hittingthesweetspot by Bob Skelley

It comes in many forms

The breaking point for good enough?

When did good enough become good enough?

I believe settling for less than really good software should not be commonplace. Nor a sign of the times.

But it is.

I also believe this is one area artificial intelligence and augmented reality can be of assistance.

Good enough seems so lacking, not to mention indifferent, mediocre.

pexels-photo-102127.jpegSoftware is not paint.

“How’s the ceiling look, Bob?”

“Great! Shall we call it done?”

“Sure, why not. Looks good enough to me.”

Understanding nothing is perfect does not prevent our striving for perfection.

Artists try to make the perfect creation–whether it’s a guitarist figuring out the best solo for a song or a sculptor molding clay until its form takes on a life of its own–history dictates man perform to the highest levels possible.

Complexity is a buzz word. It’s used to explain away everything from why cancer is still not cured to how come Apple releases operating systems not yet ready for prime time. I get that it’s not the original Macintosh and current day iMac operating systems require gazillions of lines of code just to open a file (without rendering another application you’d like to use alongside it completely paralyzed).

Consider the possibility that now the human race is at a breaking point with respect to quality control in all fields technical.

Have we reached the point of diminishing returns for software engineers regarding coding? Have humans taken it as far as reasonably can be expected? I would suggest that we now have.

Must consumers and businesses alike accept the fact that new versions of software are always buggy?


You say they and we, have already been the beta testers for the Microsofts and Googles of the world. And all we have to show for it are increased invasions of privacy and breaches of our identities.

The tired cliché “the genie is out of the bottle” does nothing to help solve the problem.

We already have enough words that describe our inability to troubleshoot bugs effectively.

Maybe my expectations are too great.

Why should I expect the MLB.TV app to work on my Samsung Smart TV just as well as it does on a Roku Express hooked up to the same TV? Seems the Smart TV app for MLB.TV was less smart than a streaming device at bringing me my baseball for this season.

As someone who understands a fool and his money are soon parted, I always recommend value-oriented solutions; if at first you don’t succeed, try something less expensive to see if that might work.

pexels-photo-239898.jpegIf complexity is at the root of this quandary, then possibly good enough can actually be a positive characterization for software and hardware integration–provided simplicity, or a return to it, is the goal.

I could have gotten a new edition Roku that featured voice activated commands, but I don’t like talking out loud unless it’s either to myself or another person.

Features I don’t want tack on needless layers of complexity. It’s just more stuff that can go wrong. Why would I want that?

I’ve worked for corporations that roll out new, proprietary versions of their business applications at the least opportune time. Visualize an accounting firm releasing new bookkeeping software in the middle of tax season because it’s a “necessary upgrade that addresses critical flaws.”

Sometimes it was just the spell check program that needed fixing.

But, sometimes an update seemingly as simple as that would create issues in the printing component functions of the system.

One step forward, two steps back.

Fix one thing. Break two others in the process.

Still, we humans have good intentions. It’s the vicious, unmanageable cycle with respect to quality outcomes, that is holding us back.

Without possessing the ability to return to simplicity and things that just work, perhaps it’s time to concede we’ve taken our abilities in certain areas just about as far as they can go.

Send in the relief pitcher, HAL.


The politics of chores or ‘What the *#@% was that!’


Spring training for writers

1 Comment

  1. A great deal of change in product development is done simply for the sake of change, and Apple is no exception. The goal is to drive sales, to make people think they are missing something by not having the latest and greatest. The problem is that latest often is not the greatest, except for the corporate bottom line perhaps. I have a rule of thumb for change: if it does not provide a clear benefit, then don’t. That works for me, and the world would be a better place (for consumers) anyhow were that employed. Overall, I value reliability over anything. What difference does it make if something has features that don’t work as expected, or at all? Complexity often leads to failure. Thus my synonym for hi-tech: broken.

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

%d bloggers like this: