March 27, 2024 • 56 mins
This week, we tackle a thorny topic: Should products be political? And to be clear, we don't mean brand messaging. Instead, our focus is products, and whether makers should intentionally imbue their products with their politics.
FOLLOW-UPS – 01:15
Eno—a groundbreaking generative film by Gary Hustwit
Apple Vision Pros & Cons
Hugo Barra on Apple Vision Pro
SHOULD PRODUCTS BE POLITICAL – 05:34
Herbert Simons–The Sciences of the Artificial
Scenius or Genius?
Ulm School of Design
Bauhaus
Brasilia—Inside Brazil’s ‘cautionary tale’
‘Republicans buy sneakers, too’
The Last Dance
Air Jordan V
Why ‘Do the Right Thing’ Is Still a Great Movie (paywall)
Ursula K. Le Guin—National Book Foundation speech
How Tesla Became the Elon Musk Co.
Yes, Those Viral Patagonia Tags Are Real
SUVs with front ‘blind zones’
Why Constraints Are Good for Innovation
Americans Are Canceling More of Their Streaming Services (paywall)
Sony says independent player status paying off
The Lucas Plan
THE PLAN documentary
WEEKLY RECS – 46:37
NOMOS Club Campus, ref. 715.GB
NOMOS Glashütte and Bauhaus
iFixit
What Is Right To Repair?
CLOSING & PREVIEW – 55:01
****
Rant, rave or otherwise via email at LearnMakeLearn@gmail.com or on Threads @LearnMakeLearnShow.
CREDITS
Theme: Vendla / Today Is a Good Day / courtesy of www.epidemicsound.com
Drum hit: PREL / Musical Element 85 / courtesy of www.epidemicsound.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Ernest (00:03):
Hello and welcome to Learn Make Learn where we share
qualitative and quantitativeperspectives on products to help
you make better.
My name is Ernest Kim and I'mjoined by my friend and co host
Joachim Groeger.
Hey Joachim, how's it going?
Joachim (00:19):
I'm doing well, Ernest.
I don't think there's any bigeventful thing going on right
now.
No one's ill.
Everyone's doing fine.
No, actually, scratch that.
I just realized.
Last week, there was a liceoutbreak.
In my middle child school, wejust said, we're not going to
get involved in this wholething.
We just kept him at home
Ernest (00:40):
oh,
Joachim (00:41):
he's small enough.
So it's not a big deal.
But that was the way we couldavoid lice.
Otherwise, I would have beentalking to you while scratching
my head and hoping that itwasn't lice.
But thankfully, it's not.
How about you have, how is yourhouse drama doing?
let's get into that.
Ernest (00:55):
Oh, it's, uh, it's, it's ongoing.
We're still waiting to get the,uh, skylight fixed that we
talked about the last time thatour, one of our skylights was
shattered by a falling treelimb.
So, uh, still hoping to get thatfixed this week, fingers
crossed, uh, but yeah, TBD onthat.
All right.
(01:17):
is episode 12 and today ourtopic is should products be
political?
And we'll dive into that ingreat detail in just a minute,
but let's start with some followups to our previous episode,
Scenius or Genius.
Joachim, do you have any followups to share?
Joachim (01:36):
I have a quick one.
I'm still kicking myself.
I didn't mention it last timesince everything was about the
phrase seniors and it's fromBrian Eno.
I've completely failed tomention that there is a Brian
Eno documentary that is, makingthe rounds right now in cinemas.
and it's getting screened veryslowly in select cinemas because
the experience is very unique.
(01:57):
So it's a documentary film madeby Gary Hustwood.
I hope I'm pronouncing thatcorrectly.
He is famous for having done adocumentary on the typeface
Helvetica.
And then he was, he continuedmaking a trilogy of
documentaries, includingObjectified, Urbanized.
And then he did a documentaryabout Dieter Rams.
And now he's done a documentaryabout Brian Eno.
(02:19):
And this documentary is agenerative documentary, he lets
some kind of algorithm in thebackground, reassemble the
footage in different ways sothat each audience that sees it
in one city versus another citywill be experiencing a different
documentary film.
and it's super experimental,super exciting, taps right back
into the generative work thatBrian Eno had been doing.
(02:42):
I put that out there as look upscreenings for that, because
it's city by city, so if you'rein a, in the right spot at the
right time, you might be able tocatch it and have a totally
unique experience from anyoneelse watching it in the cinemas.
How about you, Ernest?
What's your follow up this week?
Oh, should I?
Oh, sorry.
Did you
Ernest (02:59):
no, no, no, no, no,
Joachim (03:00):
to add to that?
Ernest (03:01):
no, I just, that's a, I think that's a fantastic one.
Do you happen to know the titleof the movie?
Joachim (03:06):
It is called Eno.
Ernest (03:08):
Oh, okay.
Joachim (03:09):
pure and simple.
Ernest (03:11):
I hope it's going to show in my area.
I'd really love to see it.
I actually wanted to go back alittle bit and share a follow up
to our second episode, which wastitled Apple Vision Pros and
Cons.
And that was our discussion of,the Apple Vision Pro, but it was
really focused on the broaderconcept of spatial computing.
And my follow up to that is ablog post by a person named Hugo
(03:34):
Barra, who led VR at Meta from2017 through 2020.
he was a product VP at Xiaomibefore that and held high level
product management roles inGoogle's Android group before
that.
So Barra is someone who,Definitely knows a thing or two
about product management andabout consumer electronics and
(03:55):
about VR.
And in this blog post, he shareshis unvarnished opinion on Apple
vision pro, including manyfascinating nuggets that only
someone with an insider'sperspective on consumer VR
products could offer.
And I also found Barra's postinteresting because it's written
(04:16):
from the perspective of aproduct manager.
So if you want to see how a highlevel product manager thinks and
articulates their ideas, hispost is a great read.
Um, and it's worth noting that.
But Barra no longer works in theVR space.
He's currently the CEO of ahealth tech startup.
And I didn't get the sense thathe was holding anything back in
(04:39):
his assessment of Apple visionpro or in his takes on how
Meta's quest and quest prodevices compare to vision pro.
So it's, I think a really uniqueperspective.
It is a long post, but I foundit really enlightening and easy
to read.
And, uh, we'll include a link tothat in the show notes.
Joachim (04:58):
ha.
You're building tension, youknow, telling us where he comes
down and that we have to read itourselves to see if he's, uh, a
fanboy or not.
Ernest (05:06):
Yeah, I think it's, good to not give anything away.
And it's A pretty nuancedperspective, you know, which I
think, um, isn't a shocker whenyou realize that he is somebody
who is has experience doingthis.
So I think he sees a lot of theshades of gray, you know, it's
not just black and white forhim.
So, um, I think folks who areinterested in product and making
(05:28):
products will find a lot, uh, ofinterest in this piece All
right, well, now let's get on toour main topic.
Um, I don't think anyonelistening in the U.
S.
needs to be reminded that 2024is a presidential election year
here in the States.
Uh, which means that politics,which is always a hot topic, is
(05:49):
just getting ready to boil over,especially online.
And so this led us to wonder,should products be political?
and uh, as I mentioned in lastweek's episode, we haven't
discussed our perspectives onthis in advance.
So Joachim, I'd love to hearyour take on this.
I'm dying to hear what youthink.
(06:11):
Should products ever bepolitical?
Joachim (06:13):
Where do you start?
So I, There's a perspective outthere that says design is
political, juststraightforwardly.
Of course it is.
and I'm going to lean on HerbSimon, who is the founding
father of computer science,artificial intelligence, By
training, actually, I think hewas, well, he did work in
(06:34):
economics as well.
But he wrote this book, TheSciences of the Artificial, and
he has this tidbit that Ithought was quite, compelling
and useful for thisconversation.
He says, Everyone designs, whodevises, courses of action aimed
at changing existing situationsinto preferred ones.
The intellectual activity thatproduces material artifacts is
(06:55):
no different fundamentally fromthe one that prescribes remedies
for a sick patient or the onethat devises a new sales plan
for a company or a socialwelfare policy for a state.
So, he's just calling.
Everything design and everythingthat's designed is shaping
choices and behaviors.
And if you're doing that, thenyou can take the next step to
(07:15):
saying, well, you're shapingbehavior decisions.
And he mentions explicitlysocial welfare policy for a
state.
You're immediately getting intothe political domain.
You are shaping how people.
behave.
Um, and that is a version ofpolitics.
So that's how I'm, I've beenframing it in my mind as design
and product innovation.
(07:37):
These products shape humaninteractions and behaviors, and
therefore they are inherentlypolitical.
But then I was thinking aboutinherently political.
That phrase also is, seems funkyto me because If we dig up
artifacts from way back when andwe look at these objects, they
(07:59):
don't transmit the politicalsituation in which they were
created at all.
You need context, you need tounderstand that you need other
evidence that tells you thisrepresents something to this
person and their standing insociety was here and this is how
the society was organized andtherefore this product has
meaning in this way.
anything that's shaping humanbehavior and human decision
(08:21):
making is political.
the objects that we're designinghave that facet, but it's within
the context that they operate inthat they have their full weight
of their political power.
The starting point and then justbrief excursion kind of
referencing our discussion lastweek where we're talking about
Braun.
(08:43):
Braun and Dieter Rams, ofcourse, from the old school,
ULM, that is a place that designschool was heavily, heavily
influenced by Bauhaus.
And Bauhaus was a design schoolthat had a very explicit
political motivation for itsdesigns.
the notion of minimalism andcleanliness and rational design.
(09:08):
The motivating factor behind allof that was to create products
that could be mass produced.
And they wanted people to haveaccess to these straightforward
products so they could improvetheir lives.
And a lot of their projectsinvolved responding to, um,
social needs, housing that couldbe produced quickly,
(09:28):
efficiently, and worked foreveryone.
Furniture that could be massproduced and accessed by
everyone, and it would be welldesigned.
So there's a strong politicaldimension to it.
But when you then take thoseproducts to today, and you just
look at them, we just look atthem as pretty objects, they've
lost that revolutionary,subversive, political power,
(09:51):
unless you pick up the books,you read the writing, and you
see the context again.
So, those guys were veryexplicit that they wanted to
reshape society.
And a lot of them then went offand did that, right?
They designed cities and, andall kinds of stuff that altered
the way people operated.
I mean, Brasilia is a perfectexample of what happens when the
Baha school gets to design awhole city and Truly how awful
(10:14):
it is, it's just, it's aterrible place.
Allegedly just awful.
I'm really wrestling with thisone because I, I get, I, I get
that when we are making productsor we're making decisions, we
are shaping human behavior, butwe're doing that in the context
that we're living in.
And so, um, it's tricky, right?
You feel like your impact isquite ephemeral in some ways
(10:35):
when you're thinking about whatare the political implications
of what you're doing.
Um, and then, you know, somethings seem to me timeless and
very obvious.
So if I'm working at a socialmedia company and we're just
mining all this data from peopleand we're storing it and
tracking everything and startcrossing over into tracking
behaviors that our users are notaware that they are tracking.
(10:57):
I don't say mean our users,anyone that I know of, I'm just
saying ours in the generalsense.
then you're crossing over intothe political, then it becomes a
system of control.
And then that gets a bit tricky,doesn't it?
So that was a very, that's how Ifeel about it.
It's very open.
Uh, and so now I'm very curiousto, to just see where you're
(11:17):
standing on all of this on.
It's like, what's the angle thatyou've been coming from?
Because as you said, we have notdiscussed this ahead of time.
So we're just really in, in ourlittle echo chambers and now
we're going to connect themtogether and see what comes out.
Ernest (11:30):
Yeah, I love that you had proposed this topic because,
not only is it timely, I thinkit is just a really great
opportunity for us to just putour own thinking out there and
bounce off of each other.
