[HN Gopher] Letter from the Carnation Company (1987) ___________________________________________________________________ Letter from the Carnation Company (1987) Author : zdw Score : 145 points Date : 2022-04-22 15:09 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.pleacher.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.pleacher.com) | mjb wrote: | This is a really interesting example of half of a dynamic that | constantly plays out in industry. | | One half is that first-order reasoning seldom leads to the | "right" answer, and that optimization opportunities don't tend to | be the obvious ones. Context matters, and optimizing for one | thing almost always comes at the cost of other things. The "I can | find the right answer without data because I'm smart and I have | calculus/bayes theorem/whatever" folks are seldom right. | | The other half is that there's a lot of waste in industry because | of missed opportunities for optimization, and companies that are | good at going back to first principles and looking for those | opportunities tend to be more successful in the long term. "We do | it because of X" is often wrong, both because the initial reasons | weren't always clearly analyzed (and often not quantified at | all), and because the assumptions, underlying costs, etc have | changed over time. We see this a lot in tech because the | underlying costs change so much, but its true everywhere. | | These things are in tension, because first-order reasoning or | "entitlement reasoning" is both often wrong, and often a great | way to discover opportunities for large optimizations and new | ways of thinking about problems. There's great value in rising | above the context and complexity and reasoning things through | using broader principles and simplified models. | | I suspect this dynamic will be with us forever. Falling too far | in either direction leads to failure. If you ignore context, | you'll be wrong on the specifics. If you get too lost in context, | you'll miss big opportunities for optimization. | gumby wrote: | > I suspect this dynamic will be with us forever. | | The Internet has made clear the sheer number of economists who | are also epidemiologists, constitutional scholars and military | affairs scholars. This carnation letter could be considered a | more whimsical and innocent example. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I really liked the Chesterton's Fence comment. | | This is a lesson for anyone interested in _shipping product_ ; as | opposed to just _writing code_. | | Nothing spoils a good "first-order binge" like a nasty old speed | bump of Second-Order Reality. | | I am actually going through exactly that kind of stuff, right | this very minute, on a project that is approaching ship. | [deleted] | bombcar wrote: | This is a perfect example of how you can "easily find a solution | that's better" when you are only looking at one aspect of the | problem, and outsiders often don't have full insight into the | varying factors. | | Disruption is still possible, but it's not as easy as you might | think. | | Perhaps it's kind of a corollary to Chesterton's Fence; if | everyone in an industry is doing something in a certain way, | perhaps there's a reason you don't see. | munk-a wrote: | I think this is actually a great warning message to modern | companies because of that factor. A lot of the products we're | producing in the modern world are extremely complex and both | risk and responsibility are delegated[1]. Since a single person | isn't overseeing the concerns the question of whether each | problem is dealt with with the weight appropriate is more a | question of intra-company politics. You might, for instance, | have the CEO hear that the price of material is expected to | jump 10% in the next quarter and decree that the minimization | of material costs should trump all other concerns. As all the | engineers here might sympathize with, it can be hard to arrive | at the optimal outcome when stakeholders have imperfect | information and when imparting the additional information | necessary is difficult to accomplish. | | 1. Possibly due to complexity alone, or possibly due to the | employee power that confers, please break out tinfoil hats as | appropriate. | DoreenMichele wrote: | I love that the conclusion includes this line: | | _These are just a few of the factors which must be taken into | consideration when designing a can._ | | We get five things covered but -- Wait! --there's more. | bena wrote: | The reason for the letter | | https://www.pleacher.com/mp/mlessons/calculus/catfood.html | legitster wrote: | This is before the influence of Steve Jobs who would have | insisted on a 1:1 ratio can anyways and run up the manufacturing | costs, raise consumer demand for them, and other manufacturers | would be forced to copy suite. | | Tesla is a chief offender at this. Automakers have known for | decades that touch screens and center