|
|
|
|
|
|
by logicallee
4121 days ago
|
|
|
No, we really can't have it both ways. Obviously (clearly) they will keep products that have sufficient momentum. With a little thought, however, it will be obvious to you that the consumer's definition of "sufficient" cannot possibly match a company's definition in 100% of cases: there will be a grey area where at least some people will like mouthwash-flavored bubble gum, but not enough people do that the company can afford to keep it. (And see if it does take off later, as you say would have happened in many cases.) Consumers have two alternatives: either allow companies to test products like this without backlash, and accept that some products will be discontinued due to lack of adoption, or to have stagnancy with only upstart companies trying new things and the existing brands sitting on the bylines looking for success built elsewhere that they can copy. I support innovation and encourage companies to go out on a limb, without any backlash if they discontinue these tests. (Even if I loved the product.) |
|
|
You have this unstated assumption that they have to quickly abandon products that don't gain traction. But that's not true. It's short-term thinking over long-term.
When a company spends 30 man years developing a product, they can set aside 1 or 2 extra for long term maintenance. By promising or consistently providing this, they can build customer trust and get more users.
Keeping digital services up is cheap. It's shameful whenever DRM or video game servers go down after just a couple years because the company ran out of money or doesn't care anymore. These things could have been funded upfront with the tiniest fraction of the budget.