And I think it's worth, too,making a distinction between a
(11:50):
brand making politicalstatements products being
political, because I think it'svery easy for a brand to put
out, especially nowadays, putout political statements on
social media.
So I don't think that's whatwe're talking about.
I think we're talking more aboutproduct creation and, you know,
should, uh, you endeavor as aperson, a group of people making
(12:13):
a product to imbue that productwith political perspectives and.
I very much come at this fromthe perspective that you
articulated that comes from HerbSimon.
You know, my take on this hasbeen that the best, most
innovative products are alwaysprogressive, you know, not
(12:33):
progressive with a capital P asin represented, representing the
progressive party, butprogressive with a lowercase p
in that innovative products are,I think, in my experience, the
product of people who in one wayor another imagine a better
future, you know, what is thedefinition of progressive?
(12:55):
It's to move forward, to advancethe world forward in some way.
And that's the goal of every,every project.
Innovator that I've encountered,whether or not they even call
themselves an innovator, youknow, people who tend to
innovate and make innovativeproducts are people who tend to
want to move things forward insome way to improve the current
state of the world in some way.
(13:15):
So I think to that extent, thebest products are just innately
imbued with a politicalperspective in that they're
progressive.
It's just that it might not beYou know, about political
parties.
Um, now one example that came tomind when you raised this topic
(13:41):
was.
in the footwear world, which is,you know, a world that I have a
lot of experience in.
But, there's a sort of infamousexample, which involves Michael
Jordan.
and I think to explain this, Ihave to provide a little bit of
context here.
Michael Jordan grew up with, Andwent to university in North
Carolina, and I think his familycontinues to live there.
(14:03):
and in 1990, the state's longtime arch conservative senator
named Jesse Helms, Jesse Helms,sorry, uh, was up for reelection
and for the first time reallyfaced a challenge.
And, for context here, Helmshad.
called the 1964 Civil RightsAct, the single most dangerous
(14:27):
piece of legislation everintroduced in the Congress.
And he was essentially, he wasan open racist.
Um, and he was up againstsomeone named Harvey Gantt, who
had been mayor of, uh, NorthCarolina's biggest city,
Charlotte, and was at the timetrying to become the Senate's
only black member.
And So at the time, many hadhoped that Michael Jordan would
(14:51):
come out and endorse Gantt andsupport his campaign, but Jordan
didn't.
And um, Helms went on to winthat election over Gant by a
pretty slim margin.
I think it was something like 52point something to 47 point
something.
So it's pretty close race.
And then a few years later in abook written by a sports writer
(15:13):
named Sam Smith, who wrote Thisbook called the Jordan Rules
that was very famous, uh, but hewrote a follow up book, um, and
in that he noted that the reasonJordan didn't back Gantt was
that, uh, in Jordan's supposedwords, Republicans buy shoes
too, and for, for decades, thatwas considered hearsay because
(15:37):
at the time, the, uh, author SamSmith had said that this was
something that Jordan had saidto a friend, uh, Uh, so it
wasn't something either directlyand, but it had really kind of
dogged Jordan for a long time.
And then in the, um, really Ithought excellent ESPN
documentary titled The LastDance that aired in 2020 and is
(15:59):
now available on Netflix, Jordanfinally acknowledged that he did
actually say that he did saythat Republicans buy shoes too,
and that's why he didn'tbackant.
Um, In the documentary, Jordanwent on to say, uh, that, um,
you know, I'm quoting him here.
I don't think that statementneeds to be corrected because I
said it in jest on a bus,unquote.
(16:22):
But then he went on to say, uh,again, I'm quoting Jordan here.
I never thought of myself as anactivist.
I thought of myself as abasketball player.
I wasn't a politician.
I was, I was playing my sport.
I was focused on my craft.
Was that selfish?
Probably, but that was my energyunquote.
Joachim (16:43):
Hmm.
Interesting.
Wow.
Ernest (16:45):
yeah, so, he made a political decision and yet the,
wildly popular products thatbore his name in that era were
absolutely unapologeticallyprogressive.
So, again, for context here, forfolks who aren't sneakerheads.
This was, the 1990 Senate racewe're talking about.
(17:06):
And 1990 was the year that theAir Jordan V was released, and
uh, you know, it, it wasabsolutely groundbreaking, was
absolutely progressive.
you know, you make the greatpoint that Looking back on
products, the, the, anypolitical sentiment is lost, but
I, I like to believe that thesereally innovative, progressive
(17:31):
products, even if people don't,um, overtly understand the
underlying politics, that itstill rubs off on them in some
way.
That, You can't see andexperience these sorts of
products like products that cameout of the Bauhaus and even if
(17:54):
you don't explicitly get themessage, it still changes you in
some way, I believe, at least Ilike to believe, and that it's a
little bit of roundabout, but italso reminds me of, The great
Spike Lee film, Do the RightThing, from 1989.
And, if you haven't seen it, youknow, you have to see it.
(18:15):
It's an amazing film, butthere's this incredible scene
where Spike Lee, who plays acharacter called Mookie, is
interacting with a character, awhite character named Pino,
who's played by John Turturro.
And in it, it, Turturro'scharacter Pinot is a, very
openly racist character, butthey have this great exchange
(18:38):
where Mki says, points out that,Hey, Pinot, who's your favorite
basketball player?
And he says, magic Johnson.
And then he says, Mook, uh, MKIsays, well, who's your favorite
movie star?
And Pinot replies, Eddie Murphyand Mki says, who's your
favorite?
Musician, and Pino replies,Prince, or, um, basically Mookie
pulls it out of him that Princeis his favorite musician.
(19:01):
So even though Totoro'scharacter, Pino, is still a
racist character, and obviouslythis is fiction, but I do think
that these things change you,and maybe it takes some time for
these, for those changes toreach their, uh, logical
(19:24):
conclusion.
But maybe Pino as a characterhadn't been changed yet, but I
think over time, the exposure tothese things changes you in a
way that they wouldn't have ifyou didn't experience them.
So I guess maybe it's a longwinded way of me is, for me to
say that I think it was abenefit that more people,
(19:48):
including those white folks gotexposed to products like their
Jordan 5.
Because I do think that theseproducts that are imbued with
this progressive mindset, thisprogressive attitude, do change
things and change people's mindsover the long term.
(20:08):
And so I'd rather people beexposed to those types of
products than not, I guess, ifthat makes any sense.
Joachim (20:15):
It does, Ernest.
It's just another form of thatrespect that I was alluding to
as well, is that you are makingstuff that shifts a behavior,
and it shouldn't be takenlightly, right?
I don't think we're hiding thefact that we're kind of
progressively minded individualsat this point.
It's interesting.
I wasn't expecting you to kindof go this way because your
starting point was this verydisappointing moment in Michael
(20:37):
Jordan's, engagement withpolitics.
And the same year that he failsto take a clear stand, he
doesn't alienate anyone.
And therefore his shoe gets tohave the broadest possible
audience.
And then the logic is they'reexperiencing something that is
(20:58):
different and potentiallysubversive and these small
exposures are something that aregonna shift the way a person
thinks overall.
Yeah, I think there's somethingin there.
There's something about thatthat I find quite intriguing
when, the ugly sneaker phase ofBalenciaga was coming out, it
was very subversive and strange.
(21:20):
Uh, in a s in a small, veryfashion focused way, I want to
say, not in a full blownpolitical statement it was quite
repellent for a lot of people,right?
It just didn't make sense.
And then that exposure andhaving seen it moves the
goalposts and then this kind ofUgly sneaker phase becomes,
(21:42):
everyone's going to have an uglysneaker now.
There's something about,definitely going to the extreme
of something.
And then that setting up aconversation that would not have
happened otherwise.
And I think that's related tobasically, people being able to
show possible worlds of what ispossible.
Coming right back to episodeone, I think we talked about
(22:04):
Ursula Gwynne, you had theReference to one of her works
that was your recommendation forthe week and then a discussion,
of her National Book Awardprize, where she
Ernest (22:12):
Right.
Joachim (22:13):
different worlds and the ability to imagine different
worlds.
I think Tesla is a good exampleof someone taking a very
specific stand on what theythink the future looks like.
The future is electric cars andQuite an individualistic
perspective on the world.
An alternative would have beenTesla, be a electric bus
(22:34):
company, and they designed thebest electric bus.
Damn electric buses for publictransit, and then they start
lobbying cities and manipulatingcities and they're going to
reshape how our cities operateas, public transit driven
entities
Ernest (22:50):
you know that you mentioned Tesla and that reminds
me of, a really interestinginterview.
I heard a lot of, I can'tremember off the top of my head
where, which podcast this wasup.
We'll track it down and includeit in the show notes, but a lot
of people forget that Tesla wasnot started by Elon Musk.
It was acquired by him.
It was actually started by twoguys who had.
(23:12):
made it big, pretty big in, um,the digital space.
And, had a lot of money to spendand we're very interested in
more sustainable ways to getaround.
And so, I forget when this was,but this was some time ago and
they, And, they were interestedin cars, so they wanted to have
(23:34):
a good driving experience, butwithout the environmental impact
of a internal combustion car.
And they looked and they foundthat there weren't any good
options, What they concluded wasthat the only people at that
point making electric cars werepeople who hated cars.
And,, so you saw that in thevehicles that were available.
They were all, I think thelanguage they use was something
(23:55):
like they were like penaltyboxes.
They were just cars for peoplewho just didn't want you to
drive.
And, and so consequently, no onebought electric cars.
And so they.
Then took it upon themselves tomake electric cars for people
who actually want, who enjoydriving and want to drive, but
(24:16):
want to reduce theirenvironmental footprint.
So, and then, so it went on anda long acquired the company and
push them out.
And the rest is history, but Ithink that's an example where.
Politics got in the way ofmaking a good product and I
would argue got in the way ofhaving a net positive effect on
(24:39):
the environment because likethese folks, these two guys said
they, they found that themarketplace was occupied by
these products that were made bypeople, whose politics led them
to make really bad products,really bad cars.
And I think you can have thisargument of, Oh, okay.
Should anyone have a car?
Should we all be taking publictransit?
(25:00):
But, you know, in terms of thereality of the United States at
the very least, that's publictransit for all is just not
something that's realisticallyavailable to everybody.
So given that, could we at leasthelp people reduce their impact
and offer something that givesthem the things that they want
(25:21):
from a car while significantlyreducing their impact on the
environment.
that's a case where I think thepolitics gets in the way.
You could insert anything there.
It could be politics.
It could be, bottom line driventhinking, anything that gets in
the way of creating a greatproduct is a negative.
(25:41):
Um, and I think if you put thatinsert thing here ahead of the
needs of your customers, you'relikely to end up with a bad
product, which is somethingwe've talked about in the past
as well.
But you know, I see no reasonwhy Politics would necessarily
(26:04):
lead to a bad product.
Like, example would bePatagonia, which is a company
that very much wears itspolitics on its sleeve.
it informs everything that theydo from their brand messaging to
the products that they make andhow they make them.
And, I think it, it's helpedthem to make great products and
to really stand out in a crowdedmarketplace.
(26:28):
And let them to create thiswhole new way of, the way the
business itself is structured,which is something we've talked
about in past episodes as well.
uh, you know, I wouldn't wantanyone to take anything we've
said to suggest that we think,uh, a company driven by politics
is, default de facto, going tobe an unsuccessful company.
(26:48):
I don't think that's the case atall, but I think what helps
Patagonia is that their politicsare also fundamentally
progressive.
And like we've talked about, Ithink all in my experience, all.
of the best, most innovativeproducts are fundamentally
progressive.
I think where you'd bechallenged is if your products,
if your politics are regressive,um, I think that you'd be
(27:12):
challenged there to find a wayto make successful products that
are also regressive.
They might work for a littlewhile.
