This is one of the key "inefficiencies" of the private sector - there might be one winner at the end of the day providing the product that fills the market niche, but there was always multiple competitors giving it a go in the mean time.
A recent example, Mitchell Hashimoto was pointing out that he wasn't "first to market" with his product(s), he was (at least) SEVENTH
Almost tautologically it's not "inefficient" to do so, because free market economics has decided that all the attempts are mathematically worth it, for a high-margin low-marginal-cost product like software.
I'm a little lost as to why seven teams duplicating effort is more "efficient" in any sense of the word than one or two teams working iteratively toward the same goal.
If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem, people would lose their minds over the 'waste' But when private companies do it, we call it efficient market competition. The duplication is the same - we just frame it differently.
Edit: fixed some typos caused by fat fingers on a phone keyboard
The benefit from having a 5% better product that hundreds of millions of people will use is worth the duplicated effort in the beginning. The numbers just make sense.
>If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem
The problem here is "government funded" - the trials are not rationalized by free-market economics. That is, a 5% better product in the end would not be worth seven competing developments initially.
> The benefit from having a 5% better product that hundreds of millions of people will use is worth the duplicated effort in the beginning. The numbers just make sense.
This assumes that the duplicated effort arrives at a solution that is better than if it were done by a single team.
> >If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem
> The problem here is "government funded" - the trials are not rationalized by free-market economics. That is, a 5% better product in the end would not be worth seven competing developments initially.
I think you're saying that 5% is worth it when the free market does it, but 5% gain isn't when the government does it?
I'm hoping you're not because that's impossible - the end result is precisely the same
It is not. Seven teams all working under one leadership is quite different to seven leaderships each working with one team.
When different governments (e.g. USA and USSR), and thus different leaderships, are both trying to solve the same problem (e.g. travel to the moon), that too is considered efficient competition.
Oh, so seven /leaderships/ is what's made the difference?
If a government did this (e.g., seven independent agencies competing for a moon landing), people would call it "fragmented," "uncoordinated," and "bureaucratic infighting."
Seven independent government agencies are still an arm of the same leadership.
When complete organizational separation is introduced, the concerns you speak of go away. In the USA, the ARPA (you might recognize that name from the thing you're using right now) program regularly enables "seven" independent leaders to tackle a problem and this is widely considered a resounding success.
Remember, when it comes to government — at least a democratic one — the people complaining are also the leadership. Think about it from their perspective:
- If they do a good job with leadership, only one team will be necessary. Anything else is truly a waste.
- If they do a poor job with leadership, every team will fail. Any more than one is also truly a waste[1].
The latter is the most likely outcome, of course. Now, when you absolve yourself from the process then those points still apply, but now you have several leaders duking it out to see which one doesn't fail. But, for the same reasons, those leaders each only benefit from having one team.
[1] You could argue that all teams are truly a waste, but one team is necessary to show that leadership failed. That brings abstract value, even if it fails to deliver the intended value. You don't know until you try.
> Not necessarily. Unless you think a global democratic government formed overnight?
This is a distraction. Whether it's 300 million voters or 300 million iPhone users, both groups act as the ultimate arbiter of value. If a customer stops paying, the "leadership" of a company fails. If a voter stops voting for one party, or the other, the "leadership" of a state fails. The mechanical result on the "seven teams" is identical: the unsuccessful ones are defunded.
Further, this proves the detachment from reality you are bringing to the conversation - everybody in the private sector knows the golden rule - your customers ARE your employers
THEY dictate what they will pay for, and therefore what can be sold (unless you are a fan of monopolies forcing people to buy things they do not want to)
> Whatever it is you are reading in other threads has no relevance to this one.
Your dishonesty only highlights your bad faith, and as such we are done here.
> If a voter stops voting for one party, or the other, the "leadership" of a state fails.
Political parties in democracy are quite literally labor unions. The people in them do not independently lead the state, they are merely employees, hired by the leadership. You know, that's what you host elections for — to choose which employee you want to hire from the set of candidates who want the job. They may act as sub-leaders within the capacity of their job, but they are not the top leaders we are talking about. "Leadership" here was never intended to be about "middle managers".
That seems pretty obvious, but perhaps this confusion is the source of your misunderstandings?
> and as such we are done here.
Done with what? Thinking other threads are related this one? That is a good idea.
A recent example, Mitchell Hashimoto was pointing out that he wasn't "first to market" with his product(s), he was (at least) SEVENTH