高质量、高速度：产品开发的新梦想

我认为未来两年整个科技行业最大的瓶颈不会是构建速度，而是运营层面——如何把已经构建好的东西，通过产品开发的运营齿轮，最终交付给客户。所以我的看法是，我们如何为这个新世界做好准备？你必须确保你的组织能够以与 AI 工具相同的速度运转。

I think the biggest blockers across all of the tech industry in the next 2 years will not be the speed of building. It's going to be the operational side and being able to move something from like we have built this thing, how does it move through the operational cogs of product development in order to like get it live to customers. So my view is like how do we set ourselves up for the new world? You have to make sure that your organization is capable at running at the same speed as the AI tools.

欢迎来到 Design Club，我是 Rid，这里是设计师永不停歇学习的地方。今天的节目深入探讨 Cash App 的设计，嘉宾是他们的产品设计主管 Cam Warboys。我们将讨论招聘流程，并了解他们最近一些发布背后的故事，从而理解设计组织的运作方式。Cam 的分享很有趣，我们直接开始吧。过去两年发生的变化，不仅在 Cash App，整个行业都翻天覆地。想想看，我们使用的整套工具都在变，一个人产出类似成果的速度完全变了，整个组织结构也受到了挑战。所以我觉得，即使没有那些疯狂的行业变化，这两年也已经够疯狂了，再加上 AI 的变革，简直是爆炸性的。但对我来说，我喜欢推动变革，这也是为什么回顾这两年，我为自己取得的成就感到自豪。我们拥有了一支非常出色的团队，工作方式非常现代，团队小而灵活，能够随着每周的变化而调整，最终产出了非常高质量的作品。

Welcome to Design Club. My name is Rid and this is where designers never stop learning. Today's episode is a deep dive into design at Cash App with their head of product design Cam Warboys. We're going to get into hiring process and get a little behind the scenes of some of their recent releases to understand how the design org operates. And Cam is a lot of fun to listen to, so let's dive right in. The amount of change that has happened in 2 years, not just at Cash App, but like the industry at whole is absolutely nuts. If you just think about it, right? It's we've had an entire set of tooling we're using changing. The entire speed that someone can produce a similar output has changed. The entire like organizational structure has been put into challenge. So I think on a good day without all of the like crazy industry stuff, I think it would have been a crazy 2 years, but then when you throw all of like the AI change on top of it, it's been an absolute blowout, but to me what I love is driving change and I think that's why I feel like I've been I'm reflecting back on 2 years being like I'm pretty proud of where we've got to. We've really got an insane team. We are working in a way that feels very modern. We're small and nimble and able to kind of pivot with the changes that happen every single week. And ultimately we're just producing really good work.

我觉得你完全有理由自豪。即使只是回顾一下最近，几个月前你们有一个重大发布，那是一件大事，而且整体质量非常高。所以我这次对话的目标之一就是深入探讨这些现代工作方式。我想从你上次谈话中提到的一个短语开始，你说你的使命几乎是高质量、高速度。那么，对于你们在 2025 年底刚刚发布的这个重大版本，你认为它如何体现了你希望设计组织如何运作？

I mean I think you have every right to be proud. Even just digging through some of the recent You had a pretty big release just a few months ago. It was a big deal And across the board it was really high quality. So part of my goal of this conversation is to dig into some of these modern ways of working. And I want to start with a phrase that you used last time we talked where you talked about like almost your mandate is this high quality, high velocity. So what about this big release that you just shipped at the end of 2025 do you think shines a light on how you want this design org to operate?

我认为历史上产品开发中存在一种疯狂的权衡：要么高质量但慢，要么快但质量差。而我在过去六个月到一年，甚至从去年 11 月以来感受到的变化——感觉又是一次指数级变革——是这些权衡不再存在了，你可以快速行动，同时保持高质量，这对我来说非常了不起。但这并不意味着容易做到。我认为同时实现这两点的方法是：团队必须非常精简，对团队要达成的结果必须极其清晰，然后确保他们使用工具的方式能够实现 10 倍的产出。因为关于质量有一个误解，认为它来自设计师在某个角落里闭关三个月，高谈阔论软件的未来。根本不是这样。质量来自于反复迭代，来自于你犯错的速度和重新尝试的速度，不断实验。我认为我们看到的变化是，设计师的产出量呈指数级增长，而运营组织所需的官僚层级也大大减少。把这些结合起来，就能以极高的质量和速度产出更多成果，这简直是产品开发的梦想，至少对我来说是这样。

I think historically in product development there used to be this insane trade-off that you can either have it of high quality and it has to be slow or you can have it fast but then it's bad. And I think the change that I've felt the most over the last, you know, six months to a year and even since like November it's feels like another exponential change again is those trade-offs no longer exist and you can move fast and you can do it with high quality and to me that is just exceptional. It doesn't mean it's easy to do. I think the the way you achieve both of those things simultaneously is you have to run very lean teams. You have to be incredibly clear on the outcomes which those teams are trying to achieve and then you have to make sure they're using these tools in a way that allows them to 10x output and you know, the amount they produce because I think the quality piece there's a misconception that it comes from a designer sitting in some cave for three months and pontificating about the future of software. It literally doesn't. It comes from reps and the the speed which you can be wrong and the speed that you can go again and experiment and experiment experiment. And I think that's what we've seen change is the amount designers can produce has exponentially increased and the amount of like bureaucracy and layers you need to run an organization has changed a lot as well. So you kind of package that together and and allows you to produce significantly more at really high quality at a really high speed and it's just like a product development dream, at least as far as I'm concerned.

快速插播一条消息，然后我们继续。Lovable 刚刚发布了更智能的版本，解决复杂任务的能力提升了 71%，这意味着它可以更自主地完成更多工作。它拥有更智能的规划、提示队列功能，你可以在 Lovable 工作时堆叠请求。我最喜欢的是自动化测试，Lovable 现在像真实用户一样测试你的应用：打开自己的浏览器、导航流程、检查边缘情况、为你捕捉错误。最棒的是，当它发现问题时，会当场修复。我真的相信 Lovable 是目前构建软件最简单的方式，所以请访问 dive.club/lovable 尝试新版本。你知道我对什么感到兴奋吗？Granola MCP。它允许你将 AI 工具直接连接到你的 Granola 会议笔记。作为一个最近用 vibe coding 构建了很多工具的人，这个版本非常重要，因为我的会议笔记是我最有价值的上下文之一。现在我可以根据会议历史找到特定主题、提取行动项、回答任何问题。这一切今天就可以使用，我已经在疯狂地用它构建了。所以，如果你想加入我，请访问 dive.club/granolamcp。就是 granola-mcp。现在，回到节目。

Real quick message and then we can jump back into it. An even smarter version of Lovable just released. It is 71% better at solving complex tasks, which means it can do more work more autonomously. There's more intelligent planning, it's prompt queuing, so you can stack requests while Lovable works. And my favorite part, there's automated testing, which means Lovable now tests your apps like a real user. Opens its own browser, navigates flows, investigates edge cases, and catches bugs for you. And the best part is when it finds a problem, it fixes it right on the spot. I genuinely believe Lovable is the easiest way to build software today, so head to dive.club/lovable to try the new release. You know what I'm excited about? The Granola MCP. It allows you to connect your AI tools directly to your Granola meeting notes. And as somebody who's been vibe coding a lot of tools recently, this release is a pretty big deal because my meeting notes are some of the most valuable context that I have. And now I can find specific topics, pull out action items, and get any question answered based on my meeting history. This is all available today and I'm already building with it like crazy. So, if you want to join me, head to dive.club/granolamcp. That's granola-mcp. Now, on to the episode.