One example that comes to mind,there are these atrocious.
gigantic trucks and SUVs whereyou literally need a forward
facing camera so that you don'trun over little kids because
they're below your sightline.
(27:33):
Those sorts of products are outthere and there are people
buying them, but I think thatvery quickly they're going to,
no longer exist.
You know, I I think it's apretty short term phenomenon.
So, you can have short termsuccess with things like this,
but I don't think that thatregressive sort of products
historically, I can't think ofvery many examples of regressive
(27:55):
products that have had a longuh, shelf life.
I guess that would just be moreevidence from my perspective
that it's about beingprogressive and about wanting to
create a better future, for yourcustomers.
Or even if it's, even if you'remaking it for yourself, it's
just about that desire to createa better future.
Joachim (28:17):
Kind of getting back to a heuristic or a thing that
grounds the discussion, I feelthe essence of what we're both
trying to get at is there arehard constraints that we can't
overcome.
when you're innovating, you takethat stuff seriously.
So you respect the fact thatthere are a finite number of
(28:37):
resources.
There's only so much lithium.
There's only so many hours inthe day that we can do things.
If you ignore these really basicconstraints on you,, where is
the incentive to innovate?
It just becomes very, easy tojust go to a, uh, for lack of
better phrase, lowest commondenominator, the lowest energy,
highest quick return, approachto the problem.
(28:59):
I mean, something as simple asunderstanding that there are
only so many hours in a day thata person has.
would really discipline evenentertainment, something that we
see as so harmless.
But the decision as a studio toconstantly churn out stuff You
are not respecting theconstraints that operate on your
customer base because it cannotbe 15 TV shows, 20 movies, all
(29:23):
in one year, full blast across,every possible, franchise that
you own.
And so being unconstrained youdon't have that hard
conversation with each otherwhere you say, do we really need
to have another series thatexplains some filler or some
inconsistency or plot loopholethat was from the 70s?
You know, maybe we don't need tofill it in, you know, we don't
(29:46):
need to do that.
It's going to be cool.
Don't worry about it, you know.
Maybe that's kind of theessential thing is that Being
really attuned to the realconstraints that you face means
that you will have to face tradeoffs.
You will think carefully aboutthose choices and you will
understand that it isn't alllimitless
Ernest (30:03):
Well, actually, I think your point about streaming is
really interesting in that Ithink sometimes people might
think that a discussion likethis is very abstract and, pie
in the sky, but I think thestreaming point is a really good
one in that it shows that itdoes, these sorts of
conversations do have a Veryreal ramifications in terms of
(30:25):
business outcomes.
So like you mentioned, it waslike everyone and their brother
and sister thought, let's starta new streaming service and
let's just, everyone make agazillion shows, but now we're
seeing that there just aren'tenough hours in the day to do
that.
That's just not a reality.
and as a consequence, you'reseeing.
(30:48):
Like say Max, canceling ordestroying movies that have been
made, just because they don'thave the capacity to show them,
they need to take the tax breakor, other streaming services
that are on the verge ofshutting down just because there
aren't enough hours in the day,there aren't enough people, uh,
eyeballs out there to watch thisstuff.
(31:08):
So if you.
had taken that perspective, andunderstood that reality at the
outset, you would have come to adifferent strategy.
And interestingly, there is acase study here of one studio
that did take a different tack,which is Sony.
I don't know that they did it.
intentionally, but they made thedecision to not start a
(31:31):
streaming platform.
And that's been very successfulfor them because they've been
able to retain that classicmodel of you produce a movie.
It's in theaters for a certainamount of time, and then you
license it out to differentplatforms for a certain amount
of time.
And, that's a very profitablemodel.
(31:51):
maybe you wouldn't have as, youknow, the profits wouldn't be
quite as big if you were able todevelop a hugely successful
streaming platform, thelikelihood of that happening is
very low.
And consequently, they didn'thave that huge cash outlay that
all these other players, um, hadto put out there to start their
streaming platform.
(32:12):
So, there are really, very,concrete, ramifications that
come from this sort of thinking,So I, you know, I think there's
a grounding to it.
if we thought about for thefolks making products on a day
to day basis, what advice mightwe have for them?
I don't know, Do you have anythoughts on that, Joachim?
(32:32):
Like, how would you translatethis day to day?
Joachim (32:35):
The discussion around the streaming thing is really, a
good framing device for thisbecause, I think if you're in a
business and you reallyIlluminate exactly what your
constraints are.
In a most unromantic waypossible.
If you dispassionately actuallylook at those constraints and
ask yourself, you know, is thissomething that is worth doing,
worth continuing doing, orshould we rethink it from the
(32:57):
ground up?
I think you'll find somesurprising answers.
And so, we don't know how Sonydecided but if I was advising
some of these people I wouldreally hone in on those
constraints.
And, one of them is the timeconstraint there's only so many
hours in a day that a personwill dedicate to consumption of,
of media.
(33:17):
And also we should be asking,this is the kind of the other
political aspect, the valuequestion.
Should I be taking that timeaway from those people?
Or is there something else thatI can do that.
makes them see the value in whatI'm bringing, as opposed to just
my constant presence issomething that will make them
(33:37):
want to stay with me.
my absence gives them space,which then allows them to come
back and consume something withvalue and have a much longer
lifeline with me.
So I'm talking very abstractlyhere, but let's think about the
streaming one as a reallyprecise thing.
Streaming is a highly physicalbusiness.
The idea that video is all zerosand ones and it's just floating
(34:02):
up there in the cloud, I'dalready alluded to the fact that
the cloud is a total misnomer.
These are server centers.
This is computers, racks andracks of computers.
And not only that you need tohave a content delivery network,
meaning you need to have serversthat sit close to your
customers, because if they'renot close to your customers, you
(34:24):
can't get the content to themfast enough.
So that physical constraint ofjust, I need to ship bits across
fiber optic.
That's a physical process.
I'm really moving things throughcables.
So I want to be close to mycustomers.
So I need to have racks at theISPs and I need to negotiate
with them to have my racks inthere.
(34:46):
And then I have to go throughthe complicated math, which is
something that Netflix hasworked really hard on is how do
I populate those contentdelivery servers with the right
pieces of content so that peoplecan just get it instantaneously.
So that hard physicalconstraint, If I was asked, you
know, to think about, should westart a streaming service?
Do you realize that that'swhat's happening?
(35:07):
You need to be physically closeto people.
This is like setting up aphysical store and you need,
there's only so much rack spaceand there's only so much, cable
that can get you close to thosepeople.
What's going to happen?
You're going to start competingand guess who's going to be
extracting from it's the ISPsbecause they're the monopolists.
So, do you want to get into thatbattle, or do you want to let
someone else figure that out,while you do what you know how
(35:30):
to do, which is, as a studio,make movies, and then negotiate
hard, get licensing agreements,the streaming thing is a really
interesting world because it isa physical business, but we
really don't think of it thatway.
so that was a long excursioninto just illuminating the real
constraints that operate on abusiness like that.
And I think in that, then youwould already start saying, do
(35:50):
we want to get into this game?
And do we have the expertise?
Do we want to build thatexpertise?
And then, what is the physicalimpact that we're putting onto
this world?
We're just going to duplicatecatalogs across racks that are
sitting there pushing contentmore.
And then we're competing forthat hard constraint of time
that people have.
And it gets very unromantic,right, because it's not the
person who has that, what was itthat you said last time was the
(36:10):
red flag, like these pithy, youdon't want to be the
Ernest (36:14):
you don't want to be
Joachim (36:14):
you want to be the first bird or
Ernest (36:15):
exactly.
Joachim (36:16):
these kind of buzzy, dumb, analogies or images that
have zero real content aroundthem.
This is just really boring,fundamental thinking, that will
focus the mind on exactly whatit is that you're doing.
Maybe that's what it is.
Illuminate the constraints andbe really honest with yourself
(36:37):
what those constraints looklike.
And then, given thoseconstraints, come back to our
favorite thing.
Do you think you have a way ofactually meeting the consumer in
exactly the right spot, giventhat you know the full picture
of the constraints that areoperating on You?
What about you, Ernest?
What is the, how do you approachit?
How do you think about any ofthis?
Ernest (36:56):
Yeah, I know this is going to sound like a massive
oversimplification, but I guessmy advice would be to really
focus on your outcome.
And, drive your process in a waythat will get you to that
outcome, knowing that maybe ithas to happen incrementally.
(37:19):
That maybe you're not going toget to that end state overnight,
don't let your politics get inthe way of the outcome you're
trying to deliver on.
A Steve Jobs ism that I'mreminded of here is, I think I
referenced this in the pastwhere he said, I don't care
about being right, I just careabout success.
You know, and, and, and as aconsequence, what he said was, I
(37:42):
would be willing to change mymind.
know, if someone came to me witha better argument, a better
point of view.
You know, point of view, I wouldchange my mind because I wanted
to get to that successfuloutcome.
So, um, I know that that couldbe difficult.
You know, I think people arereally passionate about their
politics, about theirperspectives, but It's kind of
(38:04):
a, uh, cutting off your nose tospite your face situation,
right?
Cause if you're quote unquoteright in your politics, but you
end up with a product that noone buys and no one experiences,
what have you achieved?
Right.
It's goes back to that.
Tesla example as well, where allthese people making these
(38:26):
electric cars that no onewanted, you know, hey, they
delivered on their politics, butthey made these products that no
one wanted.
So what did you actuallyachieve?
So, um, I, that would be myadvice to folks, you know, that
outcome.
Know that thing you want to getto.
(38:47):
The buzzword y way to say itwould be North Star.
I kind of hate that expression.
so I would just say, know thething that you really want to
get to That outcome you want todeliver on.
And then, um, find a way to getthere through great products
that, you know, people are goingto want to buy into.
(39:08):
Um, and I think your, the pointyou made early on is a great
one, which is that, you know, adecade from now, no one's going
to know what your politics were,but they'll know whether that
was a great product or not.
Right.
so, it, I know, and again, Iknow that's tough.
It's a lot easier said thandone, but um, especially for
(39:28):
young folks, I think that's animportant thing to, to take on
board is recognizing that youyou ultimately have to make a
great product or else no one'sgoing to buy into it.
Joachim (39:39):
I think it also comes back to, know your limits as an
innovator.
Maybe it's something else thatyou should be focusing on.
I think maybe that's where thepolitical ambition and your
skill set have to, to line up inthe right spot, right?
If it's something that you'renot, or it's not the right
venue, right?
A Marvel movie is maybe not theplace to start doing it.
(40:00):
Although, I will say that, RyanCoogler did a very good job with
Black Panther.
That is a perfect example ofeverything lining up really
beautifully for that.
But if there's a mismatch, asyou said, you're just doing a
disservice to everything at thesame time, and nothing comes out
of it, which is just very, verysad.
Your ambition to fix thingsshould be matched with the area
that you want to work in.
(40:21):
Maybe it is, again, anillumination of the constraints
of what you're operating in.
You are in the, in the bigstudio system, and therefore,
how can you.
within that really, reallyfocused constraint, be
subversive and get what you wantthroughout at the end of it.
And then if there is no way,maybe you need to take a deep
breath and move to Europe and doit there where small cinema
(40:42):
still thrives.
Ernest (40:43):
To your point about kind of knowing your constraints too,
I'd say coming back to thatexample of the people making
terrible electric cars, I thinka great way to channel their
energy would have been to makeelectric bikes.
If you hate cars, don't make anelectric car, you know, right?
Make an electric bike, find away to channel it in a zone that
(41:05):
is more likely to be successful.
Joachim (41:08):
Um, actually just a brief excursion into another
historical example of where thelineup between politics and,
product innovation go hand inhand.
I was listening to an interviewwith someone who mentioned a
British plan called the Lucasplan, which was made by the
workers at Lucas Aerospace.
Lucas Aerospace was a defensecontractor in the UK for, yeah,
(41:32):
for a good chunk of time.
