Claiming the user doesn't care about code quality is like claiming a diner doesn't care about kitchen cleanliness. Sure they can't see it, so they won't tell you about it directly, but they definitely care about indirect outcomes of a dirty kitchen.
This analogy falls apart because diners directly consume the food prepared in the kitchen, but users don’t ‘consume’ the code behind a product, they consume the experience and functionality it delivers. A better comparison might be the pipes in a building. Most people don’t care whether the pipes are perfectly aligned or shiny as long as water flows reliably when they turn on the tap. Clean, well-maintained pipes can help prevent long-term issues, but the user’s focus is always on the water, not the plumbing.
@@fixfinder all analogies will fall apart if you pick at them, no metaphor is perfect. I don't go to a restaurant just for the food, I can cook at home. Restaurants sell more than that - they sell service, an experience. SaaS companies don't sell software. Their users don't pay for code. They sell, like a restaurant, a service. The way the service is achieved is through - in the case of SaaS: software; and in the case of a restaurant: food.
That's a deflection to avoid addressing flaws in reasoning, avoiding accountability for gaps in logic. The usefulness of an analogy depends on how accurately it maps to the situation being explained. Expanding on an analogy to justify a point, while you simultaneously dismiss criticisms by admitting it's inherently flawed is called 'having it both ways'. The statement oversimplifies the core value proposition of SaaS. Unlike restaurants, where the experience often outweighs the food itself, SaaS fundamentally relies on the functionality, reliability, and scalability of its software or the "food" in this analogy. Anyways, that's just one *small* comment that misses the point of the video. He's pointing at the stars and you're staring at his finger, that's why the replies fall apart they're hyper-focused on a tangential comment made in passing. RE: Product Thinking
Claiming the user doesn't care about code quality is like claiming a diner doesn't care about kitchen cleanliness. Sure they can't see it, so they won't tell you about it directly, but they definitely care about indirect outcomes of a dirty kitchen.
This analogy falls apart because diners directly consume the food prepared in the kitchen, but users don’t ‘consume’ the code behind a product, they consume the experience and functionality it delivers. A better comparison might be the pipes in a building. Most people don’t care whether the pipes are perfectly aligned or shiny as long as water flows reliably when they turn on the tap. Clean, well-maintained pipes can help prevent long-term issues, but the user’s focus is always on the water, not the plumbing.
@@fixfinder all analogies will fall apart if you pick at them, no metaphor is perfect.
I don't go to a restaurant just for the food, I can cook at home. Restaurants sell more than that - they sell service, an experience.
SaaS companies don't sell software. Their users don't pay for code. They sell, like a restaurant, a service.
The way the service is achieved is through - in the case of SaaS: software; and in the case of a restaurant: food.
That's a deflection to avoid addressing flaws in reasoning, avoiding accountability for gaps in logic. The usefulness of an analogy depends on how accurately it maps to the situation being explained. Expanding on an analogy to justify a point, while you simultaneously dismiss criticisms by admitting it's inherently flawed is called 'having it both ways'.
The statement oversimplifies the core value proposition of SaaS. Unlike restaurants, where the experience often outweighs the food itself, SaaS fundamentally relies on the functionality, reliability, and scalability of its software or the "food" in this analogy.
Anyways, that's just one *small* comment that misses the point of the video. He's pointing at the stars and you're staring at his finger, that's why the replies fall apart they're hyper-focused on a tangential comment made in passing.
RE: Product Thinking