> But Google would probably be looking at the growth of Gmail to validate what ever the design department is doing.
If past performance is your primary way of to 'validate' anything, you obviously have a very poor understanding of the subject matter and are going to lag behind those who do.
I'm not entirely sure what you're stating here. Businesses shouldn't look at past performances in order to make judgements about future performance? And those who ignore it will have an edge?
andrewfelix was prompting you to elaborate. Just replying "that's not what I said" is completely unproductive - this is meant to be a conversation, not a game of twenty questions. We shouldn't have to guess at your meaning.
Sorry. I thought about this, but it seemed obvious to me. Maybe it isn't. I'll give it a try.
Of course past performance of a product is a factor worth considering in determining the future success of someone in any field. However if you really want to excel at this field, past performance is not likely to be the _primary_ factor (though it could be a smaller factor) in how you 'validate' future worth.
For instance, I can easily measure the past performance of stocks on the stock exchange. However if I really want to succeed in trading shares, 'have the stocks of foobar gone up in the past' is not likely to be the primary way I validate whether foobar is worth investing in.
Hope that helps you :) I didn't mean to sound as indignant as perhaps I did.
With you now. I'd guessed that was what you meant, but wasn't sure.
... incidentally, I still find it strangely novel when disagreements on HN don't turn into Internet Arguments. Makes such a refreshing change from, well, the rest of the web. :)
If past performance is your primary way of to 'validate' anything, you obviously have a very poor understanding of the subject matter and are going to lag behind those who do.