And I think in the seventies,they were facing major
headwinds.
They made fighter jet parts andmissile parts.
So pure war machine type stuff.
and.
The government at the time said,we're not going to bail you out.
You need to figure out how torestructure your company.
Management was quite open tobeing nationalized because it
(41:52):
would have maintained.
the integrity of the companystructure as it was, so they
would have not been out of thejob, but they would have had
safe haven under governmentcontrol.
the workers though, I mean, theywere unionized.
So just whatever you think aboutunions, just put that aside for
a second.
These people got together andthey actually formed a plan of
(42:14):
how to pivot this company.
That was aligned with wherethese workers wanted the company
to go.
So part of the plan was prettysubversive, which is they wanted
to make sure the company wasowned by the employees.
But the other bit that was evenmore subversive they provided
detailed, incredibly designs andbusiness plans and business
(42:38):
strategies for totally newproduct lines that they wanted
the company to build.
And they had done this with thecooperation of everyone, not the
upper management, but theengineers, the shop workers, the
machinists, everyone was feedinginto this.
And their proposal involvedincredible things.
because they worked on, um,generating energy on fighter
(43:00):
jets, they knew about turbines.
we know how to generateelectricity from rotational
energy.
So let's make wind turbines.
they had designs for heat pumps,hybrid vehicles.
They knew how batteries andinternal combustion engines
could play nicely together.
So they designed Those from theground up.
So this plan had detailedblueprints, as well as the
(43:20):
economics of how that would playout.
And because everyone had pitchedin, they completely understood
how this would go from themachinists all the way up.
So that was, that's thebeautiful unification of the
politics, gathering all of thatknow how.
putting it together, and justmaking a super, super compelling
(43:42):
case for what this company coulddo in the future.
Of course, management found itway too subversive.
So they fired the leaders of thepeople that effort.
And this plan has just kind ofentered the mythology of what
could happen, what potentialcould have been achieved if they
had been listened to becausethey were well ahead of their
time.
Really, really impressive.
and in fact, there is adocumentary film, that we can
(44:04):
link to in the show notes thatis a 30 minute summary of the
whole thing.
It's actually a three hourdocumentary, which is on the
archive.
org, which we'll also link to.
I have not made it through thefull three hours.
But.
the 30 minute one I've done, andI've read, read a little about
the plan, but it's a reallyfascinating example of people
understanding the hardconstraints that they're
operating under, thespecialization that they have,
(44:25):
the political view that theywanted to bring to bear, and the
way the products then flow fromthat and their expertise.
And it was super political.
It was super subversive, tellingmanagement of a weapons company
to say, we're done with this.
We don't want to do thisanymore.
And this is what the future ofthe company looks like.
Incredible.
Absolutely incredible.
Ernest (44:42):
Wow, that's an amazing example.
I'm definitely going to checkout the video.
if we were to kind of get downto the brass tacks of the
question of should a product bepolitical, what would you say?
Joachim (44:56):
I would say it's unavoidable given the context.
It is, it is just the nature ofthe beast.
It is shaping people's decisionmaking.
It's shaping the way they viewthe world.
you're building a lens in manyways, sometimes for them to
filter what's happening in theworld.
That is inherently shapingbehavior.
So yeah, I kind of come down theHerb Simon school of things.
(45:17):
But yeah, there's something, butshould they be political?
Well, it's unavoidable, I guess.
What about you, Ernest?
Where are you on that?
Ernest (45:24):
Yeah, I think we're very much aligned because I would say
yes, because to your point, Ithink the best products, like
we've talked about, all expressa distinct point of view that is
rooted in the people who make ormade that product.
And so, invariably, if that'sthe case, then those products
(45:46):
will be political.
The only, but I would add tothat as a caveat is.
As I said earlier, keep thatbigger picture in mind because
you're not going to be able toachieve those aims you have if
the product isn't successful.
So, always think about that.
(46:07):
How can I deliver on this in away that is going to reach
people, at a fundamental levelbeyond, Do they agree with me on
this one issue or not?
Um, Because, if you putsomething out there and no one
buys it, what have you achieved?
All right.
Well, now that you've heard ourperspectives, we want to hear
(46:29):
from you.
Should products be political?
Let us know what you think atlearnmakelearn@gmail.com.
Now let's move on to ourrecommendations of the week and
I'll get us started, uh,previewing our next episode,
which is, which uh, is going tokind of deal with watches.
(46:52):
Uh, I thought I would, um,highlight a product that I just
purchased.
Purchased very recently,actually just arrived today.
And it's a watch, uh, from, uh,a German brand called Nomos and
it's their model called the clubcampus in electric green
reference seven one five, uh,specifically it's the reference
(47:12):
seven one five GB, which is theone that has the see through
Sapphire case back.
Uh, and it's in the 36millimeter diameter.
We'll provide a link to it inthe show notes.
But, um, Um, I wanted tohighlight this one.
I think it's a connection into,you've mentioned Joachim, uh,
kind of the Bauhaus movement andNomos design is very much rooted
in the kind of principles of theBauhaus movement.
(47:36):
But also I think it's a, agreat, a good example, a good
kind of case study in terms ofproduct strategy.
I don't want to get too into theweeds of the watch world, but in
recent years, especially duringthe pandemic era, when a lot of
people had a lot of disposableincome, watch prices really went
up significantly and Nomos waspart of that too.
(47:58):
They had, Before the pandemicintroduced a new line of
movements, automatic movementsthat were all engineered and
designed in house.
And so watches featuring thosemovements were more expensive,
but They kept their entry levelproducts as well, and the club
campus is an example of that.
people who aren't in the watchworld might not think that a 1,
(48:21):
700 watch is an entry levelproduct, but, in this world of,
fine watches, it's a veryaffordable watch for what you're
getting.
and so I think NOMOS was verywise to not, Get caught very
much like the example of thestreaming services.
You mentioned, you know, him oreverybody pursued streaming, a
lot of watch companies just wentcrazy with their pricing and
(48:43):
just everything in their linewent up by, uh,, huge
percentage, wise in terms ofcost, but Nomos was really.
I think smart and disciplined inkeeping watches that were
accessibly priced while addingsome that, did go up, but not to
an egregious degree.
So, and I think that speaks totheir values as a company as
(49:05):
well.
Yeah, they could have.
Just gone hog wild, like a lotof these other brands and,
jacked up the pricing of alltheir watches, but they didn't.
And I think that is a reflectionof their values as a company, a
company that wants to makewatches across a broad range,
and that would remainaccessible, um, to people, you
know, whether it's their firstwatch or, they just don't want
(49:27):
to spend tens of thousands ofdollars on a watch.
So, I thought for a lot ofreasons, it was a really nice
example of a.
beautiful product that, speaksto their values in terms of
watchmaking, but also in termsof making really great products
that a lot of people can access.
So, Nomos and in particular theClub Campus line, which is, I'd
(49:50):
say probably their mostaccessible line in terms of
price point.
Joachim (49:54):
Yeah, their price point is, I know this is, we're going
to sound like snobs, but it isentry level pricing, considering
what you're getting is, you'regetting a movement that is 95
percent manufactured in theirfactory in Glashütte in
Eastern,, formerly EasternGermany, you know,, and, uh,, a
place with deep, deep history inwatchmaking so yeah I appreciate
(50:18):
that they have stayed true tojust having a broad spectrum of
watches that is accessible.
You're right.
it is a representation of theirvalue system.
The watches are also veryfunctional and unadorned.
They are explicitly stating thatthey have influenced by Bauhaus.
The Tangente was the firstmodel, which is a heavily,
heavily lifting from olddesigns.
(50:39):
So yeah, I appreciate that.
That's a nice recommendation.
And also a good way to just showoff that you got yourself a new
watch, Ernest.
I love that it is literally, youdid text me and you said, it's
in the mail, it's supposed tocome on Monday.
So
Ernest (50:53):
yeah, arrived today.
Joachim (50:56):
I love that.
Well, on my end, I was going torecommend a website, ifixit.
com, kind of political as well,it's a product that you would,
you wouldn't think it'spolitical.
It's a website that offersvideos on how to repair your
technology, which touches on allof the topics that we've talked
about in the past.
(51:17):
Um, and they have used theirvideos to help people fix
problems.
laptops, cameras, all kinds ofthings.
They also do another series ofvideos, which is teardowns,
where they take, um, equipment,especially Apple equipment has
been their main focus and justbreak it apart, which is quite,
I mean, it's scary to seesomeone buy a brand new vision
(51:39):
pro and just start tearing itapart into its components, but
it provides It's an invaluableservice that you understand how
repairable an item is before youbuy it.
They were really on Apple whenthey started gluing in
components and just giving, theywould always end on a rating on
(51:59):
how repairable the device is.
What's really clever aboutiFixit is they show you how to
fix these devices.
They show you which items arefixable, so they get you, when
you're about to purchase, youcan do your research and figure
out, which item is repairable.
Uh, once you have the item, theyhold your hand and help you get,
uh, an understanding of how torepair the device.
(52:20):
And then they meet you exactlyat that moment, when you're
watching those videos and theysay, by the way, you'll need
some tools for this.
And here are tools that we havedesigned to help you.
explicitly for this purpose.
So what a great closed loop thatthey've created there of luring
you in with the video content isall free, the manuals are all
free, you can read everything.
(52:40):
So if you do have your owntools, you have your own
components, you can repair thesethings yourself.
For most of us, we don't havetime to figure out the
components.
We don't have the expertknowledge.
Well, we'll take their expertiseon board and we'll use that.
And so they give you packages onhow to replace a laptop monitor,
The whole thing they can helpyou with.
Keyboards, I think the butterflykeyboard was one that they
(53:02):
couldn't quite get becausethat's such a terrible keyboard.
If anyone remembers, that shouldbe a whole episode.
All the fails that Apple has hadand no one remembers, right?
Antenna gate, butterflykeyboards, I mean, it's not
great.
The website's great.
The products are great.
I I own a lot of the tools.
They're not crazy expensive.
There's this really funny battlethat's happening between Apple
(53:23):
and them.
For a long time, Apple wouldjust try and make it harder,
like creating screw heads that,only they had the tools for.
And then within a month, iFixitsaid, we've got the drill bits
that you need.
No problem, you can open up thisdevice.
And so they were in this tug ofwar with Apple and eventually
Apple just said, Oh, forget it.
We'll try and be morerepairable.
And it was a really pretty coolbattle.
(53:47):
And it's still ongoing.
they still call out Apple on allof these things.
So ifixit.
com, I recommend it.
If you do have an electronicdevice that needs repairing,
Probably the newer generationthings are going to be good.
There's that middle period inApple, which is not that great.
So yeah, my rec for the week.
iFixit.
com.
Ernest (54:04):
That's a great one.
I'm embarrassed to admit that inthe early days of iFixit, I was
very anti iFixit.
I think, uh, I had kind of aprimacy of the maker mindset and
I felt like, oh, they're gettingin the way of progress and Apple
should be allowed to make theirproducts any way they want to.
And the only way you get aproduct that slim is by, gluing
(54:27):
things together but.
In recent years, I've reallycome around, I think, I really
admire the fact that they wereso ahead of these issues, and
have been the advocate for Theowner, if you buy the product,
you should be able to repair itand modify it.
And, I've really come around tothat.
(54:47):
I, and I, uh, admire them forhaving, been so ahead of at
least, certainly ahead of me onthat.
So I think that's a greatrecommendation and I really do
enjoy the videos to it.
It's a great call out.
That's just kind of aninteresting to watch.
Joachim (55:00):
Yeah.
Ernest (55:01):
All right, well.
I think that does it for us.
thank you so much for joining ushere at learn, make, learn.
As we mentioned, we want to hearfrom you.
