[godelski]

  > They seem to have lost faith in their own ability to innovate.

As they should. I mean they can, but they have to change course. All of Silicon Valley has tried to disenfranchise the power users. With excuses that most people don't want those things or how users are too dumb. But the power users are what drives the innovation. Sure, they're a small percentage, but they are the ones who come into your company and hit the ground running. They are the ones that will get to know the systems in and out. They do these things because they specifically want to accomplish things that the devices/software doesn't already do. In other words: innovation. But everyone (Google and Microsoft included) are building walled gardens. Pushing out access. So what do you do? You get the business team to innovate. So what do they come up with? "idk, make it smaller?" "these people are going wild over that gpt thing, let's integrate that!"

But here's the truth: there is no average user. Or rather, the average user is not representative of the distribution of users. If you build for average, you build for no one. It is hard to invent things, so use the power of scale. It is literally at your fingertips if you want it. Take advantage of the fact that you have a cash cow. That means you can take risks, that you can slow down and make sure you are doing things right. You're not going to die tomorrow if you don't ship, you can take on hard problems and *really* innovate. But you have to take off the chains. Yes, powerful tools are scary, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use them.

[andsoitis]

> the average user is not representative of the distribution of users.

What does this mean? Just thinking about iPhones: As of September 2024, there are an estimated 1.382 billion active iPhone users worldwide, which is a 3.6% increase from the previous year. In the United States, there are over 150 million active iPhone users.

[godelski]

Are you math inclined? This is easier to explain with math (words) but I can put it in more English if you want.

If you're remotely familiar with high dimensional statistics, one of the most well known facts is that the density of a normal ball lies on the shell while the uniform ball is evenly distributed. Meaning if you average samples of a normal ball, the result is not representative of the samples. The average is inside the ball, but remember, all the sampling comes from the shell! It is like drawing a straight line between two points on a basketball, the middle of that line is going to be air, not rubber. But if you do for a uniform ball, it is. That's the definition of uniform... Understanding this, we know that users preference is not determined by a single thing, and honestly, this fact becomes meaningful when we're talking like 5 dimensions...[0]. This fact isn't just true for normal balls, it is true for any distribution that is not uniform.

To try to put this is more English: there are 1.382 billion active iPhone users world wide. They come from nearly 200 countries. The average person in Silicon Valley doesn't want the same thing as the average person in Fresno California. Do you think the average person in Japan wants the same thing as the average Californian? The average American? The average Peruvian? Taste and preference vary dramatically. You aren't going to make a meal that everyone likes, but if you make a meal with no flavor, at least everyone will eat it. What I'm saying is that if you try to make something for everyone, you make something with no flavor, something without any soul. The best things in life are personal. The things you find most enjoyable are not always going to be what your partner, your best friends, your family, or even your neighbor finds most enjoyable. We may have many similarities, but our differences are the spice of life, they are what make us unique. It is what makes us individuals. We all wear different size pants, why would you think we'd all want to put the same magic square in our pockets (if we even have pockets). We can go deeper with the clothing or food analogy, but I think you get that a chef knows how to make more than one dish and a clothing designer knows you need to make more than one thing in different sizes and colors.

[0] https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/20084