Economic cargo cults

One thing that never ceases to fascinate me:

Small, thoroughly unremarkable companies try to emulate wildly successful ones by copying some tertiary, sometimes even actively annoying property.

Take Apple and its near-religious obsession with packaging. Their boxes are sturdy, elegant, and engineered with the kind of care normally reserved for spacecraft or Swiss watches.

So naturally, companies selling $9.99 gadgets have concluded that this is the secret sauce. Not the product. Not the ecosystem. Not the brand. No, clearly it’s the box.

What they fail to realize is that I keep an iPhone box because the device inside retains resale value. The packaging is essentially a reusable shipping container with aspirations.

The cheap gadget, on the other hand, has the resale value of an expired, half-eaten sandwich. Its box is therefore not a feature but a long-term storage problem. A nearly indestructible one. I suspect some of these packages will outlive civilization and be excavated by future archaeologists, who will conclude that we worshipped mediocre Bluetooth speakers.

Another favorite is the imitation of Google’s customer interaction model, or rather, the strategic absence of it.

Companies observe that Google doesn’t talk to its customers and infer that this must be part of the winning formula. What they miss is that Google succeeds despite this, not because of it. When you control half the internet, you can afford to be aloof. When you sell niche SaaS to 50 customers in a easily offended corner of Germany, less so.

Yet here we are, with companies proudly offering the full “Google experience”: no support, no accountability, and a contact form that disappears into a small, silent void, presumably to be studied later by theoretical physicists.

It’s a bit like copying the table manners of a king while lacking both the kingdom and the food.

I suppose this is the corporate equivalent of a cargo cult: build the runway, light the torches, and hope that success will land.

Do you see those as well?

@masek

In that light: yes. I think it's well put.

@masek one thing I really hate with a passion is the trend of tiny magnets in the product's packaging, only there to deliver a one-time "smooth" box opening experience. Making the package harder to recycle and adding unnecessary waste of precious magnets.

@hzulla @masek
I also hate stupid magnets on the product!
See Apple connectors or Kobo Sage (loads of magnets to hold a power cover that no-one buys and doesn't work).

Actually Apple is also a fashion cult. All products are priced at what the market will bear, but Apple hype allows often twice the price. Or some feature that is actually pointless.

There is also an unhealthy obsession with thinness and lack of sockets on all tech, but worst on Apple.
Bring back HDMI, 3.5mm jack, SIM & SD card.

@raymaccarthy @hzulla Apple is a very interesting company. Their level of vertical integration is nothing short of a marvel.

I agree there is a cultist component part of the company.

On the other hand, I always knew beforehand what I get at what price. It is the big tech company with the smallest amount of disappointment.

@masek @hzulla
It's a marketing company with some R&D. They don't have vertical integration.

@raymaccarthy @hzulla I care to disagree.

The integration from R&D to software development to manufacturing over to marketing is truly impressive.

I see very, very few companies worldwide that achieve even 50% of that level of integration. Microsoft achieves not even 10%.

I can understand that people dislike Apple. They are still a big tech company with all their flaws.

@masek @raymaccarthy @hzulla

Vertical integration is a base requirement for any company intending to stay in business over time. It doesn't mean to execute in all areas all the time, just being able to do so is a huge plus. But it's one not really showing up as needed in localized, short term view, leading to outsourcing and finally loosing.

@hzulla @masek I fish those out whenever possible. I am forever finding uses for small magnets and the best part about magnets is they store REALLY well.
@masek Yep, I’ve even worked at companies that did this for themselves. They got successful, but didn’t want to admit that they had no clue, so they enshrined everything they did in their “formula”, even though a bit of critical thought could eliminate more than half of it.
@masek So much yes! I see this with companies forming engineering organizations. They go and emulate Google or Meta. Because they think the structure is what brought them success. They don’t realize that these companies have a scale and margins that allow them to employ certain structures that don’t fit other places. But the people emulating this then feel they are like „FANG“ companies and it’s good for linked in.

@mrtoto @masek

Wait - we don't need that 10 node kubernetes cluster to host our website?

(sarcasm)

@tcurdt @masek The use of Kubernetes in some places the the manifestation of this, indeed.
@mrtoto @tcurdt @masek and widespread use of {React,GraphQL} on the other end of the spec.

@tcurdt @mrtoto No, at least you need autoscaling and anycast IP on top.

Last year you had two users visiting from India....

@masek Companies do it all the time.. the Agile that first appeared is a pale shadow of the 'Aglile' that companies breathlessly adopted with a hope of an instant boost to profits (that of course never happened).
@masek See also: Doing agile or SCRUM or other development concepts that would require you to change everything about how you are doing things. And then companies are just cosplaying doing Scrum while still maintaining the old ways in the background
@mschfr @masek Coffee SCRUM-style: taste, consistence, temperature and price will surprise you, if we manage to deliver.
@masek There may be investors that you lure by this type of behavior. I have seen this pattern in the startup ecosystem in a form of "pretend you're a unicorn until enough people think you're a unicorn and give you the valuation of a unicorn". The reason it works is that in many cases, there are no solid facts in an emergent business domain where startups operate, so people come up with all kinds of proxy features they believe will reduce their risk of being wrong. "Investing in the team", "total addressable market", "experience as a founder" down to the dresscode and "techbro" culture are all cargo cult proxy features of successful past startups. Some of them are necessary but not sufficient. Some are pure "vibe", especially in early tech startups. And survivorship bias does the rest and you have "successful" startup investors on linkedin bragging about their "secret sauce".

@masek All over the place.

Going back a bit, IBM used to produce successful software projects, which had huge amounts of internal design documentation, so everyone decided that the documentation was important in itself, rather than as a living communication process between teams that talked to each other.

TQM/ISO9000 was another big one that wasted so much time and effort.

@masek

🤣
"the full “Google experience”: no support, no accountability, and a contact form that disappears into a small, silent void, presumably to be studied later by theoretical physicists"

@masek
> Google doesn’t talk to its customers

Just lower your monthly campaign limit from $100k to $10k and you will have real protein talking to you via a real phone in less than an hour.

They do not talk to their product. To customers they still do.

@ohir Ah, unluckily I lack 100K$ monthly campaign money (which I can then reduce to 10K$) to get their attention 🙂.

At least when I reduced the monthly budget from 30$ to 0$, they didn't call 🤪.