4 comments

• 

  breck

  7 months ago

  I really liked "To test this you need to get real bullets in your gun as fast as possible. This means talking to potential customers and getting their feedback, implementing simple prototypes and measuring their performance, etc. Put your product and product ideas through the most rigorous process, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative feedback.
  
  Then, using the data you gathered from your measurements and tests, iterate. It might turn out that nobody was willing to pay more than $20/month for your a simplified version of your product. This data lets you form new hypotheses."
  
  Iterating is so important. Chances are you are going to always be wrong, so you always have to keep iterating. Especially in the early going.
  reply
• 

  dan b

  7 months ago

  Great post, amongst you're many other great posts here...however I am not too sure if NeXT (or Apple) is the best example of this.
  
  Although hindsight has proven that indeed Jobs' prediction of a new class of computer buyer was emerging in the early 90's, NeXT did a poor job at gaining sustainable market share growth. So what went wrong? It was not execution, as they made a product that was far beyond its competitors. But it excelled in metrics that were unimportant to that market. This should be an indicator that their design process may not be very empirically driven.
  
  I would argue, in fact, that the areas in which Apple has performed the best are those where a consumer's sentiment and emotion drive a purchase decision. A product design process that optimizes for emotion is immensely difficult, especially in consumer electronics. Rather, Apple's success comes from the irrational "insanely great" process that seems to find that emotional connection with its consumers.
  
  Thoughts?
  reply
• 

  Jesse Farmer

  7 months ago

  Dan,
  
  I do agree that part of Apple's success is that its design process focuses on the softer things, but I don't think it's irrational. Rather, it takes its cues from fields like psychology and anthropology, rather than the hard sciences.
  
  There's nothing wrong with that so long as you know its strengths and weaknesses.
  reply
• 

  kevinprentiss

  4 months ago

  Jesse - I just sent you a facebook message introducing myself. Then I found your blog. This is a great post.
  
  We currently have a live prototype in higher education that's just begging for this kind of process. We built the laboratory, and we have a steady stream of subjects, we just need more scientists.
  
  Come play - help us figure out the process for hacking education : )
  reply