Good Enough For Me
0 Comments
I use a Mac. Lots of the people in the AI office use PCs. Ho hum.
I think the lack of excitement these days over operating systems is kind of interesting in itself. Various major Linux releases pass in the night virtually unnoticed. The reaction to Windows Vista has been lukewarm at best, and I find myself strangely disengaged from the prospect of the upcoming OS X Leopard release.
I believe this is because we've passed the "good enough" line with operating systems. Unlike a few years ago, they now work: they don't crash, they don't seriously impede our workflow and they generally get out of our way. Like cars, doorknobs and can openers - the problem has been substantially addressed. Oh sure, there's always room for improvement, but the burning need is gone. The sense of "this could be so much better!" has been replaced with incremental improvements. Yawn.
Now on the other hand, take web apps. Thats exciting. Web apps are cutting edge, offer exciting new possibilities, and enable us to perform at a level of productivity we've only dreamed about before. There's only two problems with them:
1. They don't work.
2. We don't know how to use them.
Or in other words, they are not "good enough".
Clayton Christensen and and Michael Raynor, in The Innovator's Solution, refer to technology that is not good enough as having a "performance gap", and technology that has passed the "good enough" line as having a "performance surplus". They assert that the rules for properly managing that tech are significantly different depending on which side of the line you're standing on. For example, tech with a performance gap favors vertical integration, with one vendor offering a complete, inter-operable or integrated solution, whereas performance surplus tech favors best-of-breed players inter-operating independently.
I'd like to add that the "not good enough" tech is where the fun is. That's where the opportunity for innovation truly lies.
For example, in web apps - we want to have our cake and eat it too. We want apps that are every bit as good a desktop apps. We want them to work whether or not we have network access. However, we also want all the benefits of Metcalfe's Law, of the natural collaborative nature of online apps, and of the relative platform neutrality of the user interface. And a pony.
Until we deliver that, and probably a bunch of other stuff that we can't actually think of right now, web apps will be "not good enough". They will have a performance gap. The day that they pass that mark, the world will be a more productive place, and there will be a lot less people talking about the Internet.
I think the lack of excitement these days over operating systems is kind of interesting in itself. Various major Linux releases pass in the night virtually unnoticed. The reaction to Windows Vista has been lukewarm at best, and I find myself strangely disengaged from the prospect of the upcoming OS X Leopard release.
I believe this is because we've passed the "good enough" line with operating systems. Unlike a few years ago, they now work: they don't crash, they don't seriously impede our workflow and they generally get out of our way. Like cars, doorknobs and can openers - the problem has been substantially addressed. Oh sure, there's always room for improvement, but the burning need is gone. The sense of "this could be so much better!" has been replaced with incremental improvements. Yawn.
Now on the other hand, take web apps. Thats exciting. Web apps are cutting edge, offer exciting new possibilities, and enable us to perform at a level of productivity we've only dreamed about before. There's only two problems with them:
1. They don't work.
2. We don't know how to use them.
Or in other words, they are not "good enough".
Clayton Christensen and and Michael Raynor, in The Innovator's Solution, refer to technology that is not good enough as having a "performance gap", and technology that has passed the "good enough" line as having a "performance surplus". They assert that the rules for properly managing that tech are significantly different depending on which side of the line you're standing on. For example, tech with a performance gap favors vertical integration, with one vendor offering a complete, inter-operable or integrated solution, whereas performance surplus tech favors best-of-breed players inter-operating independently.
I'd like to add that the "not good enough" tech is where the fun is. That's where the opportunity for innovation truly lies.
For example, in web apps - we want to have our cake and eat it too. We want apps that are every bit as good a desktop apps. We want them to work whether or not we have network access. However, we also want all the benefits of Metcalfe's Law, of the natural collaborative nature of online apps, and of the relative platform neutrality of the user interface. And a pony.
Until we deliver that, and probably a bunch of other stuff that we can't actually think of right now, web apps will be "not good enough". They will have a performance gap. The day that they pass that mark, the world will be a more productive place, and there will be a lot less people talking about the Internet.
