> Although you may have been unsatisfied with iMovie, it is in fact the free tier of Final Cut Pro, much as GarageBand is the free tier of Logic.
Are they though?
I think of a free version as having the same interface and core functionality with locked features. Does iMovie have the same interface/menus/workflow as Final Cut now?
These seem more like the "let's not dilute the product by repackaging some of the codebase into a mass market interface" versions.
Admittedly I haven't used them in years but I do recall learning about non linear editing in premiere pro years ago and ditching iMovie for adobe in a flash.
More recently I've gone the resolve route as well, even though I have active adobe subscriptions through with along with years of experience.
> Does iMovie have the same interface/menus/workflow as Final Cut now?
As I understand it, it was Final Cut Pro X that changed to be closer to iMovie; this was criticized at the time as Apple removed several features that had been in Final Cut Pro 7.
Speaking as someone who blends marketing/design/technical work I have a few thoughts on this.
First, there's pressure on a lot of marketers to sell more this month or this quarter.
Second, there's an expectation to prove that an idea is good using data and to prove the idea worked using data.
Third, there's very little interest in investing in the art side of the trade.
When taken together, you get what we've got.
What am I trying to say?
I guess just that in my experience it's always been the owners and top level managers pushing for short-term, unethical, bad ux decisions and focusing on manipulating instead of serving people.
And it sucks.
I think a lot of us got into marketing because we're creative and technical and wanting to make businesses and products better for people, both consumers and society at large.
Or maybe that's just me.
Edit: the worst part of it is the demoralizing realization that the owners are often right. Most people actually do want McDonalds, like shopping at Walmart/Amazon, and enjoy Facebook. So I guess the worst part about marketing, the part nobody talks much about, is that giving the majority of people what they want usually means low quality at the cheapest price.
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of it is pressure from executives to "deliver."
Still, I look at a company like burger king, or a toy company, or Disney, or a radio station, and the entirety of them, including the product itself, is marketing. If these companies could take your money without giving you anything at all they would. The idea of marketing is supposed to be to put your product in front of it's users for you. Instead with countless examples you see companies rebuilding their entire product line as a marketing strategy. There is no product anymore, just that last mile of marketing to get your money in their hand. This is so common nowadays.
What you described is rational but unconventional and building codes are designed to require following convention. Also, the cost of connectors goes up quickly, but the right connectors could change the game dramatically.
On-site modular is common (though not very known) for large apartment buildings. Setup a factory in the future parking lot, crank out apartment modules, crane them into place and connect them. It's efficient, but not "cool".
Modular homes have to compete with site-built on cost and quality, but do so within the same set of rules the site-built homes follow. There are two major challenges: 1) customization and 2) transportation.
Many home builders already use pre-framed walls and most use pre-built roof/floor trusses and windows because those are already cost effective. They also use standardized materials across the spectrum.
So basically, the materials are standardized to the point of customization, with the exception of roof trusses and sometimes kitchen cabinets.
For modular to win, the designs need to be standardized at a larger scope or the building codes changed to allow plug and play.
Second is transportation. It can cost $5,000-$15,000+ to ship a truck sized building module, and then a large crane has to be rented to unload and place them. The max size of a module is around 10.5' by 40'. Any larger and you pay overweight fees and for pilot cars. If you think about it, that's only 400 square feet of space. So even a 1600 square foot house gets too expensive fast.
It helps. The building code part especially makes a lot of sense. And also realizing that a crane would have to be involved once you get beyond individual sticks. Once you have a crane involved then you've got to get it on site, at which point you're already dealing with truck logistics.
Maybe I just like the idea of a truck rolling up with a flat-packed house, Ikea-style instructions, and a couple of 3 foot allen wrenches to put the whole thing together.
The limiting factor is building codes in the USA. But there are some really cool things all around the world in the building space, very little of which is publicized.
The construction industry as a whole suffers from inefficient communication.
I think the same applies to careers, at least for me.
The worst outcome is a moderately good job. A bad job you can quit, a great job you can retire from, but a moderately good job is slow speed entropy with a gradually narrowing window of opportunity.
Firstly, demand is not always a given. Sometimes it's built in to a market, other times it needs to be created. Other times, there's demand but no known solution if your work is novel, so you need to educate the market as to the benefits of your solution and to win trust in it.
Also, it's entirely possible to supply a product which meets a demand at good unit economics but fail because of other issues - recession, international political issues, governmental pressure, societal or social issues...
Finally, you need a market to be willing to accept a solution. It's entirely possible to have a better product, but lose the Comms/trust game in a winner takes all market situation.
Failure can come through issues in any of about nine different areas, but it always boils down to an issue in profitability or marketing. How that's expressed can take lots of forms. Hence you can simplify that far, and no further.
Years ago, there was a survey for founders called Startup Genome that asked about what went wrong.
It found that most companies failed because they had the wrong team or because they scaled prematurely (e.g. hiring full-time people to do part-time work).
My anecdata tells me most people never even get that far because they underestimate the cost of customer acquisition, and they can't survive the time it takes to get someone to write a check.
Quantity data is not a substitute for quality data.
Give an engineer a qualitative data point and they'll find a way to invalidate it.
But give them a million invalid data points...