I don't disagree with the article in general, but "worse is better" sounds like a terrible way to phrase it IMO.
The article explains how worse is often more profitable (because worse is cheaper and users don't care, don't know or don't have a choice). But it doesn't make it better in my book.
I don't disagree with the article in general, but "worse is better" sounds like a terrible way to phrase it IMO.
The article explains how worse is often more profitable (because worse is cheaper and users don't care, don't know or don't have a choice). But it doesn't make it better in my book.