我们来深入探讨一下组织变革，因为你刚才大致划了一条线，大概是六个月前，然后你知道，可能是 11 月、12 月。我也非常认同这两个转折点。但这对设计组织意味着什么？作为领导者，你如何理解在所有这些工具变化速度和可能性面前，我们想要如何运作？感觉很多旧规则不再适用了。那么，在你的位置上，你究竟会怎么做？

Let's dig into some of the organizational change because you almost kind of drew this line at like 6 months ago and then you know, like November, December maybe. I very much so see those as these two inflection points as well. But then like how does that trickle to a design org? Like you as a leader trying to make sense of how do we want to operate given the rate of change of all these tools and what is possible and it just feels like a lot of the old rules don't apply anymore. So, what do you even do with that in your position?

对对对对。这是一个复杂的问题，我认为没有单一的答案。我最初思考的方式是，旧规则是什么？如果你想想旧规则，过去有一个产品开发小组，里面有一个嵌入式设计师、一个嵌入式工程师、一个产品经理，基本上就是“披萨团队”。然后你会有很多这样的披萨团队，因为团队很多，就需要很多管理层级。然后你有一堆经理，这些经理又有自己的经理，于是就有了很多结构。不知不觉中，你就有了一个由巨大组织构成的网络，有六个管理层级、很多小团队，里面很多人都在做微优化。

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like a complex question, I think, that there's not one answer to. The way my brain kind of initially goes on this previously is what are the old rules, right? And if you think about the old rules, it used to be that there was this product development pod, and it was an embedded designer, and it was an embedded engineer, and product manager, and then the pizza team, essentially, right? And then you'd have a lot of these pizza teams, and then because there's there were a lot of pizza teams, you'd need a lot of management layers. Then you'd have a bunch of managers, and then those managers would also have managers, and then you'd have a bunch of structure. And before you knew it, you had this web of these giant orgs with like six management layers, lots of small teams, and lots of people doing like micro-optimization in there.

从结构角度来看，我认为变化在于，人们能产出的量大概是以前的 20 倍、30 倍，有时甚至 100 倍，所以你不再需要那种旧模式。因此，我们能做的就是扁平化整个组织。我们在设计部门有一条规则叫“核心加三层”，意思是我们离 Jack 只有三层管理距离，考虑到我们公司的规模，这其实相当疯狂。我们最初决定扁平化时，这是最让我们紧张的事情，但实际实施后，它却是我收到最多正面反馈的举措。原因在于，扁平化之后基本上就是 Jack、Brooke、Cam，然后一层，就这样。它让我们无法躲在各种管理结构里，也没有传话游戏。它真正优先考虑的是那些每周都在构建软件和产品的人，他们可以跳过很多层级直接汇报。所以我认为这可能是我们做过的最有意识的事情之一。如果你想想，当你改变组织结构并扁平化时，它真正让你做到的是更加灵活。比如 11 月发生什么事，我们惊呼“天哪，规则又变了”，我们不需要经过六层管理，还要让那五个人保持一致。我们有一个非常紧密的小领导团队，我每周一开一次例会让他们同步，仅此而已。没有一对一，什么都没有，就一周一次会，其余时间都用来构建，这才是解锁这些成果的关键。里面有很多很多内容，但如果要反思我们为跟上变化速度所做的最大的一件事，那就是真正挑战了传统组织架构——那种过去十年人们用来大规模交付软件的产品开发结构。

And I think what's changed from a structural standpoint is because the amount people can produce is, yeah, probably like 20x, 30x, maybe even 100x sometimes, then you don't have to have this old model. So, what you can do, and what we were able to do, is flatten the entire organization. So, we have this rule in design which we have core plus three, which essentially means we're only three management layers away from Jack, which is actually quite crazy when you think about a company of our size. When we first decided to flatten, it was the thing that we were most nervous about, but actually since we did it, it's been the thing that I've received the most positive feedback on. And the reason is you flatten it and basically it just goes Jack, Brooke, Cam, and then a layer of what's like that's it. And what it allows us to do is not kind of like, you know, there's no hiding in various management structures, there's no game of telephone. It really just prioritizes the people who are building the software and the product week in week out, and then they get to skip a bunch of layers and just report up. So, I think that was probably one of the most intentional things that we've done. And if you think about that at like what that actually allows you to do when you when you kind of change the organizational structure and just flatten it, it just allows you to be much more nimble. So, when something happens in say November and we're like, "Oh my god, the game's changed again." We are not working through six layers of management and having to like keep those five people aligned. It's a very small tight-knit group of leads where I just have one standing meeting on a Monday to keep them in sync, and that's it. No one-on-ones, no nothing, just one one meeting a week, and then the rest of our time is just spent building, and that's really what's unlocking some of these things. There's there's tons and tons of stuff in there, but I think if I was to reflect what's been the single biggest thing we've done that has allowed us to keep with the pace of change, it's been really challenging the traditional organizational like product development structure that I think people used to deliver software at scale over the last like 10 years.

你能再深入谈谈吗？这如何影响设计实践或任何流程、仪式？在更扁平的组织中，哪些东西仍然存在？鉴于这些变化，你们在设计方式上是否删除了某些具体元素？

Can you push on that a little bit and talk about how that impacts the practice of design or any processes, rituals? Like what does exist still in that more flatter org? And were there specific elements of how you all did design that you actually removed given those changes?