gauges are usability | nightmares. But then Tesla made it cool and now everyone has to | do it. Or the over-engineered nightmare that is the gull-wing | doors. | hammock wrote: | *If a 1:1 ratio served the consumer. There is a key difference. | | In OP example even the 1:1 request is based on cost of goods, | not consumer utility | | Steve Jobs' mythologized demands were in service of the | consumer, while shouldering the manufacturing burden inherent | in them | munk-a wrote: | > Steve Jobs' mythologized demands were in service of the | consumer, while shouldering the manufacturing burden inherent | in them | | I think a citation is needed for this - my opinion is that in | most cases Apple's design choices focused on doing things | differently, whether that was an upgrade, sidegrade or | downgrade. They tried to make sure their design choices were | positive but there are enough examples of Apple changing | things for seemingly no reason because they weren't broken. | And a lot of other manufacturers followed suit because Apple | remains a trend setter and consumers then started to demand | the feature. It's less like leading a horse to water and more | like leading a horse to a craps table and then assuming that | because the horse likes you they'll consider that playing | craps in the middle of the desert is a natural state. | | All that said, being different and being innovators was | Apple's brand, so failing to deliver strange design decisions | actually would fail to meet consumer expectations... the | consumer didn't demand hockey puck mice, but they demanded | something different from regular mice and delighted in the | new shape (for a while, until the ergonomics of the mouse | became clear - but for quite some time people really | celebrated those mice, at least where I grew up) | memetomancer wrote: | In >my< opinion, it sounds kinda like you didn't read the | Letter from the Carnation Company, or at least didn't quite | grasp the point prior to rushing out your simplistic take | and weird analogy about horses. | | Apple has surely never engaged in change-for-change's-sake | as you are asserting. If you step back and consider all the | factors in the changes they make - developing high quality | materials, reducing size and weight, optimizing yields, | durability, integration of technical advances like bus | speeds, resolution and energy density, thermal | characteristics... on and on, there are probably a | thousands more factors that inform the changes they make to | any given product. | | Not whatever hand-wavey dismissal you are asserting here. | Sometimes their industrial design misses the mark, such as | with the hockey puck mouse, or the charge port on the | current mouse, but these are fairly rare when contrasted | against the full spectrum of their ever evolving products. | | And that's the whole point of that letter from Carnation. | There is a lot more going on behind the scenes that drive | these engineering decisions. Simply writing them off with a | simple take totally misses the mark. | ncmncm wrote: | You mean, like with the butterfly keyboard? | | Or the glued-shut, unrepairable gadgets? | | Or "Maybe you're holding it wrong"? Or firing the antenna | guy after? | | Or trying to eliminate cursor arrow keys so users would | have to _always_ use the mouse? | | The mouse charge port that makes it unusable while | charging is far from an isolated example. Apple changing | something to actually benefit the customer _at the | expense of Apple_ is almost unheard of. | vkou wrote: | > *If a 1:1 ratio served the consumer. There is a key | difference. | | Please keep in mind that the same Steve Jobs championed the | abomination that was the hockey-puck mouse. | TimTheTinker wrote: | That mouse was an indelible part of the feeling of "this is | _new_ and _fun_ " that Steve and Jonny were trying to | create with the original iMac. | | Of course they could have used a different shape from a | hockey puck. The most important thing was that the mouse be | new and fun-looking, to match the novel case design. | | The iMac's design was important because it declared that | Apple was on a new trajectory (no more boring beige boxes), | and thus promised more new and wonderful things were on the | way. | bitwize wrote: | My girlfriend loves that mouse, and considers it exemplary | of Apple's tasteful, fun design. She still has hers. | dwighttk wrote: | I don't use it anymore, but loved the puck mouse too. | hammock wrote: | Forgot about that. Maybe if enough people/generations use | the mouse, our hands will start morphing to a more | appropriate shape? | jedberg wrote: | That hockey puck mouse was perfect for kids' hands, one of | the key target audiences for the iMac it came with. