Some people like bigger cars, others like efficient cars and then there are some who like premium cars.
That is, markets aren’t homogeneous. They consist of different sets of people who value different aspects in a solution.
2/ Because different segments value different aspects, an improvement in one aspect will only be appreciated by that segment and get ignored by everyone else in the market.
3/ For example, if the customers in a particular segment are price-insensitive, your discounts won’t work on them.
In your mind, a discount should clearly work but for a certain segment of customers, it may actually decrease the appeal of your product for them.
4/ But, if a customer segment is price-sensitive, and you give them a clearly higher quality product at slightly higher prices, they may not care enough about the quality to make a switch from what they usually use.
5/ An improvement over existing solutions is not an improvement unless a large enough customer segment cares about it.
6/ A good illustration of this mental model is a product called Cuil.
It was a new search engine launched by ex-Googlers in 2008.
Their point of differentiation was that Cuil organized results into various topics while Google didn’t.
7/ If you searched for Python, they’d cluster results into Python, the programming language, and Python, the snake. When it came to topic categorization, Cuil was clearly a better solution than Google.
But, apparently, they misjudged the market.
8/ While topic categorization was fantastic, nobody wanted it.
After raising $33mn in VC capital, they shut down because they realized that most customers care about the relevance of search results (on which they were not better than Google).
9/ Automatic topic categorization was certainly a cool piece of technology but people really don’t want to use technology.
10/ People want a good solution for their desires, and when it comes to search the majority of users want to find the most relevant result in the shortest amount of time.
Since many folks are tagging me on this thread, here’s what I think about it.
1/ The argument isn’t that bitcoin is entirely useless, the argument is that cost-benefit tradeoff for it is *worse* than current systems such as banking or the Visa network
2/ Comparing bitcoin’s energy consumption with Gold mining is a false comparison.
Once gold is mined, it exists forever. If gold mining stops today, no additional energy will be consumed but gold transactions will still keep happening.
3/ If bitcoin mining stops today, no transactions can take place.
So the bitcoin mining has to keep happening forever for bitcoin transactions to occur.
1/ I’ve started imagining bitcoin as a virtual fortress which is secured mathematically so that even governments cannot seize it.
2/ There’s a price to pay to enter into this fortress but since there are limited entry tickets, if more people want to enter into it, the price keeps on going up.
2/ The key idea explored in the book is that the world has witnessed significant progress over the last few decades, but most people are unaware of that fact because they hold distorted views.