So please send any questions orfeedback to
learnmakelearn@gmail.com, andtell your friends about us In
our next episode with, theWatches and Wonders trade show
just around the corner, Joachimand I are going to indulge in
(55:24):
our shared enthusiasm forwristwatches.
But this won't just be anepisode for watch geeks.
We think the watch industryoffers interesting lessons that
go well beyond the world ofhorology.
For starters, it's been decadessince anyone's actually needed a
watch to tell the time.
And many predicted that thelaunch of Apple watch in 2015
(55:44):
would put the final nail in thecoffin of the watch industry.
But Swiss watch exports aloneare up nearly 16 percent since
2015.
And this doesn't include thebooming secondary market, which
is projected to reach 85 billionin value within the next decade.
So, why do so many people seemso willing to pay so much for
(56:07):
something that none of us needs?
That's the crux of what we'regoing to dig into in the next
episode of Learn Make Learn.
Hello and welcome to Learn Make Learn where we share
qualitative and quantitativeperspectives on products to help
you make better.
My name is Ernest Kim and I'mjoined by my friend and co host
Joachim Groeger.
Hey Joachim, how's it going?
Joachim (00:19):
I'm doing well, Ernest.
I don't think there's any bigeventful thing going on right
now.
No one's ill.
Everyone's doing fine.
No, actually, scratch that.
I just realized.
Last week, there was a liceoutbreak.
In my middle child school, wejust said, we're not going to
get involved in this wholething.
We just kept him at home
Ernest (00:40):
oh,
Joachim (00:41):
he's small enough.
So it's not a big deal.
But that was the way we couldavoid lice.
Otherwise, I would have beentalking to you while scratching
my head and hoping that itwasn't lice.
But thankfully, it's not.
How about you have, how is yourhouse drama doing?
let's get into that.
Ernest (00:55):
Oh, it's, uh, it's, it's ongoing.
We're still waiting to get the,uh, skylight fixed that we
talked about the last time thatour, one of our skylights was
shattered by a falling treelimb.
So, uh, still hoping to get thatfixed this week, fingers
crossed, uh, but yeah, TBD onthat.
All right.
(01:17):
is episode 12 and today ourtopic is should products be
political?
And we'll dive into that ingreat detail in just a minute,
but let's start with some followups to our previous episode,
Scenius or Genius.
Joachim, do you have any followups to share?
Joachim (01:36):
I have a quick one.
I'm still kicking myself.
I didn't mention it last timesince everything was about the
phrase seniors and it's fromBrian Eno.
I've completely failed tomention that there is a Brian
Eno documentary that is, makingthe rounds right now in cinemas.
and it's getting screened veryslowly in select cinemas because
the experience is very unique.
(01:57):
So it's a documentary film madeby Gary Hustwood.
I hope I'm pronouncing thatcorrectly.
He is famous for having done adocumentary on the typeface
Helvetica.
And then he was, he continuedmaking a trilogy of
documentaries, includingObjectified, Urbanized.
And then he did a documentaryabout Dieter Rams.
And now he's done a documentaryabout Brian Eno.
(02:19):
And this documentary is agenerative documentary, he lets
some kind of algorithm in thebackground, reassemble the
footage in different ways sothat each audience that sees it
in one city versus another citywill be experiencing a different
documentary film.
and it's super experimental,super exciting, taps right back
into the generative work thatBrian Eno had been doing.
(02:42):
I put that out there as look upscreenings for that, because
it's city by city, so if you'rein a, in the right spot at the
right time, you might be able tocatch it and have a totally
unique experience from anyoneelse watching it in the cinemas.
How about you, Ernest?
What's your follow up this week?
Oh, should I?
Oh, sorry.
Did you
Ernest (02:59):
no, no, no, no, no,
Joachim (03:00):
to add to that?
Ernest (03:01):
no, I just, that's a, I think that's a fantastic one.
Do you happen to know the titleof the movie?
Joachim (03:06):
It is called Eno.
Ernest (03:08):
Oh, okay.
Joachim (03:09):
pure and simple.
Ernest (03:11):
I hope it's going to show in my area.
I'd really love to see it.
I actually wanted to go back alittle bit and share a follow up
to our second episode, which wastitled Apple Vision Pros and
Cons.
And that was our discussion of,the Apple Vision Pro, but it was
really focused on the broaderconcept of spatial computing.
And my follow up to that is ablog post by a person named Hugo
(03:34):
Barra, who led VR at Meta from2017 through 2020.
he was a product VP at Xiaomibefore that and held high level
product management roles inGoogle's Android group before
that.
So Barra is someone who,Definitely knows a thing or two
about product management andabout consumer electronics and
(03:55):
about VR.
And in this blog post, he shareshis unvarnished opinion on Apple
vision pro, including manyfascinating nuggets that only
someone with an insider'sperspective on consumer VR
products could offer.
And I also found Barra's postinteresting because it's written
(04:16):
from the perspective of aproduct manager.
So if you want to see how a highlevel product manager thinks and
articulates their ideas, hispost is a great read.
Um, and it's worth noting that.
But Barra no longer works in theVR space.
He's currently the CEO of ahealth tech startup.
And I didn't get the sense thathe was holding anything back in
(04:39):
his assessment of Apple visionpro or in his takes on how
Meta's quest and quest prodevices compare to vision pro.
So it's, I think a really uniqueperspective.
It is a long post, but I foundit really enlightening and easy
to read.
And, uh, we'll include a link tothat in the show notes.
Joachim (04:58):
ha.
You're building tension, youknow, telling us where he comes
down and that we have to read itourselves to see if he's, uh, a
fanboy or not.
Ernest (05:06):
Yeah, I think it's, good to not give anything away.
And it's A pretty nuancedperspective, you know, which I
think, um, isn't a shocker whenyou realize that he is somebody
who is has experience doingthis.
So I think he sees a lot of theshades of gray, you know, it's
not just black and white forhim.
So, um, I think folks who areinterested in product and making
(05:28):
products will find a lot, uh, ofinterest in this piece All
right, well, now let's get on toour main topic.
Um, I don't think anyonelistening in the U.
S.
needs to be reminded that 2024is a presidential election year
here in the States.
Uh, which means that politics,which is always a hot topic, is
(05:49):
just getting ready to boil over,especially online.
And so this led us to wonder,should products be political?
and uh, as I mentioned in lastweek's episode, we haven't
discussed our perspectives onthis in advance.
So Joachim, I'd love to hearyour take on this.
I'm dying to hear what youthink.
(06:11):
Should products ever bepolitical?
Joachim (06:13):
Where do you start?
So I, There's a perspective outthere that says design is
political, juststraightforwardly.
Of course it is.
and I'm going to lean on HerbSimon, who is the founding
father of computer science,artificial intelligence, By
training, actually, I think hewas, well, he did work in
(06:34):
economics as well.
But he wrote this book, TheSciences of the Artificial, and
he has this tidbit that Ithought was quite, compelling
and useful for thisconversation.
He says, Everyone designs, whodevises, courses of action aimed
at changing existing situationsinto preferred ones.
The intellectual activity thatproduces material artifacts is
(06:55):
no different fundamentally fromthe one that prescribes remedies
for a sick patient or the onethat devises a new sales plan
for a company or a socialwelfare policy for a state.
So, he's just calling.
Everything design and everythingthat's designed is shaping
choices and behaviors.
And if you're doing that, thenyou can take the next step to
(07:15):
saying, well, you're shapingbehavior decisions.
And he mentions explicitlysocial welfare policy for a
state.
You're immediately getting intothe political domain.
You are shaping how people.
behave.
Um, and that is a version ofpolitics.
So that's how I'm, I've beenframing it in my mind as design
and product innovation.
(07:37):
These products shape humaninteractions and behaviors, and
therefore they are inherentlypolitical.
But then I was thinking aboutinherently political.
That phrase also is, seems funkyto me because If we dig up
artifacts from way back when andwe look at these objects, they
(07:59):
don't transmit the politicalsituation in which they were
created at all.
You need context, you need tounderstand that you need other
evidence that tells you thisrepresents something to this
person and their standing insociety was here and this is how
the society was organized andtherefore this product has
meaning in this way.
anything that's shaping humanbehavior and human decision
(08:21):
making is political.
the objects that we're designinghave that facet, but it's within
the context that they operate inthat they have their full weight
of their political power.
The starting point and then justbrief excursion kind of
referencing our discussion lastweek where we're talking about
Braun.
(08:43):
Braun and Dieter Rams, ofcourse, from the old school,
ULM, that is a place that designschool was heavily, heavily
influenced by Bauhaus.
And Bauhaus was a design schoolthat had a very explicit
political motivation for itsdesigns.
the notion of minimalism andcleanliness and rational design.
(09:08):
The motivating factor behind allof that was to create products
that could be mass produced.
And they wanted people to haveaccess to these straightforward
products so they could improvetheir lives.
And a lot of their projectsinvolved responding to, um,
social needs, housing that couldbe produced quickly,
(09:28):
efficiently, and worked foreveryone.
Furniture that could be massproduced and accessed by
everyone, and it would be welldesigned.
So there's a strong politicaldimension to it.
But when you then take thoseproducts to today, and you just
look at them, we just look atthem as pretty objects, they've
lost that revolutionary,subversive, political power,
(09:51):
unless you pick up the books,you read the writing, and you
see the context again.
So, those guys were veryexplicit that they wanted to
reshape society.
And a lot of them then went offand did that, right?
They designed cities and, andall kinds of stuff that altered
the way people operated.
I mean, Brasilia is a perfectexample of what happens when the
Baha school gets to design awhole city and Truly how awful
(10:14):
it is, it's just, it's aterrible place.
Allegedly just awful.
I'm really wrestling with thisone because I, I get, I, I get
that when we are making productsor we're making decisions, we
are shaping human behavior, butwe're doing that in the context
that we're living in.
And so, um, it's tricky, right?
You feel like your impact isquite ephemeral in some ways
(10:35):
when you're thinking about whatare the political implications
of what you're doing.
Um, and then, you know, somethings seem to me timeless and
very obvious.
So if I'm working at a socialmedia company and we're just
mining all this data from peopleand we're storing it and
tracking everything and startcrossing over into tracking
behaviors that our users are notaware that they are tracking.
(10:57):
I don't say mean our users,anyone that I know of, I'm just
saying ours in the generalsense.
then you're crossing over intothe political, then it becomes a
system of control.
And then that gets a bit tricky,doesn't it?
So that was a very, that's how Ifeel about it.
It's very open.
Uh, and so now I'm very curiousto, to just see where you're
(11:17):
standing on all of this on.
It's like, what's the angle thatyou've been coming from?
Because as you said, we have notdiscussed this ahead of time.
So we're just really in, in ourlittle echo chambers and now
we're going to connect themtogether and see what comes out.
Ernest (11:30):
Yeah, I love that you had proposed this topic because,
not only is it timely, I thinkit is just a really great
opportunity for us to just putour own thinking out there and
bounce off of each other.
And I think it's worth, too,making a distinction between a
(11:50):
brand making politicalstatements products being
political, because I think it'svery easy for a brand to put
out, especially nowadays, putout political statements on
social media.
So I don't think that's whatwe're talking about.
I think we're talking more aboutproduct creation and, you know,
should, uh, you endeavor as aperson, a group of people making
(12:13):
a product to imbue that productwith political perspectives and.
I very much come at this fromthe perspective that you
articulated that comes from HerbSimon.
You know, my take on this hasbeen that the best, most
innovative products are alwaysprogressive, you know, not
(12:33):
progressive with a capital P asin represented, representing the
progressive party, butprogressive with a lowercase p
in that innovative products are,I think, in my experience, the
product of people who in one wayor another imagine a better
future, you know, what is thedefinition of progressive?
(12:55):
It's to move forward, to advancethe world forward in some way.
And that's the goal of every,every project.