看看前后对比也很有趣，对吧？因为那才是真正有意思的地方。我们有一种令人不安的流程缺失。所以经常有人加入，最近他们会说“哇，这有点震惊”。而且所有流程都有文档，但 Cash Product Design 的所有流程，我现在就能想象出来，大概就五行内容。真的就是几句话，比如“这是你必须参加的东西”。对我来说，这说明我们在这方面做了多少削减。我认为这非常重要的原因是，流程的存在，在我看来，是为了在设计开始规模化、专业化时提供输出的一致性。你知道，我刚开始做设计时，它并不专业。我们过去常常即兴发挥，主要靠感觉，凭感觉觉得好就行。我相信你当时可能也差不多。然后，当设计团队需要达到 300、400、1000 人时，你必须引入流程和结构来支撑那么多人。过去一两年里，真正被推动的问题是：这些流程中，哪些对你有用，哪些没用。所以我们基本上系统地梳理了一遍，删除了大量令人不安的东西。比如，每个人都痴迷于设计评审，对吧？都说“啊，这对我们的流程至关重要”。但如果你真的去很多大型组织旁听一次设计评审，它其实并不是传统意义上的强评审。人们只是互相说“啊，你的作品真可爱。啊，你的作品真好。你也许可以往这边推一下。”或者贴几张便利贴。大多数时候，设计师离开评审后可能忽略了 90% 的评论，对吧？你大概也预料到了。然后你会想，“那这有什么意义？”你花了一个小时，把所有人聚在一起，为什么不干脆删掉它呢？于是你删掉它，看看会发生什么。然后我们基本上系统地审视了所有我们珍视的专业设计流程，找到了一种非常精简的运作方式。所以，如果你是 Cash App 的独立贡献者，每周的工作非常简单。你基本上周一和团队一起规划。如果遇到困难，周三有固定的时间可以解卡，但那是可选的，除非你卡住了，否则不必参加。然后周五你演示你构建的东西，大家共享。这真的很精简，但我认为它实际上让我回到了产品开发的纯粹状态——不需要那么复杂，不需要那些制衡来支撑成百上千的连接点。就是回归构建本身。对我来说，这是最令人振奋的事情，我真心认为，正是通过评估所有这些东西，看清什么对我们有用、什么没用，才让我们加速了这么多。

It's interesting as well to look at like the before and the after, right? Cuz that's actually where it gets kind of interesting. So, we have an uncomfortable lack of process. So, often some people join and more recently they've been like, "Woah, this is kind of like a shock." And they And it's all documented, but all of our process in Cash Product Design, I can I can actually picture it right now. It's It's about five lines of stuff. Like it literally just like sentences, just like this is like the thing you have to go to. And And that to me talks to just like the cutting we've been able to do on that. And the reason I think that's really really important is process existed, from my perspective, to provide consistency in output when design started to scale and become professionalized. So, you know, back when I first started design, it wasn't I would I would say it wasn't really professional. We just used to kind of wing it. Uh we we just would like kind of run on vibes mostly and like what we felt felt good. I'm sure it was probably the same with you. And then as, you know, you needed design orgs to be 300, 400 people, 1,000 people, you had to put in process and structure in order to support that many people. The real question which is has been kind of been put into motion over the last year, 2 years has been of that process, what is serving you and what isn't serving you. So, we've just basically just like systematically gone through and deleted an uncomfortable amount of stuff. Like, for example, everyone is obsessed with design crits, right? And says, "Ah, so essential to our process." If you actually do like a ride-along at a of a design crit at a lot of large organizations, it's not really a strong crit in like the traditional sense. People are just telling everyone, "Ah, your work's lovely. Ah, your work's so good. You Maybe push it over here." Or they like put another post-it like a few post-it notes on there. And then most times like the designer leaves that crit and probably ignores like 90% of the comments anyways, right? Like you probably expect that. And then it's like, "Well, what was the point of that?" You spend an hour, you brought everyone together, so why don't we just try deleting it? And so you delete it and then you see what happens. And and then I think we kind of has just systematically gone through all of the, you know, kind of professional design processes that we've held clear and then just found a way to just like run very, very lean. So, if you're a kind of IC at Cash App, the week in, week out, it's it's pretty simple. You basically just get together and plan with your team on a Monday. And then if you get stuck, there's standing time on Wednesdays to unblock, but you know, it's optional. You don't have to unless you're stuck. And then on Fridays you just demo what you built. And that's like shared. So, it's really it's very bare-bones, but I think it actually starts to get back to me to the pureness of product development where it didn't need to be as so complicated and we didn't need to have these like checks and balances to support all of these hundreds and hundreds and thousands of connective tissue points. It's just It's just getting back to building again. And to me that is just like the most energizing thing and I and I honestly think it's what sped us up so much is just evaluating all of that stuff and seeing what serves us and what doesn't serve us.

我也很喜欢“计划”和“演示”这两个锚点，它们像书挡一样放在一周的两端。因为根据我的经验，如果你有那种正式的设计评审，需要获得批准或解卡，很多时候，我也有罪，我会等着。我就等着，等三天直到能开那个会，然后问那两个我需要答案的问题。但鉴于你之前提到的，设计师能做的迭代速度，这种方式根本行不通了。

I love the two anchor points being plan and demo kind of at the bookends of the week, too, because in my experience, if you do have that crit, like the formal crit, where you're actually going to get like {quote} approval or like get unblocked, per se, a lot of times, you know, I'm guilty of just waiting. Like I I'll just wait. I'm just going to wait 3 days until I can have that meeting and then I'll just ask those two questions that I need to get answers to. And it's like that just doesn't cut it anymore given like what you were talking about earlier, this this speed of reps that you can do as a designer that just doesn't translate.

对我来说，我认为未来两年整个科技行业最大的障碍不会是构建速度。

For me, I think the biggest blockers across all of the tech industry in the next 2 years will not be the speed of building.

这将是运营层面的事情——如何把我们已经构建好的东西，通过产品开发的运营齿轮，最终交付给客户？所以我的看法是，我们如何为这个新世界做好准备？你必须确保你的组织能够以与 AI 工具相同的速度运转。而这些 AI 工具的速度快如闪电。

It's going to be the operational side and being able to move something from like we have built this thing, how does it move through the operational cogs of product development in order to get it live to customers? So my view is like how do we set ourselves up for the new world? You have to make sure that your organization is capable at running at the same speed as the AI tools. And these AI tools move lightning fast.

它们确实很快。

They're fast.

所以对我来说，这就像是我们试图在组织内部改变的一个整体习惯——关于我们在所有事情上带来的节奏和紧迫感。这意味着他们要与这些工具保持同步，我认为这会让组织为未来做好更充分的准备。

So to me that's like an entire habit we're trying to change within our org around the pace and the urgency that we bring into just everything. And then that means that they are keeping pace with this tooling and I think to me that puts an org in a much better state for the future.

我们来聊聊周五演示这个环节。一场精彩的周五演示与一场稍微平庸的演示相比，是什么样的？

Let's talk about the Friday demos piece for a second. Like what does a great Friday demo look like compared to maybe a slightly more mediocre one?

