><i>... the CPO at Tinder, ...</i><p>Tinder is really good at having a lot of users, and making money for itself. Very little of that success has to do with the quality or strategy of the product, beyond perhaps the implemention of dark patterns.<p>I could probably write an entire thesis exploring how product thinking bullshit like this enables half-baked visions—and all the dynamics that encourage them—to rot society from within.<p>Speaking of vision, the article provides a definition of the term alongside that of mission, then proceeds to quote a 2017 letter from Zuckerberg:<p><i>"Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together."</i> Yes, I'm sure that really rang true after a bunch of mentally ill people trashed his own country's capitol, brought together in part by his technology.
I don't think I understood any of this. I mean I get the idea. But there were just words and metaphors and ... the examples were not illustrative they were just ... there.<p>I was hoping for some useful insight (I am doing roadmapping at work now) but nothing meaningful came out here.<p>Sorry.
This was so bizarre. It was like... Describing the basics of strategy, and saying what strategy should be, but then never actually discussing anything but mission orientation.<p>The whole "stack" thing was meaningless, ripped from tech discussions with actual dependencies and rehashed without understanding. Like the rest of this bullshit MBA consulting<p>If you would like to read about actual product strategy methods, there are a ton of good books available. Check out Richard Rumelt for the source of where these basics are ripped. Simon Wardley has some really deep knowledge if you want to go down the tech strategy rabbit hole.