I don't disagree with the article in general, but "worse is better" sounds like a terrible way to phrase it IMO.
The article explains how worse is often more profitable (because worse is cheaper and users don't care, don't know or don't have a choice). But it doesn't make it better in my book.
The article explains how worse is often more profitable (because worse is cheaper and users don't care, don't know or don't have a choice). But it doesn't make it better in my book.