Why we're interested in useful technology.
We care less about novelty for its own sake and more about technology that measurably changes what people can do.
We judge technology by whether it changes real behavior, not by how novel or impressive it looks in a demo. Technology is easy to celebrate because new capabilities are exciting by default — but novelty has a short half-life, and a lot of genuinely impressive demos never translate into anything anyone actually keeps using six months later.
What actually earns a place
Useful technology earns its place by changing behavior. It saves time, reduces uncertainty, makes something newly possible, or helps someone reach an outcome they genuinely value. None of those effects require the technology to be new or clever — they just require it to work, reliably, for the specific person relying on it.
This is a deliberately unglamorous standard, and we think that’s a feature, not a limitation. The most impressive-sounding technologies don’t automatically clear this bar, and some genuinely unglamorous ones clear it easily. A better search field, a faster form, a clearer summary — none of these sound exciting in a pitch, and all of them can measurably improve someone’s day.
The standard we apply to our own work
That’s the standard we try to hold our own experiments to, including the ones that don’t work out. It’s tempting, when something is technically impressive, to treat that as evidence it’s also valuable. Those are separate questions, and conflating them is one of the more reliable ways to keep investing in something that photographs well but doesn’t actually help anyone.
Applying this standard honestly means being willing to set aside work that’s technically interesting but hasn’t demonstrated real behavioral change, even when it’s tempting to keep going because the underlying technology feels significant.
Small and used beats impressive and ignored
We don’t need every product to be revolutionary. A small improvement that people genuinely use can matter more than a spectacular demo that nobody actually needs in their day. This isn’t a modest claim dressed up as humility — it’s a straightforward observation about where value actually accrues. A tool used daily by a hundred people has done more real work in the world than a remarkable prototype used once by ten thousand people out of curiosity.
Common questions
How do you measure whether a technology is “useful” rather than just impressive? Look at behavior after the novelty fades — does usage persist, or does it fall off once curiosity is satisfied? Sustained, voluntary use is the clearest signal.
Doesn’t this standard discourage genuinely ambitious or experimental work? No — ambitious work can absolutely be useful. The standard isn’t “be modest.” It’s “prove the behavioral change eventually,” which ambitious ideas can do just as well as small ones, given enough time and honest evaluation.
Is there a risk in dismissing something too early just because it hasn’t shown usefulness yet? Yes, which is why the standard applies over a reasonable time horizon, not an instant judgment. The goal is honest evaluation, not impatience.
Takeaway: the interesting challenge isn’t building something new — it’s finding the point where a new capability becomes a better human experience.