Innovator that I've encountered,whether or not they even call
themselves an innovator, youknow, people who tend to
innovate and make innovativeproducts are people who tend to
want to move things forward insome way to improve the current
state of the world in some way.
(13:15):
So I think to that extent, thebest products are just innately
imbued with a politicalperspective in that they're
progressive.
It's just that it might not beYou know, about political
parties.
Um, now one example that came tomind when you raised this topic
(13:41):
was.
in the footwear world, which is,you know, a world that I have a
lot of experience in.
But, there's a sort of infamousexample, which involves Michael
Jordan.
and I think to explain this, Ihave to provide a little bit of
context here.
Michael Jordan grew up with, Andwent to university in North
Carolina, and I think his familycontinues to live there.
(14:03):
and in 1990, the state's longtime arch conservative senator
named Jesse Helms, Jesse Helms,sorry, uh, was up for reelection
and for the first time reallyfaced a challenge.
And, for context here, Helmshad.
called the 1964 Civil RightsAct, the single most dangerous
(14:27):
piece of legislation everintroduced in the Congress.
And he was essentially, he wasan open racist.
Um, and he was up againstsomeone named Harvey Gantt, who
had been mayor of, uh, NorthCarolina's biggest city,
Charlotte, and was at the timetrying to become the Senate's
only black member.
And So at the time, many hadhoped that Michael Jordan would
(14:51):
come out and endorse Gantt andsupport his campaign, but Jordan
didn't.
And um, Helms went on to winthat election over Gant by a
pretty slim margin.
I think it was something like 52point something to 47 point
something.
So it's pretty close race.
And then a few years later in abook written by a sports writer
(15:13):
named Sam Smith, who wrote Thisbook called the Jordan Rules
that was very famous, uh, but hewrote a follow up book, um, and
in that he noted that the reasonJordan didn't back Gantt was
that, uh, in Jordan's supposedwords, Republicans buy shoes
too, and for, for decades, thatwas considered hearsay because
(15:37):
at the time, the, uh, author SamSmith had said that this was
something that Jordan had saidto a friend, uh, Uh, so it
wasn't something either directlyand, but it had really kind of
dogged Jordan for a long time.
And then in the, um, really Ithought excellent ESPN
documentary titled The LastDance that aired in 2020 and is
(15:59):
now available on Netflix, Jordanfinally acknowledged that he did
actually say that he did saythat Republicans buy shoes too,
and that's why he didn'tbackant.
Um, In the documentary, Jordanwent on to say, uh, that, um,
you know, I'm quoting him here.
I don't think that statementneeds to be corrected because I
said it in jest on a bus,unquote.
(16:22):
But then he went on to say, uh,again, I'm quoting Jordan here.
I never thought of myself as anactivist.
I thought of myself as abasketball player.
I wasn't a politician.
I was, I was playing my sport.
I was focused on my craft.
Was that selfish?
Probably, but that was my energyunquote.
Joachim (16:43):
Hmm.
Interesting.
Wow.
Ernest (16:45):
yeah, so, he made a political decision and yet the,
wildly popular products thatbore his name in that era were
absolutely unapologeticallyprogressive.
So, again, for context here, forfolks who aren't sneakerheads.
This was, the 1990 Senate racewe're talking about.
(17:06):
And 1990 was the year that theAir Jordan V was released, and
uh, you know, it, it wasabsolutely groundbreaking, was
absolutely progressive.
you know, you make the greatpoint that Looking back on
products, the, the, anypolitical sentiment is lost, but
I, I like to believe that thesereally innovative, progressive
(17:31):
products, even if people don't,um, overtly understand the
underlying politics, that itstill rubs off on them in some
way.
That, You can't see andexperience these sorts of
products like products that cameout of the Bauhaus and even if
(17:54):
you don't explicitly get themessage, it still changes you in
some way, I believe, at least Ilike to believe, and that it's a
little bit of roundabout, but italso reminds me of, The great
Spike Lee film, Do the RightThing, from 1989.
And, if you haven't seen it, youknow, you have to see it.
(18:15):
It's an amazing film, butthere's this incredible scene
where Spike Lee, who plays acharacter called Mookie, is
interacting with a character, awhite character named Pino,
who's played by John Turturro.
And in it, it, Turturro'scharacter Pinot is a, very
openly racist character, butthey have this great exchange
(18:38):
where Mki says, points out that,Hey, Pinot, who's your favorite
basketball player?
And he says, magic Johnson.
And then he says, Mook, uh, MKIsays, well, who's your favorite
movie star?
And Pinot replies, Eddie Murphyand Mki says, who's your
favorite?
Musician, and Pino replies,Prince, or, um, basically Mookie
pulls it out of him that Princeis his favorite musician.
(19:01):
So even though Totoro'scharacter, Pino, is still a
racist character, and obviouslythis is fiction, but I do think
that these things change you,and maybe it takes some time for
these, for those changes toreach their, uh, logical
(19:24):
conclusion.
But maybe Pino as a characterhadn't been changed yet, but I
think over time, the exposure tothese things changes you in a
way that they wouldn't have ifyou didn't experience them.
So I guess maybe it's a longwinded way of me is, for me to
say that I think it was abenefit that more people,
(19:48):
including those white folks gotexposed to products like their
Jordan 5.
Because I do think that theseproducts that are imbued with
this progressive mindset, thisprogressive attitude, do change
things and change people's mindsover the long term.
(20:08):
And so I'd rather people beexposed to those types of
products than not, I guess, ifthat makes any sense.
Joachim (20:15):
It does, Ernest.
It's just another form of thatrespect that I was alluding to
as well, is that you are makingstuff that shifts a behavior,
and it shouldn't be takenlightly, right?
I don't think we're hiding thefact that we're kind of
progressively minded individualsat this point.
It's interesting.
I wasn't expecting you to kindof go this way because your
starting point was this verydisappointing moment in Michael
(20:37):
Jordan's, engagement withpolitics.
And the same year that he failsto take a clear stand, he
doesn't alienate anyone.
And therefore his shoe gets tohave the broadest possible
audience.
And then the logic is they'reexperiencing something that is
(20:58):
different and potentiallysubversive and these small
exposures are something that aregonna shift the way a person
thinks overall.
Yeah, I think there's somethingin there.
There's something about thatthat I find quite intriguing
when, the ugly sneaker phase ofBalenciaga was coming out, it
was very subversive and strange.
(21:20):
Uh, in a s in a small, veryfashion focused way, I want to
say, not in a full blownpolitical statement it was quite
repellent for a lot of people,right?
It just didn't make sense.
And then that exposure andhaving seen it moves the
goalposts and then this kind ofUgly sneaker phase becomes,
(21:42):
everyone's going to have an uglysneaker now.
There's something about,definitely going to the extreme
of something.
And then that setting up aconversation that would not have
happened otherwise.
And I think that's related tobasically, people being able to
show possible worlds of what ispossible.
Coming right back to episodeone, I think we talked about
(22:04):
Ursula Gwynne, you had theReference to one of her works
that was your recommendation forthe week and then a discussion,
of her National Book Awardprize, where she
Ernest (22:12):
Right.
Joachim (22:13):
different worlds and the ability to imagine different
worlds.
I think Tesla is a good exampleof someone taking a very
specific stand on what theythink the future looks like.
The future is electric cars andQuite an individualistic
perspective on the world.
An alternative would have beenTesla, be a electric bus
(22:34):
company, and they designed thebest electric bus.
Damn electric buses for publictransit, and then they start
lobbying cities and manipulatingcities and they're going to
reshape how our cities operateas, public transit driven
entities
Ernest (22:50):
you know that you mentioned Tesla and that reminds
me of, a really interestinginterview.
I heard a lot of, I can'tremember off the top of my head
where, which podcast this wasup.
We'll track it down and includeit in the show notes, but a lot
of people forget that Tesla wasnot started by Elon Musk.
It was acquired by him.
It was actually started by twoguys who had.
(23:12):
made it big, pretty big in, um,the digital space.
And, had a lot of money to spendand we're very interested in
more sustainable ways to getaround.
And so, I forget when this was,but this was some time ago and
they, And, they were interestedin cars, so they wanted to have
(23:34):
a good driving experience, butwithout the environmental impact
of a internal combustion car.
And they looked and they foundthat there weren't any good
options, What they concluded wasthat the only people at that
point making electric cars werepeople who hated cars.
And,, so you saw that in thevehicles that were available.
They were all, I think thelanguage they use was something
(23:55):
like they were like penaltyboxes.
They were just cars for peoplewho just didn't want you to
drive.
And, and so consequently, no onebought electric cars.
And so they.
Then took it upon themselves tomake electric cars for people
who actually want, who enjoydriving and want to drive, but
(24:16):
want to reduce theirenvironmental footprint.
So, and then, so it went on anda long acquired the company and
push them out.
And the rest is history, but Ithink that's an example where.
Politics got in the way ofmaking a good product and I
would argue got in the way ofhaving a net positive effect on
(24:39):
the environment because likethese folks, these two guys said
they, they found that themarketplace was occupied by
these products that were made bypeople, whose politics led them
to make really bad products,really bad cars.
And I think you can have thisargument of, Oh, okay.
Should anyone have a car?
Should we all be taking publictransit?
(25:00):
But, you know, in terms of thereality of the United States at
the very least, that's publictransit for all is just not
something that's realisticallyavailable to everybody.
So given that, could we at leasthelp people reduce their impact
and offer something that givesthem the things that they want
(25:21):
from a car while significantlyreducing their impact on the
environment.
that's a case where I think thepolitics gets in the way.
You could insert anything there.
It could be politics.
It could be, bottom line driventhinking, anything that gets in
the way of creating a greatproduct is a negative.
(25:41):
Um, and I think if you put thatinsert thing here ahead of the
needs of your customers, you'relikely to end up with a bad
product, which is somethingwe've talked about in the past
as well.
But you know, I see no reasonwhy Politics would necessarily
(26:04):
lead to a bad product.
Like, example would bePatagonia, which is a company
that very much wears itspolitics on its sleeve.
it informs everything that theydo from their brand messaging to
the products that they make andhow they make them.
And, I think it, it's helpedthem to make great products and
to really stand out in a crowdedmarketplace.
(26:28):
And let them to create thiswhole new way of, the way the
business itself is structured,which is something we've talked
about in past episodes as well.
uh, you know, I wouldn't wantanyone to take anything we've
said to suggest that we think,uh, a company driven by politics
is, default de facto, going tobe an unsuccessful company.
(26:48):
I don't think that's the case atall, but I think what helps
Patagonia is that their politicsare also fundamentally
progressive.
And like we've talked about, Ithink all in my experience, all.
of the best, most innovativeproducts are fundamentally
progressive.
I think where you'd bechallenged is if your products,
if your politics are regressive,um, I think that you'd be
(27:12):
challenged there to find a wayto make successful products that
are also regressive.
They might work for a littlewhile.
One example that comes to mind,there are these atrocious.
gigantic trucks and SUVs whereyou literally need a forward
facing camera so that you don'trun over little kids because
they're below your sightline.
(27:33):
Those sorts of products are outthere and there are people
buying them, but I think thatvery quickly they're going to,
no longer exist.
You know, I I think it's apretty short term phenomenon.
So, you can have short termsuccess with things like this,
but I don't think that thatregressive sort of products
historically, I can't think ofvery many examples of regressive
(27:55):
products that have had a longuh, shelf life.
I guess that would just be moreevidence from my perspective
that it's about beingprogressive and about wanting to
create a better future, for yourcustomers.
Or even if it's, even if you'remaking it for yourself, it's
just about that desire to createa better future.
Joachim (28:17):
Kind of getting back to a heuristic or a thing that
grounds the discussion, I feelthe essence of what we're both
trying to get at is there arehard constraints that we can't
overcome.
when you're innovating, you takethat stuff seriously.
