You are shifting my claim from it being a possibly necessary criteria, to it being the sole criteria. Worse, you are shifting my claim to be that technical debt somehow guarantees success.
Neither of these are my assertion. I simply assert that time to market is a vital metric. If hitting a vital time to market means making some tradeoffs (what we now call technical debt) then, so be it.
Take your examples, do you really think that Google did not make some tradeoffs? Having seen some of their products (I'm looking squarely at the pieces of crap that were my early phones from them...), I can confidently say they make rash decisions all of the time.
Now, there is a silly double speak that we have in the industry where we say "technical debt" when we really mean just poor work. There is a lot of conflation in the world where these two should not be mixed.
Neither of these are my assertion. I simply assert that time to market is a vital metric. If hitting a vital time to market means making some tradeoffs (what we now call technical debt) then, so be it.
Take your examples, do you really think that Google did not make some tradeoffs? Having seen some of their products (I'm looking squarely at the pieces of crap that were my early phones from them...), I can confidently say they make rash decisions all of the time.
Now, there is a silly double speak that we have in the industry where we say "technical debt" when we really mean just poor work. There is a lot of conflation in the world where these two should not be mixed.