学科之间的界限正在模糊，对吧？因为设计师现在也在写代码，工程师当然还在写代码，甚至产品经理也在写代码。所以对我来说，一个好的演示——当周五结束，我通常会去很多演示那里转转——当我感觉到有技术突破时，我就很开心。我不能说太多，但过去几周很多时候，我去看演示，看到大家在构建的东西，真的感觉像是发明，而不仅仅是信息分享，比如“哦，这是我本周做的，符合规格，我们完成了规格里的要求”。对我来说，感觉更像是：我们有一个挑战，有一个我们作为团队想要达成的结果，我们正在做第四个原型，这个几乎能用了。我想这可能是最好的定义。它很粗糙、很原始，但你能看到技术突破的一丝光芒。举个例子，Moneybot 是我们完整发布的产品，对吧？我记得第一次看到 Moneybot 的网页演示，我们基本上把客户的数据和我们各种数据喂进去，然后得到回复。可能设计并不好，执行也很慢，响应花了很长时间，但那是第一次你能感受到它的潜力，你会想，“哦，哇，我们在这里有了突破。”在良好的周复一周的演示中，这些突破往往会累积，然后那种能量会渗透到团队中，至少我看到人们希望不断提升在演示中发生的那些突破。所以，没有固定的公式，除了“展示你这周做了什么”。如果你构建了非常复杂、非常困难的东西并且取得了突破，那很好。如果你只是做了些粗糙的东西，或者你这周只做了动画和最后的打磨，那也完全没问题。只是展示你这周做了什么。

The lines between disciplines are blurring, right? Because designers now coding stuff and engineers are still coding stuff as well. And even product managers are coding stuff. So, to me, a good demo, I feel happy when I've finished Fridays and I've tended to pop around a lot of demos, when I just feel there's been like technological breakthroughs. I can't say too much, but a lot of the times over the last few weeks, I've been going to demos and I've been seeing what's being built and it really does feel like invention, I guess, and that it's not just information sharing, like, oh, here's what I built this week. That was in spec and we've fulfilled the answer in the spec. It to me feels like, you know, we had this challenge and this outcome which we were trying to achieve as a group and we're on like the fourth prototype of it and this one almost works. I guess is maybe the best definition. And it's scrappy, it's raw, but you can see like a glimmer of a technological breakthrough. So, for example, Moneybot was something we launched in our full release, right? I remember seeing the first demo actually on web of Moneybot where we basically took a customer's data and all sorts of our data, we're able to feed it into this thing and have a response back. And it was probably the design was not good. The execution was so slow, it took so far to spin it back, but it was the first moment where you could feel the potential and you were like, oh, wow, we're like having breakthroughs here. In a good week-on-week basis from demos, those breakthroughs tend to like compound and then that energy just like filters into the team and then I've at least seen people want to keep like leveling up on those like breakthroughs which are happening at demos. So, there's no formula per se other than just show us what you built this week. If you built something incredibly complex that's really hard and you've broken through, great. If you've just built something that's raw or if you just doing animations for the week and final mile polish, that's absolutely fine. It's just show us what you made this week.

我认为 Moneybot 是一个很有趣的观察对象，因为它之所以特别，很大程度上在于像素之外的东西，你知道吗？很多设计甚至都在像素之外。所以也许我们可以用它作为例子，来讨论设计在 Cash App 的价值主张是如何转变的——一方面可能是因为你们正在做的产品类型，比如 Moneybot，另一方面听起来人们也在更多地尝试这些工具。你谈到了技术突破的价值，更多的人在写代码。那么在实践中，这种转变在 Cash App 是什么样的？

I think money bots are a pretty interesting thing to look at because so much of what makes it special exists outside of the pixels, you know? Like a lot of the design even is outside of the pixels. So maybe we could even use that as an example to talk about how the value prop of design has shifted at Cash App, both maybe due to the type of product that you're working on, like a money bot, but also it sounds like people are experimenting more with these tools. You talked about the value of technological breakthroughs, more people are coding. Like what has that shift looked like in practice at Cash App?

现在我们的几乎所有产品都在通过 PR 发布。我觉得这有点好笑。我可以凭记忆说出数据：超过 90%。这有点疯狂。这是一件大事。是的，所以这是一件大事。但有趣的是，设计师们总是倾向于最“设计”的东西。我发现很多设计师在修复产品中那些困扰他们多年的小细节。这真是一个有趣的行动过程。就像你拿到了王国的钥匙，可以发布那些疯狂的东西，然后设计师们却说：“哦，这个屏幕上的像素化太糟糕了。”我见过大量的关键线对齐问题。我们的应用过去在质量和付费页面上有问题，页面之间不够完美。我脑子里想到两位设计师，他们正在疯狂地提交 PR。Lauren 有一个很棒的团队，叫“像素清洁工”。他们就像像素清洁工一样，到处清理开发人员留下的、没有让应用完全像素完美的痕迹。我知道这有点偏离问题，但我认为这只是一个我觉得很好笑的轶事。但我认为随着时间的推移，他们会从像素清洁工和设计师发布代码开始，然后信心会从那里不断增长。我确实看到了一个不远的未来，非常复杂的功能可以通过一个构建者来发布，你无法区分这个构建者是工程师、设计师还是其他学科的人。他们只是能够可视化并发明一些东西，然后通过这些工具发布。这就是我看到的趋势。我认为这将是一个缓慢的渐进过程，然后有一天我们会醒来，发现：“等等，没有规则了。只有谁能发布？”

Almost all of our products now are shipping PRs. And I found it kind of funny. I can pull the data off the top of my head: it's over 90%. It's kind of crazy. It's a big deal. Yeah, so it's a big deal. But what's funny is designers keep gravitating towards the most designery stuff. And I found a lot of designers are fixing these small refinements in the product that have bugged them for years. And it's just been like a funny course of action. It's like you get keys to the kingdom and you can ship these insane things. And then designers are like, "Oh, this pixelation on this screen was really awful." Like the amount of keyline alignment I've seen. We used to have issues in our app where those quality and paid pages would be like and things just weren't quite perfect page-to-page. And there's two designers I'm thinking of in the top of my head who are just like smashing through PRs. And Lauren has this great group like the pixel janitors. And they are like the pixel janitors who are just going around cleaning up after our developers who didn't make the app completely pixel perfect. So I know that's a tangent off the question, but I think that's just an anecdote which I'm finding so funny. But I think over time they'll start being pixel janitors and designers shipping code. And then confidence will just grow from there and grow and grow. And I do see a world in the not too distant future where very complex features are being shipped via just a builder and you can't distinguish whether that builder is an engineer, a designer, or someone else in a discipline. They're just able to visualize and invent something and just ship that through these tools. So that's where I can see it going. I just think it's going to slowly be like a progression and then we'll wake up one day and it will be like, "Wait, there's no more rules. Where it's just who can ship?"