So you respect the fact thatthere are a finite number of
(28:37):
resources.
There's only so much lithium.
There's only so many hours inthe day that we can do things.
If you ignore these really basicconstraints on you,, where is
the incentive to innovate?
It just becomes very, easy tojust go to a, uh, for lack of
better phrase, lowest commondenominator, the lowest energy,
highest quick return, approachto the problem.
(28:59):
I mean, something as simple asunderstanding that there are
only so many hours in a day thata person has.
would really discipline evenentertainment, something that we
see as so harmless.
But the decision as a studio toconstantly churn out stuff You
are not respecting theconstraints that operate on your
customer base because it cannotbe 15 TV shows, 20 movies, all
(29:23):
in one year, full blast across,every possible, franchise that
you own.
And so being unconstrained youdon't have that hard
conversation with each otherwhere you say, do we really need
to have another series thatexplains some filler or some
inconsistency or plot loopholethat was from the 70s?
You know, maybe we don't need tofill it in, you know, we don't
(29:46):
need to do that.
It's going to be cool.
Don't worry about it, you know.
Maybe that's kind of theessential thing is that Being
really attuned to the realconstraints that you face means
that you will have to face tradeoffs.
You will think carefully aboutthose choices and you will
understand that it isn't alllimitless
Ernest (30:03):
Well, actually, I think your point about streaming is
really interesting in that Ithink sometimes people might
think that a discussion likethis is very abstract and, pie
in the sky, but I think thestreaming point is a really good
one in that it shows that itdoes, these sorts of
conversations do have a Veryreal ramifications in terms of
(30:25):
business outcomes.
So like you mentioned, it waslike everyone and their brother
and sister thought, let's starta new streaming service and
let's just, everyone make agazillion shows, but now we're
seeing that there just aren'tenough hours in the day to do
that.
That's just not a reality.
and as a consequence, you'reseeing.
(30:48):
Like say Max, canceling ordestroying movies that have been
made, just because they don'thave the capacity to show them,
they need to take the tax breakor, other streaming services
that are on the verge ofshutting down just because there
aren't enough hours in the day,there aren't enough people, uh,
eyeballs out there to watch thisstuff.
(31:08):
So if you.
had taken that perspective, andunderstood that reality at the
outset, you would have come to adifferent strategy.
And interestingly, there is acase study here of one studio
that did take a different tack,which is Sony.
I don't know that they did it.
intentionally, but they made thedecision to not start a
(31:31):
streaming platform.
And that's been very successfulfor them because they've been
able to retain that classicmodel of you produce a movie.
It's in theaters for a certainamount of time, and then you
license it out to differentplatforms for a certain amount
of time.
And, that's a very profitablemodel.
(31:51):
maybe you wouldn't have as, youknow, the profits wouldn't be
quite as big if you were able todevelop a hugely successful
streaming platform, thelikelihood of that happening is
very low.
And consequently, they didn'thave that huge cash outlay that
all these other players, um, hadto put out there to start their
streaming platform.
(32:12):
So, there are really, very,concrete, ramifications that
come from this sort of thinking,So I, you know, I think there's
a grounding to it.
if we thought about for thefolks making products on a day
to day basis, what advice mightwe have for them?
I don't know, Do you have anythoughts on that, Joachim?
(32:32):
Like, how would you translatethis day to day?
Joachim (32:35):
The discussion around the streaming thing is really, a
good framing device for thisbecause, I think if you're in a
business and you reallyIlluminate exactly what your
constraints are.
In a most unromantic waypossible.
If you dispassionately actuallylook at those constraints and
ask yourself, you know, is thissomething that is worth doing,
worth continuing doing, orshould we rethink it from the
(32:57):
ground up?
I think you'll find somesurprising answers.
And so, we don't know how Sonydecided but if I was advising
some of these people I wouldreally hone in on those
constraints.
And, one of them is the timeconstraint there's only so many
hours in a day that a personwill dedicate to consumption of,
of media.
(33:17):
And also we should be asking,this is the kind of the other
political aspect, the valuequestion.
Should I be taking that timeaway from those people?
Or is there something else thatI can do that.
makes them see the value in whatI'm bringing, as opposed to just
my constant presence issomething that will make them
(33:37):
want to stay with me.
my absence gives them space,which then allows them to come
back and consume something withvalue and have a much longer
lifeline with me.
So I'm talking very abstractlyhere, but let's think about the
streaming one as a reallyprecise thing.
Streaming is a highly physicalbusiness.
The idea that video is all zerosand ones and it's just floating
(34:02):
up there in the cloud, I'dalready alluded to the fact that
the cloud is a total misnomer.
These are server centers.
This is computers, racks andracks of computers.
And not only that you need tohave a content delivery network,
meaning you need to have serversthat sit close to your
customers, because if they'renot close to your customers, you
(34:24):
can't get the content to themfast enough.
So that physical constraint ofjust, I need to ship bits across
fiber optic.
That's a physical process.
I'm really moving things throughcables.
So I want to be close to mycustomers.
So I need to have racks at theISPs and I need to negotiate
with them to have my racks inthere.
(34:46):
And then I have to go throughthe complicated math, which is
something that Netflix hasworked really hard on is how do
I populate those contentdelivery servers with the right
pieces of content so that peoplecan just get it instantaneously.
So that hard physicalconstraint, If I was asked, you
know, to think about, should westart a streaming service?
Do you realize that that'swhat's happening?
(35:07):
You need to be physically closeto people.
This is like setting up aphysical store and you need,
there's only so much rack spaceand there's only so much, cable
that can get you close to thosepeople.
What's going to happen?
You're going to start competingand guess who's going to be
extracting from it's the ISPsbecause they're the monopolists.
So, do you want to get into thatbattle, or do you want to let
someone else figure that out,while you do what you know how
(35:30):
to do, which is, as a studio,make movies, and then negotiate
hard, get licensing agreements,the streaming thing is a really
interesting world because it isa physical business, but we
really don't think of it thatway.
so that was a long excursioninto just illuminating the real
constraints that operate on abusiness like that.
And I think in that, then youwould already start saying, do
(35:50):
we want to get into this game?
And do we have the expertise?
Do we want to build thatexpertise?
And then, what is the physicalimpact that we're putting onto
this world?
We're just going to duplicatecatalogs across racks that are
sitting there pushing contentmore.
And then we're competing forthat hard constraint of time
that people have.
And it gets very unromantic,right, because it's not the
person who has that, what was itthat you said last time was the
(36:10):
red flag, like these pithy, youdon't want to be the
Ernest (36:14):
you don't want to be
Joachim (36:14):
you want to be the first bird or
Ernest (36:15):
exactly.
Joachim (36:16):
these kind of buzzy, dumb, analogies or images that
have zero real content aroundthem.
This is just really boring,fundamental thinking, that will
focus the mind on exactly whatit is that you're doing.
Maybe that's what it is.
Illuminate the constraints andbe really honest with yourself
(36:37):
what those constraints looklike.
And then, given thoseconstraints, come back to our
favorite thing.
Do you think you have a way ofactually meeting the consumer in
exactly the right spot, giventhat you know the full picture
of the constraints that areoperating on You?
What about you, Ernest?
What is the, how do you approachit?
How do you think about any ofthis?
Ernest (36:56):
Yeah, I know this is going to sound like a massive
oversimplification, but I guessmy advice would be to really
focus on your outcome.
And, drive your process in a waythat will get you to that
outcome, knowing that maybe ithas to happen incrementally.
(37:19):
That maybe you're not going toget to that end state overnight,
don't let your politics get inthe way of the outcome you're
trying to deliver on.
A Steve Jobs ism that I'mreminded of here is, I think I
referenced this in the pastwhere he said, I don't care
about being right, I just careabout success.
You know, and, and, and as aconsequence, what he said was, I
(37:42):
would be willing to change mymind.
know, if someone came to me witha better argument, a better
point of view.
You know, point of view, I wouldchange my mind because I wanted
to get to that successfuloutcome.
So, um, I know that that couldbe difficult.
You know, I think people arereally passionate about their
politics, about theirperspectives, but It's kind of
(38:04):
a, uh, cutting off your nose tospite your face situation,
right?
Cause if you're quote unquoteright in your politics, but you
end up with a product that noone buys and no one experiences,
what have you achieved?
Right.
It's goes back to that.
Tesla example as well, where allthese people making these
(38:26):
electric cars that no onewanted, you know, hey, they
delivered on their politics, butthey made these products that no
one wanted.
So what did you actuallyachieve?
So, um, I, that would be myadvice to folks, you know, that
outcome.
Know that thing you want to getto.
(38:47):
The buzzword y way to say itwould be North Star.
I kind of hate that expression.
so I would just say, know thething that you really want to
get to That outcome you want todeliver on.
And then, um, find a way to getthere through great products
that, you know, people are goingto want to buy into.
(39:08):
Um, and I think your, the pointyou made early on is a great
one, which is that, you know, adecade from now, no one's going
to know what your politics were,but they'll know whether that
was a great product or not.
Right.
so, it, I know, and again, Iknow that's tough.
It's a lot easier said thandone, but um, especially for
(39:28):
young folks, I think that's animportant thing to, to take on
board is recognizing that youyou ultimately have to make a
great product or else no one'sgoing to buy into it.
Joachim (39:39):
I think it also comes back to, know your limits as an
innovator.
Maybe it's something else thatyou should be focusing on.
I think maybe that's where thepolitical ambition and your
skill set have to, to line up inthe right spot, right?
If it's something that you'renot, or it's not the right
venue, right?
A Marvel movie is maybe not theplace to start doing it.
(40:00):
Although, I will say that, RyanCoogler did a very good job with
Black Panther.
That is a perfect example ofeverything lining up really
beautifully for that.
But if there's a mismatch, asyou said, you're just doing a
disservice to everything at thesame time, and nothing comes out
of it, which is just very, verysad.
Your ambition to fix thingsshould be matched with the area
that you want to work in.
(40:21):
Maybe it is, again, anillumination of the constraints
of what you're operating in.
You are in the, in the bigstudio system, and therefore,
how can you.
within that really, reallyfocused constraint, be
subversive and get what you wantthroughout at the end of it.
And then if there is no way,maybe you need to take a deep
breath and move to Europe and doit there where small cinema
(40:42):
still thrives.
Ernest (40:43):
To your point about kind of knowing your constraints too,
I'd say coming back to thatexample of the people making
terrible electric cars, I thinka great way to channel their
energy would have been to makeelectric bikes.
If you hate cars, don't make anelectric car, you know, right?
Make an electric bike, find away to channel it in a zone that
(41:05):
is more likely to be successful.
Joachim (41:08):
Um, actually just a brief excursion into another
historical example of where thelineup between politics and,
product innovation go hand inhand.
I was listening to an interviewwith someone who mentioned a
British plan called the Lucasplan, which was made by the
workers at Lucas Aerospace.
Lucas Aerospace was a defensecontractor in the UK for, yeah,
(41:32):
for a good chunk of time.
And I think in the seventies,they were facing major
headwinds.
They made fighter jet parts andmissile parts.
So pure war machine type stuff.
and.
The government at the time said,we're not going to bail you out.
You need to figure out how torestructure your company.
Management was quite open tobeing nationalized because it
(41:52):
would have maintained.
the integrity of the companystructure as it was, so they
would have not been out of thejob, but they would have had
safe haven under governmentcontrol.
the workers though, I mean, theywere unionized.
So just whatever you think aboutunions, just put that aside for
a second.
These people got together andthey actually formed a plan of
(42:14):
how to pivot this company.
That was aligned with wherethese workers wanted the company
to go.
So part of the plan was prettysubversive, which is they wanted
to make sure the company wasowned by the employees.
