| I can rephrase your sentence as: 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. |
No. The authors point is that you don’t have to drive an F1 car to the grocery store. All you have to do is stop slashing your tires, dumping sugar in your gas tank and driving a Kia.
The amount of mental gymnastics you people go through to keep your delicate little worldview from crumbling is truly a sight to behold. Thank god we have people like Casey in this world to balance out the bell curve.