Paul's Posts — 15 March 2012
By Paul McGowan
Yesterday’s post Good enough raised the hair on a few people’s necks wondering why I had apparently thrown in the towel and accepted having to make products and services that were just good enough.
I must not have done a good enough job explaining the thought.
It’s not part of my nature or the team at PS Audio to make products that do anything but surprise and delight the end user.
So is that good enough?
If we set our standards for a product as having to exceed our customers expectations and then surprise and delight them when they receive it, then the product development team need only make a product “good enough” to meet that standard and it’s a product.
The point of yesterday’s post was not to justify mediocrity – quite the opposite in fact – it was to dispel the notion that perfection is attainable and if one seeks it out – one will be disappointed.
Exceeding expectations and building products and services that surprise and delight is good enough.
Forward to a friend and help us engage more readers
Related Articles
Share
About Author
(7) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andy Stoneman
….and all things, expectations, move on. Once a new benchmark has been set it quickly becomes normal and indeed the springboard for the next development.
I got an iPhone ‘free’ on my contract, it was less than my monthly bill so I thought ‘why not…’
I was genuinely surprised and delighted and I’m on my second one – however, that new Windows phone is looking rather tempting. The iPhone went beyond good enough – for while. It set the target and others, including Apple, are compelled to improve on it.
That smacks of consumerism, I know. But consumerism is the modern face of our inherent curiosity and inventiveness. Without it, we’d never have lit our own fire, started farming, woven cloth, learned to sail etc etc
stuggs
The amount I am willing to pay for audio equipment has a limit. My rule of thumb is if the annualized costs are more than going to listen to live performances roughly 30 times per year, I’m spending too much on the equipment. Financial resources have to compete with many other important demands, leading me to try to find a sweet spot in value for money. many times, 80% of the benefits come at 20% of the maximum cost. For example, $100,000 may be the cost for perfect speakers. For $20,000, I can find speakers that are totally satisfactory. To me, that’s the art in design of audio equipment: finding that sweet spot in value for money.
Andy Stoneman
Wish I could afford $20k speakers!
Rob Hughes
Why people were upset by yesterday’s post regarding “good enough” in software rather surprises me. That’s been the benchmark in software ever since Microsoft came onto the scene. No software is perfect. There’s only the bugs you know about, and the bugs you haven’t found yet. Even NASA, who has possibly the most rigorous software testing protocol in history, still ships (launches) products (spacecraft) with bugs that are found once they’re in production (on its way to another planet). Holding you guys to a higher standard seems a bit unrealistic.
Tom Devey
At least these days, in many cases, software can be updated with the product in the field. Microsoft does it about once a month on update Tuesdays.
Terry Franklin
It is my understanding that NASA takes its lead from Paul. Am I mistaken?
Paul McGowan