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | He was quite often, wrong. People seem to forget that. I've | never counted, but I'll bet he had more failures, than | successes; It's just that his successes were _big_ | successes. | | He had absolute power, so he was able to create fairly | "pure" renditions of his vision; for good or ill. | compiler-guy wrote: | This is both a very fun letter and a great introduction to how | something that is "obvious" to the non-practitioner ("A square | ratio can obviously uses less material so is obviously better!") | can be totally wrong. | | So the next time you see an article on hacker news where the | solution to some problem seems overly complicated, and you want | to say, "Why not just do X?" Think about the ratio between height | and width of a cat food can and evaluate whether you might be | missing something. | samch wrote: | Related, this is a great example of why I'm skeptical when an | analyst tells me they've done a "5 Whys" exercise to identify | the root of an issue / optimization problem. The process | follows a path to a solution with horse blinders intentionally | on. If, in this case, the issue was the high use of steel, an | analyst might drill down to the time it takes to retool or | switch over a production line as the root cause of needing to | use more than the ideal ratio. Clearly, however, the reality is | much more complex. | heleninboodler wrote: | The real trick to root cause analysis is not to find a | straight chain of 5 "whys" but to find a _tree_ of whys and | examine the leaf nodes. One path from root to tip would | resemble a "5 whys" (but potentially be longer or shorter) | but stopping when you've found a single item to fix is doing | yourself a disservice. | TimTheTinker wrote: | This 1000x. It's particularly interesting if leaf nodes are | allowed to continue branching into uncomfortable or | organizationally taboo subjects (like culture or leadership | problems), and if the same problems appear multiple times | as leaf nodes. _Then_ you know you 're really getting | somewhere. | samstave wrote: | Where may I read more about this, or have the correct | terms to look into? | fijiaarone wrote: | Actually that would be 3125x | maroon-ranger wrote: | Definitely guilt of championing (and perhaps even over- | leveraging) the 5 why's myself. What do you think is a | structured & repeatable way of drilling down to the kind of | layered insights here? | samch wrote: | I see a fishbone activity as somewhat the reverse of the | five whys. Instead of starting broad and narrowing focus | down a singular path, the fishbone takes the problem and | looks at all the contributing factors: | | https://asq.org/quality-resources/fishbone | | I'm not an expert by any means. Just offering a suggestion. | maroon-ranger wrote: | Wow this is great. I could see how using this framework | could lead you to identify the same factors in the | article (assuming you had similar domain knowledge). | | I think the next hurdle would be coming up with a | solution that sufficiently addresses these root causes. | happimess wrote: | I get a lot of mileage out of one deeply-considered why. | bin_bash wrote: | > So the next time you see an article on hacker news where the | solution to some problem seems overly complicated, and you want | to say, "Why not just do X?" | | I don't understand your takeaway. This is an example of someone | asking the obvious question and getting an interesting answer, | which is what happens on HN. It sounds like you're asking | people to withhold asking these questions. | nosequel wrote: | That's not my experience on HN, or with tech folks in | general. There will be a long article about some particularly | hard thing, be it energy storage, GPS, or cat food can | design, and comments will roll in, "simply do X". | 0xbadc0de5 wrote: | Reminds me of the saying: In theory, theory and practice are the | same. | abakker wrote: | or the variation, "the difference between practice and theory | is bigger in practice than theory" | | An absolute gem of a statement. | VoodooJuJu wrote: | I love this because it's such a great example of the contrast | between fragile academic theorizing vs skin-in-the-game doing. | Naturally, the one with skin in the game prevails. | auspex wrote: | Very similar to how a naive pair of eyes on an application says: | "we can rewrite this entire application in 6 months. I don't know | what they previous coders were doing. This thing is so bloated" | | They are missing all the details and nuance that get them to | where they are today. | | Of course this isn't always the case. Sometimes an application is | just terribly designed. | smm11 wrote: | Hello protein powder companies. | moron4hire wrote: | Everybody's commenting on the details of the letter and not the | fact that the letter got written at all, or by whom ("assistant | product manager"). Nowadays the only interaction you'll have with | a company is their snarky "social media manager" trying to | compete with Wendy's Twitter in the category of "sick burns". ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-22 23:00 UTC)