Well, that's attacking a straw man, isn't it? The article didn't incorporate an explicit temporal aspect because the theme doesn't rely upon one: given a choice of undeniably "high fidelity" and "good enough," the market picks the latter.

Setting aside this quibble, the article was disturbing. (Good Enough Wedding Video? Good Enough Brain Surgery? <shudder>)

"the article was disturbing"

Yes and in more ways than it discusses.
Firstly I'd suggest the mp3 effect can be found at work before the advent of digital audio and UAVs. There was the Volkswagon, the AK47 and cask wine. One could well argue that's just goods for the masses and it has always been there.
What the article implies is there's something more at work, that "good enough" can be normative and that's the disturbing part. I look at the music industry and the piracy issue, it's not the "people think it's OK to steal" aspect that's troubling, it's the "it isn't theft because it has no value" aspect that is.
When "good enough" permeates everything and there's nothing left to aspire to, I think we're in trouble. On the upside though there seems to be an opposing trend amongst the younger generation. Some at least are going back to film, mechanical watches are more desirable than quartz and writing with a fountain pen more satisfying than a Biro.

Bob.

I can see that none of you have had to comply with ISO 9001, ISO 9002, ISO 9003.
JJK

I guess that means that Vegas 12 will only just be 'good enough' and we should'nt complain!!

Ted

@ corted - got it in before me ! ;-)

"I can see that none of you have had to comply with ISO 9001, ISO 9002, ISO 9003."

Been there, done ISO 9001.
It is a quality compliance standard, it says nothing about the quality itself.
You make a "near enough" camera and it is that and you have documented how you comply with your standards, you pass.
One of the great errors in perception is that ISO9001 means you make a high quality product.


Bob.

In fact, ISO9001 lets you make completely crappy garbage, as long as you've correctly documented your procedures and your quality checks. If you make crap and you say you've made crap, you can get certification.

ISO9001 = Say what you do, and Do what you say.

That definition does not equal high quality products

Yes, as a business model, one should not over estimate the willingness of potential customers to pay the costs for quality. However that article is a piece of pure PR spiel, constructed on elements of truth. Two major examples are seriously flawed, namely the medical and military. The medical model (2 doctors meeting 80% of patient needs) is unbelievable in any environment where people can afford to pay for medical services and I presume relies on patient self-diagnosing (otherwise the service would be overwhelmed -- perhaps the doctors just give referrals to hospitals for diagnosis). Military mission needs are not generally discovered by accident and the potential uses of unmanned aircraft have been central issues for some decades (effectively utilised during WWII). The balance between manned and unmanned mission roles (including ground forces) is changing as technologies advance and experience is gained, "good enough" never being part of the equation.
A life ethic based on "good enough" will soon bring everything down to a low level (like MP3) and a nation to mediocrity. Good enough management, good enough politics, good enough education. Good enough for what? Good enough to serve food at Macs? Doctors good enough to not harm more than 50% of patients? "Good enough" needs to know the difference between excellence and failure before any technology or endeavour can be assessed for its "enoughness". What would have been miraculous in Victorian times (let alone Elizabethan) is woefully inadequate today and advances are made by people who recognise that which can be improved and struggle to make it so. Good enough because we don't know any better, as said in the article, is a woeful philosophy for life.

Having said all that, Apple is the contrary argument to that article. People camp out to be first in acquiring innovative technology (as they see it). In the recent Olympic Games many in the media considered anything less than winning Olympic gold medals a barely worth a mention; "silver is the first loser". Not too long ago many people here argued that SD was "good enough", just as even earlier many people considered 23" TV quite adequate. That people are prepared to compromise quality for convenience or economy isn't evidence that they don't recognise or desire high quality goods and services.

"Just good enough" was the reason ISO 9000 was created as people had enough of "Just good enough". And yes, it did make sure that if you did purchase a product that was just good enough that you received that product in "Just good enough condition". Example, if you purchased a car that was supposed to rust out in 3 years
it would not rust out in 2.8 years but it would rust out not later than 3.1 years.
JJK

BS EN ISO 9001:2008 can cause standards to slip because some companies spend too much time documenting what they do and how they do it instead of concentrating on improving the product.