better is worse
Now I know this is impossible. Better can’t be worse. Otherwise they’d just call it worse. But if you’ll entertain the notion, only for a minute, I will try to do my best Hillary and explain what I meant.
I should have said “marginally better” is worse. It’s true. We all agree - especially now that Seth has said it out loud. The only problem with saying that marginally better is worse, is that it’s a touch relative. Are you 10% better or 90% better? Where is the cut off between what’s worth pursuing and what’s not? And so I’m taking a slighly modified approach…
In a day and age when we have no problem with information availability (everything is out there somewhere), we are certainly more interested in the best compilations. We like mashups that bring us information just as we had hoped to digest it. We don’t aspire to pay less than 99 cents for a song (although we do not mind) - we instead aspire to pay an amount indicative of our abilities as an amateur talent scout.
So why then, would anyone want to spend the blood, sweat and tears to start something that will just be a better version of the same? Why fight through the dip if you’re not going to dig it deeper and more erratically? Is better still better if you slug it out with public enemy #1 only to win by 5%? I think the more important question is how much you protect whatever piece of the pie you’ve managed to secure can grow that market so that, while 5% more of the original pie is nice, 100% of this new apple crisp we cooked up is even better!
Comments
2 Responses to “better is worse”
Leave a Reply
I love apple crisp, and the oven’s already pre-heated.
lol… go to bed!