说得好。我真的已经看到这种趋势在发生了。我自己的实践中也有点这种感觉。比如我最近几天提交了几个 PR，我退后一步，心想：“我简直不敢相信。我竟然做到了。”你知道，这远远超出了 P3 打磨工单的范畴。话虽如此，对于你这样一个更大的组织来说，即使接近 90% 这个数字，也是一个相当了不起的成就。那么，有没有任何自上而下的投入，或者你们做了什么来帮助设计师更熟悉代码？这是自然发生的吗？你是如何在这么短的时间内看到如此大的组织变革的？

Good stuff. And I can really see that trajectory already happening. I'm feeling that a little bit even for my own practice. Like I've made a couple PRs in the last few days and I'm like, I just honestly step back and I'm like, "I can't believe it. I cannot believe that I did that." You know, it's so past the line of the like P3 polish ticket. That being said, for you to even get close to that at an org that's so much bigger, you know, and you're if you're even close to this 90% number, that's a pretty incredible feat. So has there been any like top-down investment or anything that you're doing to help designers get more comfortable with code? Is it just happening organically? Like how have you been able to see such an organizational transformation over such a short period of time?

我认为我们在工具方面已经领先很多，这使得设计师能够做到这一点。我们有一群人专门负责 AI 赋能方面，还有一个完整的项目致力于代码流畅度，帮助设计师从零开始——从没有 GitHub 账户，一直到将 API 发布到产品中。

I think we've been far ahead in the tooling aspect that enables designers to do this. So we've had a group of people who essentially look at the AI enablement side of it and there's an entire program that's dedicated to code fluency and that's helping designers from zero where they don't have a GitHub account all the way to shipping API into product.

第一阶段从沙盒 PR 开始，这样你可以随便折腾，等大家习惯了在沙盒里发布，我们就进入实际产品。我们发现工程师结对编程真的很有帮助，就是帮设计师导航。我觉得现在难点不再是写代码本身，而是按哪个按钮世界不会毁灭。

The first stage starts in like a sandbox PR so you can kind of mess about and then once people have kind of got comfortable shipping inside of a sandbox, we move into the actual product and there we found some engineering pairing is really helpful just to help designers honestly just navigate it. I don't think it's necessarily building the code which is the hard part anymore. It's more so which buttons do I press and the world doesn't end, essentially.

太对了。你就坐在那儿，心想“好吧，我不是开发意义上的技术人”，然后你读这些东西，连文件名都看不懂，心想“这是什么？”

So true. So you're just there and you're like, "Okay, I'm not technical in the sense of development." And you read some of these things and even the file names, you're like, "What is this?"

GitHub 上的每个按钮都很吓人，就连 squash and merge 也是。我看着它，心想“它是绿色的”，绿色通常意味着可以按，但我还是得去谷歌一下。我心想“我该按 squash and merge 按钮吗？”它明明是整页上唯一一个按钮，但我还是按不下去。

Every button in GitHub is scary, too. Like even the squash and merge. I looked at that and I'm like, "It's green." Green normally means it's okay to press, but I'm like, I got to Google this. I'm like, "Do I hit the squash and merge button?" It's very clearly the only button on the entire page to hit, but I still couldn't get myself to hit it.

嗯，听起来差不多。我觉得到 Q1 末我们就能达到 100%。有几个人显然在休假，但到季度末每个设计师都会发布生产环境的 PR。

Yeah, that sounds about right. I think by the end of Q1 we'll be at 100%. We've got a few people who are obviously out of office, but we'll have every single designer ship production PRs by the end of the quarter, I think.

世界在变，但这只是其中一部分。构建的部分还在，但这个新世界里还有其他工作，在我看来同样重要，甚至更重要。

World's changing. It's one part of it, though. There's still the building part, but there's still these other jobs that happen in this new world that to me are just as essential and even more important in this new world as well.

你想再深入谈谈吗？

You want to go a little bit deeper there?

我们基本上有一个 DRI 概念，代表直接责任人。DRI 负责领导一大群独立贡献者去实现一个成果。从我的角度看，真正有趣的是，如果你仔细想想，有太多事情可以做。真正的挑战变成了：如果我有无限的选择，战略是什么？我们如何凝聚一大群构建者快速交付那个战略，从而获胜？这本身就是一门艺术，我认为同样关键。否则，你会发布太多东西，但拼不到一起。组织的一部分往这边走，另一部分往那边走。所以，这些工具在增加产出方面很惊人，但没有那种品味和能力——知道公司战略方向是什么，以及哪些人每周都在推动我们朝那个方向前进——产出就毫无意义。对我来说，这跟每天写代码、构建产品的人同样关键。

We basically have a DRI concept and that stands for directly responsible individuals. The DRIs are responsible for leading a large group of ICs to achieve an outcome. What's really interesting from my perspective is, if you actually think about it, there's so much stuff you could do. The real challenge then becomes if I've got this infinite set of options, what is the strategy and how do we coalesce a large group of builders to deliver on that strategy fast so that we win? That's an art form in itself that I think is just as critical. Otherwise, you'll end up with so much shipping, it won't click together. One part of the org's going over here, another part of the org's going over there. So, these tools are amazing at increasing the amount of output, but output without that taste and that ability to be like, this is where we're going strategically as a company and these are the people who are going to help drive us week in week out towards that direction. That to me is just as critical as the people who are shipping the code and building it day to day.

我认为设计也有机会真正承担这个角色，因为设计可以可视化未来的样子。很多其他技能做不到这一点。人们得写文档之类的东西，但如果我们想追求比如下一版 Moneyball 并讨论它的未来，设计师可以实际做一个原型，展示给所有人，说“这是我们可以走的方向”，然后每个人都同意“好，我们跟着走”。这让这群构建者基本上知道打击点在哪里。所以，也许一个好的表述方式是：随着产出增加，清晰度和愿景的价值变得越来越重要，否则你最终会得到“样样通、样样松”的软件。

I think design also has an opportunity to really step into that role because design can visualize what the future could look like. A lot of other skill sets can't do that. People have to write documents or something like that, but if we're trying to go after, say, the next version of Moneyball and talk about it in the future, a designer can actually prototype something, show it to everyone, and be like, this is the direction we can go, and then everyone's like, yes, let's follow that. That allows this group of builders to essentially know where the strike point is. So, maybe a good way of articulating it is I think as the output increases, the value of clarity and vision just becomes more and more important because otherwise you will end up in this jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none software.

也许我们可以把今天谈的所有内容总结一下，因为我相信有些听众对所有这些变化感到兴奋，但也在试图规划职业策略——未来 1、2、3、4 年，我想把什么带到桌面上，继续作为一名专业设计师实践，我的北极星是什么？所以，当你想到在你的组织里真正成功的那些设计师原型时，你怎么划分界限？一个人可以指向哪里，或者决策矩阵是什么，来决定自己想成为哪种设计师，才能在像 Cash App 这样的组织里茁壮成长？

Maybe we could even tie a bow on everything that we're talking about here because I'm sure some people listening are excited by all of the change, but also people are trying to figure out almost like career strategy, what's the North Star that I want to even point myself at in terms of what I want to bring to the table 1, 2, 3, 4 years from now to continue practicing as a professional designer. So, when you think about maybe even the archetypes of designers that are having real success in your org, where do you kind of draw the lines? Where can somebody point at or the decision matrix of what type of designer do I want to be where I could thrive at an org like Cash App?

