I've always been of the opinion that you need a very strong auteur at the head of a company driving product to make something awesome. Tivo, Sling, Flip, Apple, and others are clearly true to themselves and not full of compromise. Posterous, Skitch, Balsamiq, and Google are examples of the same.
But that doesn't mean you don't heed feedback. Apple wasn't against cut-and-paste; they just didn't want to have an offering that wasn't up to their standards. Google tests the hell out of everything.
I still think you have to put your first visionary offering out there - IMVU had their client that Eric had to throw away - and see what happens. Too much CD "work" is just an excuse to not build something and is just the same wasted "effort" as premature optimization.
Your comment shows you do not understand the 'customer development' methodology Eric is talking about. You never stop building. You build concurrent with customer development.
Seriously, read up on it. Don't just dismiss it as paralysis analysis. There's real value here.
This is a completely speculative article with no actual information. The author takes an interview with Steve Jobs (interesting in its own right) and reads in whatever happens to validate his preexisting beliefs about product development.
The customer development model is interesting, and its important - because it solves the problem that causes most startups to fail: they build something nobody wants.
The 'Steve Jobs' (and other visionaries) phenomenon is a common counter-point: "If John Ford had listened to the market, he'd have built a better horse whip!"
All Eric is saying is that customer development does not reduce the need for a visionary. Visionaries are more connected with the market than anyone else. But don't do what most startups do and assume that you are one. Validate, validate, validate. You can't afford not to.
[+] [-] sachinag|16 years ago|reply
But that doesn't mean you don't heed feedback. Apple wasn't against cut-and-paste; they just didn't want to have an offering that wasn't up to their standards. Google tests the hell out of everything.
I still think you have to put your first visionary offering out there - IMVU had their client that Eric had to throw away - and see what happens. Too much CD "work" is just an excuse to not build something and is just the same wasted "effort" as premature optimization.
[+] [-] rjurney|16 years ago|reply
Seriously, read up on it. Don't just dismiss it as paralysis analysis. There's real value here.
[+] [-] _pius|16 years ago|reply
Precisely the opposite of the model Ries talks about.
[+] [-] idlewords|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rjurney|16 years ago|reply
The 'Steve Jobs' (and other visionaries) phenomenon is a common counter-point: "If John Ford had listened to the market, he'd have built a better horse whip!"
All Eric is saying is that customer development does not reduce the need for a visionary. Visionaries are more connected with the market than anyone else. But don't do what most startups do and assume that you are one. Validate, validate, validate. You can't afford not to.
[+] [-] prakash|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prakash|16 years ago|reply
incredible!