higher prices) while the former appeals to knowledgeable buyers who understand the product and their own needs. This is old stuff; the Ford Model T suceeded because it dropped fancy features and provided basic transportation. A generation or so later, the VW Beetle did it again. And other car brands keep using the technique to get into the market. Basic transportation sells. The margins are thin without the gold plating but the volume makes up for it and a smart company can build up a lot of brand equity to drive business to more profitable models as long as they remember that value is defined by meeting customer needs not by their PR departments. Companies that forget this tend to get swept away. In computers, this has happened over and over; DEC mini-computers were dismissed by the mainframers as cheap and underpowered until they took over a major chunk of the business; a decade later, the DEC folks pooh-pooh'ed microcomputers until they ate away most of their business. Today microcomputers are everywhere and DEC is but a memory. Even in the PC business, the first portables (Osbourne 1) were dismissed as impractical because of the compromises portability required but Adam Osbourne simply smiled and moved on, comforted by his mantra of "Adequacy is Sufficient". That was nearly 30 years ago. Today, no better example exists of what happens to a company that forgets the Pareto rule (aka the 80/20 principle of value) than Sony. Their over-priced, over-featured TVs and and gaming consoles are routinely outsold by lower-spec and lower-priced competitors in practically all markets, world-wide. (The 80/20 rule even has a role in the ongoing debate over health insurance reform in the US, but since politicians are lawyers and liberal arts types they literally don't get it. A whole 'nother can of worms that.) For ebook readers, the impact of the Pareto rule can be seen in the quick demise of the Sony 700 readers, which came with every hardware-based feature Sony engineers (obviously working in a sealed tower somewhere) could cram into it except the two most prized by users; readability and wireless. Of their current lineup, going by the Pareto rule, one would expect the 300 to florish and the 600 to lag. The daily edition? An interesting experiment in value assessment; is wireless worth US$200 over the 300? Keeping features lean and practical (and focused on customer needs--whether those needs be basic transportation or portable music) is a lesson ebook publishers need to bear in mind, especially the promoters of the typographically rich but undercooked epub ecosystem which is loaded with publisher-friendly frills like embedded fonts, hard-coded/non-overideable margins and faces, and of course, obtrussive DRM, while lacking support for dictionaries, standard anotations, or even a compliance testing program with teeth to let usets know if the problems they face with a given file are an issue with the format, the file or the parser. Putting consumer needs last is a great way to drive customers to your competitors and can dig you into a hole from which recovery will be at a minimum dificult as Sony can attest to. "Good is enough" is no revolution; it is merely the status quo in competitive markets where end users rule. It is merely a reminder of the perils of ignoring end user needs because it is end users that choose winners and losers, not pundits, experts, or standards bodies. Everything in the article is true except the idea that “good enough” is new or revolutionary. “Good enough” has always been with us as has its counter-part; “gold-plating” aka kitchen-sink or checklist design. In engineering design both approaches have been around since, well, forever. The latter appeals to the Madison Avenue hucksters who prey on the uninformed by dazzling them with long list of features (to extract higher prices) while the former appeals to knowledgeable buyers who understand the product and their own needs.
This is old stuff; the Ford Model T suceeded because it dropped fancy features and provided basic transportation. A generation or so later, the VW Beetle did it again. And other car brands keep using the technique to get into the market. Basic transportation sells. The margins are thin without the gold plating but the volume makes up for it and a smart company can build up a lot of brand equity to drive business to more profitable models as long as they remember that value is defined by meeting customer needs not by their PR departments. Companies that forget this tend to get swept away.
In computers, this has happened over and over; DEC mini-computers were dismissed by the mainframers as cheap and underpowered until they took over a major chunk of the business; a decade later, the DEC folks pooh-pooh’ed microcomputers until they ate away most of their business. Today microcomputers are everywhere and DEC is but a memory. Even in the PC business, the first portables (Osbourne 1) were dismissed as impractical because of the compromises portability required but Adam Osbourne simply smiled and moved on, comforted by his mantra of “Adequacy is Sufficient”. That was nearly 30 years ago.
Today, no better example exists of what happens to a company that forgets the Pareto rule (aka the 80/20 principle of value) than Sony. Their over-priced, over-featured TVs and and gaming consoles are routinely outsold by lower-spec and lower-priced competitors in practically all markets, world-wide.
(The 80/20 rule even has a role in the ongoing debate over health insurance reform in the US, but since politicians are lawyers and liberal arts types they literally don’t get it. A whole ‘nother can of worms that.)
For ebook readers, the impact of the Pareto rule can be seen in the quick demise of the Sony 700 readers, which came with every hardware-based feature Sony engineers (obviously working in a sealed tower somewhere) could cram into it except the two most prized by users; readability and wireless. Of their current lineup, going by the Pareto rule, one would expect the 300 to florish and the 600 to lag. The daily edition? An interesting experiment in value assessment; is wireless worth US$200 over the 300?
Keeping features lean and practical (and focused on customer needs–whether those needs be basic transportation or portable music) is a lesson ebook publishers need to bear in mind, especially the promoters of the typographically rich but undercooked epub ecosystem which is loaded with publisher-friendly frills like embedded fonts, hard-coded/non-overideable margins and faces, and of course, obtrussive DRM, while lacking support for dictionaries, standard anotations, or even a compliance testing program with teeth to let usets know if the problems they face with a given file are an issue with the format, the file or the parser. Putting consumer needs last is a great way to drive customers to your competitors and can dig you into a hole from which recovery will be at a minimum dificult as Sony can attest to.
“Good is enough” is no revolution; it is merely the status quo in competitive markets where end users rule. It is merely a reminder of the perils of ignoring end user needs because it is end users that choose winners and losers, not pundits, experts, or standards bodies.

]]>