|
|
|
|
|
by AbsoluteCabbage
1155 days ago
|
|
The point is that performance is so important to customer satisfaction and the bottom line that even a horrendous company like facebook would begrudgingly spend time and money to improve performance. If anything your comment reinforces his point. |
|
The point is that performance is so far down the list of things to prioritize that [company of choice] made it to [revenue] without having to care at all about it. It wasn't worth them focusing on until they had already acquired a very large marketshare. Only when already large and successful did the scope and complexity of their system impact performance enough to bother focusing on it, at which point they begrudgingly did.
----
Performance is simply a requirement for the product, some products require very good performance, some don't.
Where you fall is a discussion to be had, because like ALL product requirements, it comes with a cost to develop and maintain.
I don't drive an F1 car to the grocery store. I don't take my minivan to the track.
The article above is bad - it treats a conversation about product requirements as an antagonistic space, where voices that may prioritize a feature other than performance aren't making judgements about how to allocate limited resources, but "excuses"... Worse - he cherry picks the most extreme take of those value judgements for his examples as easy targets to attack.