While I grasp the reasoning in the article, and sometimes practice it, I also think it is often either counter productive or impossible.
For example, I have friends that released a rather ho-hum mobile app. They quickly garnered something like a 1.5 star rating, scathing reviews, and almost no conversions. The business cycle on this was a year, and they are still trying to claw back reputation and win users. It's a debacle. (the problems weren't their fault, but that is irrelevant to this point).
Then you have companies with secrecy, like Apple. I think this advice would be terrible for them (I have never worked there, and am open to correction). They can't dog food it widely due to the internal silos, and they certainly cannot test it with the public.
Then there are electronic systems - iterations on SW is easy, iterations on HW expensive and hard, even with simulations, mock ups, and what have you. I worked on an augmented reality hardware thingy several years ago; we went from foam cutouts to a couple of very expensive prototypes, and that was it.
It is awesome when we can completely sidestep a problem, and this process lets you sometimes sidestep the serious difficulty of UI design. I worry when it gets bandied about as a truism, or The One True Way (not saying Jeff is doing that, I'm remarking on the wider industry). Yes, Agile lets you sidestep the problem of scheduling and estimation - sometimes. Try that when you are making a new airliner, building a cloverleaf interchange, making a car entertainment system, and so on.
edit: the converse problem is equally as large. Someone below mentioned the 'planning mania' of companies. I don't mean to downplay that problem, just to point out the need to evaluate each situation on it's particular needs as opposed to a 'best practices' (oh, how I hate that term) unthinking approach.
"Then you have companies with secrecy, like Apple. I think this advice would be terrible for them (I have never worked there, and am open to correction). They can't dog food it widely due to the internal silos, and they certainly cannot test it with the public"
I fear that this myth is capitalized on by Apple under the hypercapitalist Auteur theory.[1]
The value of magic tricks is that they create awe and surprise, when in reality they can often be a by-product of misdirection and street-level sleights.[2]
This is not to suggest that Apple is going out onto street corners and asking random individuals for their opinions, but rather that part of the corporate myth making is likely obscuring process.
[2] I believe there is a court testimony document discussing Apple's market research team via Phil Schiller. Contrast this with Mr. Schiller's other comments about avoiding market research.
You can't release crap, even in your first version. Not saying your friends did that, but you have to have the kernel of something decent to show people before you release. Otherwise you're blowing the launch by taking all that initial interest and squandering it.
(I'd also argue mobile apps have a severe updating problem, that web apps do not.)
For example, I have friends that released a rather ho-hum mobile app. They quickly garnered something like a 1.5 star rating, scathing reviews, and almost no conversions. The business cycle on this was a year, and they are still trying to claw back reputation and win users. It's a debacle. (the problems weren't their fault, but that is irrelevant to this point).
Then you have companies with secrecy, like Apple. I think this advice would be terrible for them (I have never worked there, and am open to correction). They can't dog food it widely due to the internal silos, and they certainly cannot test it with the public.
Then there are electronic systems - iterations on SW is easy, iterations on HW expensive and hard, even with simulations, mock ups, and what have you. I worked on an augmented reality hardware thingy several years ago; we went from foam cutouts to a couple of very expensive prototypes, and that was it.
It is awesome when we can completely sidestep a problem, and this process lets you sometimes sidestep the serious difficulty of UI design. I worry when it gets bandied about as a truism, or The One True Way (not saying Jeff is doing that, I'm remarking on the wider industry). Yes, Agile lets you sidestep the problem of scheduling and estimation - sometimes. Try that when you are making a new airliner, building a cloverleaf interchange, making a car entertainment system, and so on.
edit: the converse problem is equally as large. Someone below mentioned the 'planning mania' of companies. I don't mean to downplay that problem, just to point out the need to evaluate each situation on it's particular needs as opposed to a 'best practices' (oh, how I hate that term) unthinking approach.