Block's CTO argues that engineers mistakenly equate code quality with product success. He uses the example of early YouTube, which had a famously poor architecture but became wildly successful, while the technically superior Google Video failed. The focus should be on solving a user problem, not on perfect code.
Related Insights
Artist's co-founder warns that the biggest mistake founders make is building technology too early. Her team validated their text-based learning concept by manually texting early users, confirming the core hypothesis and user engagement before committing significant engineering resources.
Many teams wrongly focus on the latest models and frameworks. True improvement comes from classic product development: talking to users, preparing better data, optimizing workflows, and writing better prompts.
Founders often get stuck endlessly perfecting a product, believing it must be flawless before launch. This is a fallacy, as "perfection" is subjective. The correct approach is to launch early and iterate based on real market feedback, as there is no perfect time to start.
Artist's CPO notes that while frameworks and processes can feel productive, the best product work is often messy and uncomfortable. It involves fighting with stakeholders and making bets on uncertain features rather than fixing known, smaller issues. This contrasts with the idealized view of smooth, process-driven development.
As AI makes software creation faster and cheaper, the market will flood with products. In this environment of abundance, a strong brand, point of view, taste, and high-quality design become the most critical factors for a product to stand out and win customers.
When a friend suggested using YouTube to scale his lessons, Sal Khan initially rejected the idea as low-tech and not serious enough for education. This highlights how founders can overlook powerful, existing platforms that don't fit their preconceived notions of what their product 'should' be.
While professional engineers focus on craft and quality, the average user is satisfied if an AI tool produces a functional result, regardless of its underlying elegance or efficiency. This tendency to accept "good enough" output threatens to devalue the meticulous work of skilled developers.
Companies racing to add AI features while ignoring core product principles—like solving a real problem for a defined market—are creating a wave of failed products, dubbed "AI slop" by product coach Teresa Torres.
The era of winning with merely functional software is over. As technology, especially AI, makes baseline functionality easier to build, the key differentiator becomes design excellence and superior craft. Mediocre, 'good enough' products will lose to those that are exceptionally well-designed.