But the other bit that was evenmore subversive they provided
detailed, incredibly designs andbusiness plans and business
(42:38):
strategies for totally newproduct lines that they wanted
the company to build.
And they had done this with thecooperation of everyone, not the
upper management, but theengineers, the shop workers, the
machinists, everyone was feedinginto this.
And their proposal involvedincredible things.
because they worked on, um,generating energy on fighter
(43:00):
jets, they knew about turbines.
we know how to generateelectricity from rotational
energy.
So let's make wind turbines.
they had designs for heat pumps,hybrid vehicles.
They knew how batteries andinternal combustion engines
could play nicely together.
So they designed Those from theground up.
So this plan had detailedblueprints, as well as the
(43:20):
economics of how that would playout.
And because everyone had pitchedin, they completely understood
how this would go from themachinists all the way up.
So that was, that's thebeautiful unification of the
politics, gathering all of thatknow how.
putting it together, and justmaking a super, super compelling
(43:42):
case for what this company coulddo in the future.
Of course, management found itway too subversive.
So they fired the leaders of thepeople that effort.
And this plan has just kind ofentered the mythology of what
could happen, what potentialcould have been achieved if they
had been listened to becausethey were well ahead of their
time.
Really, really impressive.
and in fact, there is adocumentary film, that we can
(44:04):
link to in the show notes thatis a 30 minute summary of the
whole thing.
It's actually a three hourdocumentary, which is on the
archive.
org, which we'll also link to.
I have not made it through thefull three hours.
But.
the 30 minute one I've done, andI've read, read a little about
the plan, but it's a reallyfascinating example of people
understanding the hardconstraints that they're
operating under, thespecialization that they have,
(44:25):
the political view that theywanted to bring to bear, and the
way the products then flow fromthat and their expertise.
And it was super political.
It was super subversive, tellingmanagement of a weapons company
to say, we're done with this.
We don't want to do thisanymore.
And this is what the future ofthe company looks like.
Incredible.
Absolutely incredible.
Ernest (44:42):
Wow, that's an amazing example.
I'm definitely going to checkout the video.
if we were to kind of get downto the brass tacks of the
question of should a product bepolitical, what would you say?
Joachim (44:56):
I would say it's unavoidable given the context.
It is, it is just the nature ofthe beast.
It is shaping people's decisionmaking.
It's shaping the way they viewthe world.
you're building a lens in manyways, sometimes for them to
filter what's happening in theworld.
That is inherently shapingbehavior.
So yeah, I kind of come down theHerb Simon school of things.
(45:17):
But yeah, there's something, butshould they be political?
Well, it's unavoidable, I guess.
What about you, Ernest?
Where are you on that?
Ernest (45:24):
Yeah, I think we're very much aligned because I would say
yes, because to your point, Ithink the best products, like
we've talked about, all expressa distinct point of view that is
rooted in the people who make ormade that product.
And so, invariably, if that'sthe case, then those products
(45:46):
will be political.
The only, but I would add tothat as a caveat is.
As I said earlier, keep thatbigger picture in mind because
you're not going to be able toachieve those aims you have if
the product isn't successful.
So, always think about that.
(46:07):
How can I deliver on this in away that is going to reach
people, at a fundamental levelbeyond, Do they agree with me on
this one issue or not?
Um, Because, if you putsomething out there and no one
buys it, what have you achieved?
All right.
Well, now that you've heard ourperspectives, we want to hear
(46:29):
from you.
Should products be political?
Let us know what you think atlearnmakelearn@gmail.com.
Now let's move on to ourrecommendations of the week and
I'll get us started, uh,previewing our next episode,
which is, which uh, is going tokind of deal with watches.
(46:52):
Uh, I thought I would, um,highlight a product that I just
purchased.
Purchased very recently,actually just arrived today.
And it's a watch, uh, from, uh,a German brand called Nomos and
it's their model called the clubcampus in electric green
reference seven one five, uh,specifically it's the reference
(47:12):
seven one five GB, which is theone that has the see through
Sapphire case back.
Uh, and it's in the 36millimeter diameter.
We'll provide a link to it inthe show notes.
But, um, Um, I wanted tohighlight this one.
I think it's a connection into,you've mentioned Joachim, uh,
kind of the Bauhaus movement andNomos design is very much rooted
in the kind of principles of theBauhaus movement.
(47:36):
But also I think it's a, agreat, a good example, a good
kind of case study in terms ofproduct strategy.
I don't want to get too into theweeds of the watch world, but in
recent years, especially duringthe pandemic era, when a lot of
people had a lot of disposableincome, watch prices really went
up significantly and Nomos waspart of that too.
(47:58):
They had, Before the pandemicintroduced a new line of
movements, automatic movementsthat were all engineered and
designed in house.
And so watches featuring thosemovements were more expensive,
but They kept their entry levelproducts as well, and the club
campus is an example of that.
people who aren't in the watchworld might not think that a 1,
(48:21):
700 watch is an entry levelproduct, but, in this world of,
fine watches, it's a veryaffordable watch for what you're
getting.
and so I think NOMOS was verywise to not, Get caught very
much like the example of thestreaming services.
You mentioned, you know, him oreverybody pursued streaming, a
lot of watch companies just wentcrazy with their pricing and
(48:43):
just everything in their linewent up by, uh,, huge
percentage, wise in terms ofcost, but Nomos was really.
I think smart and disciplined inkeeping watches that were
accessibly priced while addingsome that, did go up, but not to
an egregious degree.
So, and I think that speaks totheir values as a company as
(49:05):
well.
Yeah, they could have.
Just gone hog wild, like a lotof these other brands and,
jacked up the pricing of alltheir watches, but they didn't.
And I think that is a reflectionof their values as a company, a
company that wants to makewatches across a broad range,
and that would remainaccessible, um, to people, you
know, whether it's their firstwatch or, they just don't want
(49:27):
to spend tens of thousands ofdollars on a watch.
So, I thought for a lot ofreasons, it was a really nice
example of a.
beautiful product that, speaksto their values in terms of
watchmaking, but also in termsof making really great products
that a lot of people can access.
So, Nomos and in particular theClub Campus line, which is, I'd
(49:50):
say probably their mostaccessible line in terms of
price point.
Joachim (49:54):
Yeah, their price point is, I know this is, we're going
to sound like snobs, but it isentry level pricing, considering
what you're getting is, you'regetting a movement that is 95
percent manufactured in theirfactory in Glashütte in
Eastern,, formerly EasternGermany, you know,, and, uh,, a
place with deep, deep history inwatchmaking so yeah I appreciate
(50:18):
that they have stayed true tojust having a broad spectrum of
watches that is accessible.
You're right.
it is a representation of theirvalue system.
The watches are also veryfunctional and unadorned.
They are explicitly stating thatthey have influenced by Bauhaus.
The Tangente was the firstmodel, which is a heavily,
heavily lifting from olddesigns.
(50:39):
So yeah, I appreciate that.
That's a nice recommendation.
And also a good way to just showoff that you got yourself a new
watch, Ernest.
I love that it is literally, youdid text me and you said, it's
in the mail, it's supposed tocome on Monday.
So
Ernest (50:53):
yeah, arrived today.
Joachim (50:56):
I love that.
Well, on my end, I was going torecommend a website, ifixit.
com, kind of political as well,it's a product that you would,
you wouldn't think it'spolitical.
It's a website that offersvideos on how to repair your
technology, which touches on allof the topics that we've talked
about in the past.
(51:17):
Um, and they have used theirvideos to help people fix
problems.
laptops, cameras, all kinds ofthings.
They also do another series ofvideos, which is teardowns,
where they take, um, equipment,especially Apple equipment has
been their main focus and justbreak it apart, which is quite,
I mean, it's scary to seesomeone buy a brand new vision
(51:39):
pro and just start tearing itapart into its components, but
it provides It's an invaluableservice that you understand how
repairable an item is before youbuy it.
They were really on Apple whenthey started gluing in
components and just giving, theywould always end on a rating on
(51:59):
how repairable the device is.
What's really clever aboutiFixit is they show you how to
fix these devices.
They show you which items arefixable, so they get you, when
you're about to purchase, youcan do your research and figure
out, which item is repairable.
Uh, once you have the item, theyhold your hand and help you get,
uh, an understanding of how torepair the device.
(52:20):
And then they meet you exactlyat that moment, when you're
watching those videos and theysay, by the way, you'll need
some tools for this.
And here are tools that we havedesigned to help you.
explicitly for this purpose.
So what a great closed loop thatthey've created there of luring
you in with the video content isall free, the manuals are all
free, you can read everything.
(52:40):
So if you do have your owntools, you have your own
components, you can repair thesethings yourself.
For most of us, we don't havetime to figure out the
components.
We don't have the expertknowledge.
Well, we'll take their expertiseon board and we'll use that.
And so they give you packages onhow to replace a laptop monitor,
The whole thing they can helpyou with.
Keyboards, I think the butterflykeyboard was one that they
(53:02):
couldn't quite get becausethat's such a terrible keyboard.
If anyone remembers, that shouldbe a whole episode.
All the fails that Apple has hadand no one remembers, right?
Antenna gate, butterflykeyboards, I mean, it's not
great.
The website's great.
The products are great.
I I own a lot of the tools.
They're not crazy expensive.
There's this really funny battlethat's happening between Apple
(53:23):
and them.
For a long time, Apple wouldjust try and make it harder,
like creating screw heads that,only they had the tools for.
And then within a month, iFixitsaid, we've got the drill bits
that you need.
No problem, you can open up thisdevice.
And so they were in this tug ofwar with Apple and eventually
Apple just said, Oh, forget it.
We'll try and be morerepairable.
And it was a really pretty coolbattle.
(53:47):
And it's still ongoing.
they still call out Apple on allof these things.
So ifixit.
com, I recommend it.
If you do have an electronicdevice that needs repairing,
Probably the newer generationthings are going to be good.
There's that middle period inApple, which is not that great.
So yeah, my rec for the week.
iFixit.
com.
Ernest (54:04):
That's a great one.
I'm embarrassed to admit that inthe early days of iFixit, I was
very anti iFixit.
I think, uh, I had kind of aprimacy of the maker mindset and
I felt like, oh, they're gettingin the way of progress and Apple
should be allowed to make theirproducts any way they want to.
And the only way you get aproduct that slim is by, gluing
(54:27):
things together but.
In recent years, I've reallycome around, I think, I really
admire the fact that they wereso ahead of these issues, and
have been the advocate for Theowner, if you buy the product,
you should be able to repair itand modify it.
And, I've really come around tothat.
(54:47):
I, and I, uh, admire them forhaving, been so ahead of at
least, certainly ahead of me onthat.
So I think that's a greatrecommendation and I really do
enjoy the videos to it.
It's a great call out.
That's just kind of aninteresting to watch.
Joachim (55:00):
Yeah.
Ernest (55:01):
All right, well.
I think that does it for us.
thank you so much for joining ushere at learn, make, learn.
As we mentioned, we want to hearfrom you.
So please send any questions orfeedback to
learnmakelearn@gmail.com, andtell your friends about us In
our next episode with, theWatches and Wonders trade show
just around the corner, Joachimand I are going to indulge in
(55:24):
our shared enthusiasm forwristwatches.
But this won't just be anepisode for watch geeks.
We think the watch industryoffers interesting lessons that
go well beyond the world ofhorology.
For starters, it's been decadessince anyone's actually needed a
watch to tell the time.
And many predicted that thelaunch of Apple watch in 2015
(55:44):
would put the final nail in thecoffin of the watch industry.
But Swiss watch exports aloneare up nearly 16 percent since
2015.
And this doesn't include thebooming secondary market, which
is projected to reach 85 billionin value within the next decade.
So, why do so many people seemso willing to pay so much for
(56:07):
something that none of us needs?
That's the crux of what we'regoing to dig into in the next
episode of Learn Make Learn.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!