Maybe I missed it, but I don’t think Dan even attempts to answer the titular question! The article, while quite good, is just a very long list of things that suck, and anecdotes about people who tried to make things suck less.
I’ve thought about this question very often, and I think the answer does come back to the market efficiency argument that Dan ridicules at the beginning. I think in many cases, what the market provides is actually about as good as what the market can sustain.
Sure, most products have obvious flaws, and maybe you could fix them. But could you build a successful company solely on the basis of addressing those flaws? Sometimes, yes. Some products do get displaced by better alternatives. But can you expect that process to happen reliably, for all types of products, at all times? When you put it that way, I think it seems silly to expect the answer would be yes.
I went out of it with the conclusion "The world is broken, deal with it"
Just to get caught by that line in the culture part:
> If you read these kinds of discussions, you'll often see people claiming "that's just how the world is" and going further and saying that there is no other way the world could be, so anyone who isn't prepared for that is an idiot.
I'll defend my own claim as not trying to put the blame on the victim, it's nobody's fault most of the time, and we get to see some progress, sometimes. People should enjoy the stuff that actually work and praise those who make real efforts to make it less broken.
I've seen lots of products and services that are materially similar, if not identical, with vastly different prices, and the companies selling them are equally successful. Sometimes it's the company charging more that seems to be doing much better. I don't think there's any particular efficiency advantage. I think it's just a matter of marketing.
I’ve thought about this question very often, and I think the answer does come back to the market efficiency argument that Dan ridicules at the beginning. I think in many cases, what the market provides is actually about as good as what the market can sustain.
Sure, most products have obvious flaws, and maybe you could fix them. But could you build a successful company solely on the basis of addressing those flaws? Sometimes, yes. Some products do get displaced by better alternatives. But can you expect that process to happen reliably, for all types of products, at all times? When you put it that way, I think it seems silly to expect the answer would be yes.