If we did that nothing would be released in a timely manner. Most projects are severely resource constrained and so we get what we get. 9 times out of 10, the "good enough" is going to win out against perfection for every platform.
Discussion
Hard disagree. If there isn’t a mobile-first strategy it’s not even going to be “good enough” and nobody will use it.
I would rather have a solid simple program a year from now than a janky one today.
Correct âś…
The Nostr protocol actually changes this dynamic because users aren't trapped within a specific app. A higher-quality app can take over the market, even if it arrives much later.
"Being first" doesn't offer as much advantage, in an open protocol.
The transistion from astral.ninja to snort, primal and nostrudel is a big example for that. ^^
Yes, everyone is still frantically racing to be first, rather than considering that there's a new paradigm.
The first project is just defining the second project's new feature, but the second project can build it better by reverse-engineering the first one.
I completely agree with this.
So its better to not release anything at all until its in tip top shape?
No, that's not how it works.
The quality difference comes mostly from setting up a proper architecture and pipeline, at the beginning. There's an initial delay, and then you can release more, faster.
The people who were done first have usually skipped that part because they're in a rush, it's tedious and difficult, and you often need to recruit specialists for the different tasks.
The payout doesn't come until the *next* project, or even the *one after next* when the infrastructure and team is already there and you hit the ground running at high speed, without sacrificing quality.
It's an investment.