当你处于快速变化的时期，最重要的是要有价值，然后能够以变化的速度一次又一次地重塑自己。所以，如果我要给长期职业寿命的建议，我会说不要对抗这个趋势。它从根本上改变了整个产品开发流程。所以，重新武装自己不是奢侈，而是必须做的。我认为如果你不精通 AI，在不久的将来你会很难找到工作，说实话。甚至现在可能就已经很难了。

When you're in these periods of rapid change, the most important thing is being valuable and then being able to reinvent yourself again and again and again at the pace of change. So, if I was to give any advice on long-term career longevity, I'd say there is no fighting this direction of travel. It is fundamentally changing the entire product development process. So, retooling is not a luxury, it's a must-do. I think if you're not AI fluent, you will struggle to get a job, to be honest, in the not-too-distant future. You might even struggle now.

我正想说我们可能已经到了那个地步。

I was about to say we might be there already.

我也这么认为。很难说，但我觉得这就是事实。至于它演变的形态，我真的不知道，但我们正在朝三个原型努力，我认为在最高层面上，这是一个角色界限更加流动的世界。我们在 Block 内部讨论，我不能居功，但基本上有一个 DRI，他是推动工作的人。有 IC，他们是工艺制造者、品味制造者，推动实际执行朝着目标前进。还有球员教练，他们是组织的领导层。我可以逐一展开。我认为 DRI 是一个特别值得投入的角色，尤其是对设计师而言，因为作为 DRI，你的优势在于能够把一个松散的商业战略金块转化为行动。例如，目前我非常关注一个叫“Neighborhoods”的想法，它是关于如何连接 Square 和 Cash App 的柜台两侧。如果你想想看，这是一个迷人的问题。为什么你走进每一家 Square 商店，不用 Cash App 付款？没有理由。这是一个技术上非常有趣的挑战，也是一个非常以客户为中心的体验挑战。这是一个重要的角色，我认为它塑造了设计的未来。

I think so. It's hard to say, but I think it's just the truth. And then as far as the evolving shape of it, I honestly don't know, but there's three archetypes which we're working towards and I think at the highest level, it's a world where the lines between roles are a lot more fluid. We basically talk internally at Block and I can't take credit for this, but there's basically a DRI, he's the person who's driving the work. There's ICs who are the craft makers, taste makers, driving the actual execution towards that goal. And then there's player coaches which are like the leadership layer of the organization. I can go into each one of those. I think a DRI is a really interesting thing to lean into, particularly as a designer, because your strength as a DRI is essentially your ability to take a loose strategic nugget as a business. For example, at the moment I'm very focused on this idea called Neighborhoods, which is how we connect both sides of the counter between Square and Cash App. If you think about that, that's a fascinating problem to solve. Why when you walk into every single Square shop, you don't pay with Cash App? There's no reason. It's a very technically interesting challenge to solve, but also very customer-centric experience challenge to solve. That's an important role, which I think shapes the future of design.

就像那些能够——也许一个好的表述是创造性解决问题——开始思考这个业务面临的最大问题是什么，以及我如何利用构建、产品开发和设计思维来帮助人们可视化并跟随我进行变革？我认为这个角色仍然会非常重要。而在 IC 方面，目前蓬勃发展的 IC 就是我所说的“构建者”。他们是偏向行动的人，非常注重结果和解决方案，而不是线性的流程。他们就像，‘好的，酷。我们要通过 Square 和 Cash App 连接柜台的两端。让我们开始构建一些原型，看看如何实现，然后把它交到客户手中。’他们不怕犯错。我认为这是我看到的最重要的特质：IC 愿意说，‘我支持这个作为第一个方向。’这实际上是一种被低估的技能，我认为这些 IC 目前发展得非常好。然后在球员教练方面，对设计领导者的需求仍然很深。但我们在 AI 推动之前就这样做了——我们不相信其他大型科技公司可能有的那种职业经理人。对我来说，一个不为其团队产出负责的经理是世界上最愚蠢的事情之一，我无法理解。所以我们的经理，我们称之为负责人，是球员教练。他们负责推动团队取得积极成果，并且对他们推动的以及团队推动的所有像素负责。这就是我们拥有的三种原型，我认为在这些原型中，你几乎可以看到不同的技能在盛行。我会总结为：DRI 是能够进行创造性领导的人；IC 是构建者，他们生产并创造高质量的输出；而球员教练则是能够领导 IC 实现伟大成果的人。这是我通常看到的。但反过来可能是：我认为那种不实际生产东西的中层职业管理层将不复存在。我认为它可能不再像三年前那样存在了。我记得在一家大公司面试时，他们问，‘你想做 IC 还是经理？’我说，‘我能两者都做吗？’他们说，‘不，不，不。’然后人们会在职业生涯中投入五年时间纯粹做经理，然后他们现在有点……

It's like people who can take—maybe a good way to frame it is like creative problem-solving—and start to think about what are the biggest problems that this business faces and how can I use building and product development and design thinking to help people visualize and follow me on that change? That's a role which I think will still be really important. And then on the IC side, the ICs that are thriving at the moment are what I would just call builders. They are people who bias towards action. They are very outcome focused and solution focused versus linear process focused. They're just like, 'Okay, cool. We're going to connect both sides of the counter with Square and Cash App. Let's just start building some prototypes of how we could potentially do that, get that into customers' hands.' They're not scared of being wrong. I think that's probably the most important trait that I'm seeing: ICs who are willing to be like, 'I back this as the first direction.' It's actually an undervalued skill, and I think those ICs tend to be really thriving at the moment. And then in the player-coach space, there's still a deep need for leaders in design. But we did this before the AI push—we don't believe in professional managers in the sense that other large tech companies might have. The idea to me that you have a manager who is not responsible for the output of their team is just one of the dumbest things in the world and doesn't compute with me. So our managers, our leads—we call them—are player coaches. They are responsible for driving outcomes and positive outcomes in the team, and all of the pixels which they're pushing and their team is pushing, they are responsible for. So those are the three archetypes which we have, and I think across those archetypes you're almost seeing different skills prevail. I would summarize it as: the DRIs are the people who are able to do creative leadership essentially; the ICs are just the builders who produce and create amazing high-craft outputs; and the player coaches are essentially the people who can lead the ICs towards achieving great outcomes. That's generally what I've seen. But maybe the inverse of that would be: I don't think the kind of middle professional management layer who doesn't actually produce stuff will exist. I don't think it exists anymore perhaps in the way it did three years ago. I remember interviewing at a big company and they're like, 'Do you want to be an IC or a manager?' And I was like, 'Can I be both?' And they're like, 'No, no, no.' And then people would have invested like five years of their career in just being a pure play manager, and then they're kind of now...

