Yes, but what if some companies don't do it and instead make better products. Do we think that's impossible? Because with so many companies focused on making worse products more cheaply, it seems like it should be easier than ever to win the game by making good products...

▲

LiquidSky 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>Do we think that's impossible?

Yes. Even if it weren't, it doesn't even seem to matter anymore. Making better products doesn't seem to lead to more money than churning out shit and financializing it, so why would anyone bother?

▲

AndrewKemendo 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Consumers have voted over and over and over and they are very clear: The vast majority will choose cheap vs good

Commodity products win in the long term and “better” products that are more expensive will go out of business

▲

conartist6 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah the real holy grail is a product that's both cheaper and better. If we're still climbing the ladder of abstraction, over time it does become possible to build products both cheaper and better.

	▲	LiquidSky 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But who cares about the long term when you could make a killing this year or even just this quarter and walk away with a fortune.

▲

disgruntledphd2 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Consumers have voted over and over and over and they are very clear: The vast majority will choose cheap vs good

Snowflake customers have definitely not made this choice, as Snowflake is good but very, very expensive. They're basically the Oracle of cloud.

	▲	AndrewKemendo 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Isn’t Oracle the oracle of cloud? And this still fits, if snowflake is feeling pressure from lower cost entrants or demand from investors for more profit then it would track I don’t necessarily disagree that it’s a risk but people assume that companies optimize for product stickiness but in fact they don’t, most companies optimize for investor relationships