I had never heard that he embraced a "continuous deployment" model, and this short interview obviously doesn't get into details.
When Ford finally found a hit with the Model T, there were 18 prior prototypes (A-S), including many production models - A, C, F, N, R, and S. The revolutionary idea of interchangeable parts (again, congruent with Ries' thesis) had a lot to with with why Ford was able to iterate so much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_line#Ford_Motor_Compan...
"As a result of these developments in method, Ford's cars came off the line in three minute intervals. This was much faster than previous methods, increasing production by eight to one (requiring 12.5 man-hours before, 1 hour 33 minutes after), while using less manpower.[2] It was so successful, paint became a bottleneck. Only japan black would dry fast enough, forcing the company to drop the variety of colors available before 1914, until fast-drying Duco lacquer was developed in 1926.[2] In 1914, an assembly line worker could buy a Model T with four months' pay.[2]
"The assembly line technique was an integral part of the diffusion of the automobile into American society. Decreased costs of production allowed the cost of the Model T to drop within the budget of the American middle class. In 1908, the price of a Model T was around $825, and by 1912 it had dropped to around $575. This price reduction is comparable to a drop from $15,000 to $10,000 in dollar terms from the year 2000."
To me those numbers are quite significant. I am no student of automobile history, but it seems to me that the primary driver of Ford's success was the massive production efficiencies and reduced costs associated with the modern moving assembly line. I have to imagine there were "better" cars than the Model T, or other cars that had more prototypes and iterations.
Anyhow, I don't really mean to dispute the author's thesis here, since there's not really enough evidence to judge it. But I'm having a really hard time being convinced that some factor other than Ford reducing the production time per car by a factor of almost 10 and the price by almost half was primarily responsible for the company's success with the Model T.
And wikipedia agrees with your conclusion:
> Soon, companies had to have assembly lines, or risk going broke by not being able to compete; by 1930, 250 companies which did not had disappeared.
It also notes iteration in the perfection of the assembly line itself, though going by its older name of trial and error.
What definition of "better" are we using? (For example, higher top speed isn't relevant if you have bad roads.)
> or other cars that had more prototypes and iterations.
Prototypes and iterations cost money. Ford had more money, so why don't you assume more prototypes and iterations?
And Google - how do you make better search engine by "listening your customers"? No, you don't, you need an idea of pagerank foe example. Without that worthless idea you are toast, no matter how much you listen...
Oh and that thermonuclear reactor that we all dream about and what will resolve all energy problems on earth. No idea how to build it. Listen customers? Good luck with that.
Section 3.1 - http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
* Customers want better search results -> Create an algorithm that finds better results.
* Customers want clean, abundant energy -> Find out about the thermonuclear reactor.
You're looking at it from the wrong side.
If customers didn't want better search results but instead wanted portals, Google would have died, and Yahoo and Altavista would be about as big as Google right now. How do you know they want better search results? By listening to their needs.
Your product-idea might be the best thing since slice bread, but it's worthless if no one wants it.
PS: I'm not saying Google or Ford used this process, of course. But they are extraordinary companies. Also, if enough companies try, at least some should come close to satisfying the customer's needs just by chance and some intuition. You don't hear about the companies that had a great idea, implemented it, and then dropped dead for lack of customers.
This is what I don't get about the regurgitation of that "quote". It's obvious that what people are asking for is something faster; "horse" is just a point of reference.
People could have asked for a smaller horse, or a horse that eats less hay, or a horse that doesn't shit so much, and if you're not a blindered literalistic you'll easily read between the lines.
The "users are clueless" meme is perplexing. If they're so clueless, what does that say about the products they choose?
I'm not arguing about that, that I agree actually. But your brilliant execution is equally worthless if you do not have an idea HOW you should execute. Creating an algoritm that finds better results is not something you just sit and do.
But. - As you may not know. Customers did not what mobile phones. At all. And they absolutely did not want SMS. By listening their needs, we still be using landlines these days. - Customers did passionately, desperately want videophones, since 70's I remember. :-)
So in effect people didn't know they wanted SMS but when they got it they loved it. People claimed they wanted Videophones but when they understood the drawbacks they balked.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091102183112AA...
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_line#Olds_Motor_Vehicl...
But he improved on it quite a bit.