In article <mailman.4930.1388908293.18130.python-l...@python.org>, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote: > > I've got a new sorting algorithm which is guaranteed to cut 10 seconds > > off the sorting time (i.e. $0.10 per package). The problem is, it makes > > a mistake 1% of the time. > > That's a valid line of argument in big business, these days, because > we've been conditioned to accept low quality. But there are places > where quality trumps all, and we're happy to pay for that. Allow me to > expound two examples. > > 1) Amazon > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1782010165/evertype-20 > > I bought this book a while ago. It's about the size of a typical > paperback. It arrived in a box too large for it on every dimension, > with absolutely no packaging. I complained. Clearly their algorithm > was: "Most stuff will get there in good enough shape, so people can't > be bothered complaining. And when they do complain, it's cheaper to > ship them another for free than to debate with them on chat." You're missing my point. Amazon's (short-term) goal is to increase their market share by undercutting everybody on price. They have implemented a box-packing algorithm which clearly has a bug in it. You are complaining that they failed to deliver your purchase in good condition, and apparently don't care. You're right, they don't. The cost to them to manually correct this situation exceeds the value. This is one shipment. It doesn't matter. You are one customer, you don't matter either. Seriously. This may be annoying to you, but it's good business for Amazon. For them, fast and cheap is absolutely better than correct. I'm not saying this is always the case. Clearly, there are companies which have been very successful at producing a premium product (Apple, for example). I'm not saying that fast is always better than correct. I'm just saying that correct is not always better than fast. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