这很难。这很难。我真的为那些人感到难过。是的，我非常喜欢 DRI，因为我认为在工程产品三角中，评估设计师想在哪里成长变得容易了。就像，‘哦，我想走代码路线吗？’这在某种程度上感觉像是脱离了设计，但很明显，在战略方面有这种需求。你提到了创造性解决问题。我喜欢这个。就像 AI 正在加速一切。就像，‘太好了。某些方面的瓶颈是想法。’你必须提出想法并指导事情，我完全相信设计师可能是最适合在这个角色中蓬勃发展的人。

It's tough. It's tough. I genuinely feel for those people. And yeah, I really like DRI a lot because I think it's been easy to evaluate where you want to grow as a designer on the engineering product triad a little bit. It's like, 'Oh, do I want to go down the code path?' That felt like a departure from design in some ways, but it's so clear that there's this need on the stick the strategy. You said creative problem solving. I love that. It's like AI is accelerating everything. It's like, 'Great. The bottleneck in some ways is ideas.' You got to come up with things and direct things, and I totally believe that designers might be the best positioned person to thrive in that role.

是的，我有同感。做“点子王”过去一直像个笑话，对吧？而现在它可能真的被重视了。

Yeah, I feel similar. Being the ideas guy always used to be like a joke, right? And now actually it might be valued.

18 个月前在 Twitter 上这还是个侮辱，现在却变成了，‘哇，我们需要更多点子王。嘿，我们在招聘点子王。’

It was such an insult like 18 months ago on Twitter and now it's like, 'Wow, we need more ideas guys. Hey, we're hiring ideas guys.'

是的，也许那里不同。就像最成功的 DRI——我想到了 Ryan 和 Owen——他们是公司里非常资深的人。他们也是 DRI，显然 Brian 是 Cash App 的前 CEO。他是一级人才的完美定义，因为他既能推动事情发生，又能进行战略思考。但这非常有趣，因为你确实需要在不同层级有更多这样的人，你必须建立一个高能力领导者的板凳，他们能够领导机器人和人类一起交付这些成果。我不认为这像人们意识到的那么简单。我确实通过朋友或自己在 Cash App 的经历看到过，如果你只有一群人在构建和制造东西，但没有被塑造成一个有品味和策展的连贯方向和战略，那就会感觉有点失去方向。你在生产东西，但它并没有真正推动影响力。对我来说，这可能是整个行业可能没有在谈论的一点，因为你可以整天制造和构建东西，但如果客户不想要，那就有点毫无意义，对吧？

Yeah, maybe it's different there. It's like the most successful DRIs—I'm thinking of Ryan and Owen there—they're super senior people in the company. They're DRIs as well, and obviously Brian was the old CEO of Cash App. He's the perfect definition of a tier one because he could just make stuff happen and think strategically. But it's a really fascinating thing because you do need more of those people at different layers, and you have to build a bench of highly capable leaders who can essentially lead the robots plus the humans to deliver these outcomes. I don't think it's as simple as people realize. I've definitely seen even through friends or from personal experience at Cash App where if you have just a bunch of people building stuff and making stuff, but it's not being shaped into a coherent direction and strategy with taste and curation, it kind of just feels a bit rudderless. You're producing stuff, but it's not really driving the impact. That to me is perhaps one bit which the industry at large is maybe not talking about, because you can make stuff and build stuff all day, but if customers don't want it, it's kind of pointless, right?

有一个我无法停止问自己的问题。如果公司申请与你交谈，而不是反过来呢？这个问题是全新 Dive Talent Network 的基础，它正在发挥作用。就像现在，我正在帮助我认识的最令人兴奋的初创公司招聘收听这个节目的设计师和构建者。所以如果你好奇外面有什么机会，或者想加入我的名单，甚至正在寻找你的下一个设计招聘，请访问 dive.club/talent 立即加入。好的，我们谈了很多关于原型以及世界上正在发生的变化。我的问题是，这如何影响你对招聘的思考，甚至是你优先考虑和评估人的信号，以及如何找出最适合带入团队的人？

There's one question that I can't stop asking myself. What if companies applied to talk to you rather than the other way around? And that question is the foundation for the all new Dive Talent Network and it's working. Like right now, I'm helping many of the most exciting startups that I know to hire the designers and builders who listen to this show. So if you're curious what might be out there and maybe want to get on my list or maybe you're even looking for your next design hire, head to dive.club/talent to join today. Okay, so we're talking a lot about archetypes and everything that's changing in the world. My question then is how's this influencing the way that you're thinking about hiring and maybe even like the signals that you're prioritizing and evaluating people and trying to figure out who's the best fit to bring in to the team.

所以我认为普遍且从未改变的一点是，一个人是不是好的设计师。这听起来可能很蠢，对吧？当我大声说出来时，但大多数人在作品集阶段或面试阶段失败，是因为他们没有我认为设计中最重要的东西之一，即工艺。我编了 90%，但我实际上认为可能接近 95%。每一个拒绝理由，我认为排名第一且远超其他的就是工艺。我认为围绕工艺的其他东西更容易教授。但一个人天生的眼光和品味实际上是我一次又一次看到的最有价值的东西。就像我想到的很多人，你一眼就能看出他们有眼光，但他们不一定有机会。然后你给他们机会，眼光就胜出了。

So I think the thing that's universal and has never ever changed is someone a good designer. And that might sound stupid, right? When I say that out loud, but most people fail a portfolio phase or an interview phase because they don't have what I perceive as one of the most important things in design, which is essentially craft. I made that 90% up, but I actually think it will be probably closer to like 95%. Every single rejection reason, I think the number one up there by an exponential amount is like craft. I think the other stuff that surrounds craft is much easier to teach. But someone's innate eye and taste is actually the most valuable thing that I've time and time again had. Like there's a lot of people who I'm thinking of who you could just tell they had an eye for it, and they hadn't necessarily had the opportunity. And then you give them the opportunity, and then the eye prevails.

对我来说，“眼光”这个词暗示这只是视觉上的东西，但并非如此。你知道当你看到一款产品时，它感觉就是对的吗？他们平衡了所有元素，感觉非常自然。这是一个很难量化的价值，但我认为它实际上是设计师最重要的技能。随着产出量的增加，我们会看到大量粗制滥造的作品，而真正能用意图和专注力挑选出好作品的设计师会越来越少。所以对我来说，这是从未改变的普遍特质——工艺、品味，随便你怎么称呼。而且有一个误解，认为这只是视觉方面。它不仅仅是视觉，而是所有元素的组合，感觉恰到好处。这非常重要。

And to me, like the eye implies that it's just this visual only thing, and it's not. You know when you look at a product and it just feels right? And they've balanced it, and it just feels like incredibly obvious. That's a really hard value to place on something, but I think it's actually probably the single most important skill as a designer. And I think as the amount of output you can produce comes up, we're going to see a ton of slop, and then we will see a smaller and smaller amount of designers and people who can really just select with such intention and focus that they know what good looks like. So to me, that's been the universal trait that hasn't changed. Like craft, taste, whatever you want to call it. And there's a misconception that it's just the visual side. It's not just the visual side. It's the combo of it all and it just feeling right. That's really, really important.

我想深入探讨一下 AI 熟练度的问题，我想对一位特定的听众说，他听了你的话，也许他们一直在回避所有 AI 相关的东西，因为这很烦人，而且他们没有时间，但你刚刚说服了他们。他们想：“好吧，我确实需要在这方面投入。”但门槛在哪里？你希望设计师达到什么标准，才能说“是的，他们具备条件，他们实验得够多了，或者他们构建得够多了”？

I want to drill into the AI fluency piece a little bit and I want to speak to a very specific listener who hears you, maybe they've actually been kind of punting all the AI stuff because it's annoying and they don't have time for it and you just convinced them. You're like, "All right, shoot. I actually really have to invest in this." But it's unclear where is the threshold? Like what line are you trying to see designers get over where you can say, "Yep, they have what it takes and they've experimented enough or they've built enough."

如果你是一名独立贡献者，而且是构建者类型，我猜——可能我错了——如果你在问自己这个问题，你可能不是构建者。因为我认识的每一个在这个构建者优先的独立贡献者世界中蓬勃发展的人，都对正在发生的这种变化感到非常兴奋，因为设计一直受限于技术专长，你总是需要别人来实现你的愿景。我认识的很多正在面试或在 Cash App、Block 等地工作的人，他们都在业余时间发布有趣的东西，只是为了实验和享受技术带来的乐趣。从独立贡献者的角度来看，这就是构建者。他们倾向于行动，热爱创造。如果他们有空闲的半小时，他们就会捣鼓点什么。我想这可能是对这个问题的一点挑战：如果你在问自己这个问题，也许更好的问题是，你能与这些高工艺、高品味、并以极快速度构建的人竞争吗？老实说，我会说如果你不能，那就别入局，因为可能不值得。你不会有工作的。

If you're an IC and you're a builder type, I would guess and I may be wrong that if you're asking yourself that question, you're probably not a builder. Because anyone I know who is thriving in this builder first IC world, they are so emotionally enthralled by this change that is happening because design was always gated behind technical expertise and it was always like you needed someone else to realize your vision. A lot of people I know who are interviewing and or work at Cash and Block and everywhere, they are like shipping fun things on the side just to experiment and have fun with the technology. And that is by the for me from an IC perspective, that is a builder. And they bias towards action, they love making. If they have half an hour free, they're going to tinker on something there. I guess that's a way to probably challenge the question a little bit that if you're asking yourself that, I think maybe the better question is can you compete with these people who are high craft, high taste, and building at incredibly high velocity? And honestly, I would say if you can't, don't get in the game because it's probably not worth it. You're not going to have a gig.

老实说，这是个好答案。我尊重你的反驳，因为构建现在纯粹是对这件事本身的热爱。就像你说的，我们这个行业几乎一直有一种渴望：要是能实现自己的想法就好了，然后突然之间，砰，现在你可以了。然后就像，好吧，酷。这个，这个，这个，这个。这很难竞争。如果这不是你的天性，你也不兴奋，那就很难竞争。那接下来呢？还有其他事情，对吧？所以在领导角色和其他一些你正在关注的类型中，技能集更像是如何塑造组织，如何为那些产出相同数量东西的独立贡献者制定战略方向？这本身就是一种技能。我不认为有这方面的课程。如果有，有人可能会赚很多钱。我认为在这个世界里，这是一种非常有价值的技能。就像创意领导力。我不知道如何准确定义它，但这可能是人们可以进入的领域，但会更难。这是实话。设计工作曾经很丰富，每个人都需要设计。我认为你会看到工作机会减少，因为人们可以用更少的资源实现更多。对我来说，这意味着标准更高了，人们必须产出的东西也更高了。所以我看到人才的质量在不断提高。

It's a good answer, honestly. I respect the pushback because building is pure love of the game at this point. It's like you said, we've as an industry, we've almost had this coiling of man, it'd be nice to build my ideas and then all of a sudden there's like boom, and now you can. And it's just like, okay, cool. This one, this one, this one, this one. That's tough to compete with. If it doesn't come naturally and you're not excited about it, it's tough to compete with. So then what? There's other things, right? So in a leadership role and in some of the other archetypes which you're looking at, then the skill set is more so like how do I shape an organization and shape strategic direction for these ICs who are producing the same amount of stuff? Like that's the skill set in itself. There's no course on that, I don't think. And if there is, someone will probably make a lot of money. I think that's a skill set that's incredibly valuable in this world. It's like creative leadership. I don't know what the answer is in exactly how to define that, but that's maybe a space which people I think could go into in this world, but it's going to be harder. That's the honest truth. Design jobs I think were plentiful and everyone needed design. And I think what you're going to see is there'll be fewer gigs because people can achieve more with less. And that to me just means the standard gets higher and what people have to produce. So I just see the quality of people getting better and better.

我认为同样重要的是要说明，在这个时代，设计行业整体上过于看重简历上的公司标志。我坦白说，我不在乎某人在哪里工作。他可能会杀了我这么说，但我们最好的设计师之一，毫无疑问，我认为他会成为公司最好的独立贡献者之一。他之前的工作是为 Yo! Sushi 设计东西。没有冒犯 Yo! Sushi 的意思，它很酷，但它不是 Airbnb 或 Meta 那样的公司。我认为这归根结底是天赋会发光。原始的工艺和技能会发光。所以，对于未来的独立贡献者，我认为你会看到他们涌现出来。我们最近有一些构建者加入，他们是新人，没有大学学历就直接来和我们一起工作。他们拥有的技能就像瑞士军刀一样全面。这很惊人。他们几乎什么都能做。

I think it's also really important to caveat that in this time that I think the design industry at large got really guilty of overvaluing people's resumes on a logo. And I transparently don't give a about where someone worked. He'll probably kill me for saying this, but one of our best designers, hands down, and I think he'll come on to be like one of the best ICs in the company. His job before was like work designing stuff for Yo! Sushi. No shade at Yo! Sushi. It's cool, but it's not like the Airbnb or the Meta of the world. And I think it just comes back to raw talent shines through. And raw craft and raw skill shine through. So, for the ICs of tomorrow, I think you'll just see them bubbling up. And we had these builder fellows join recently who are like fresh, no college fresh into working with us. And the amount of skills which they have, they're just like Swiss Army knives. It's terrifying. And they can literally do it all.

我知道这有点啰嗦，但我确实认为，作为这个新时代的设计领导者，我们不应该过分看重简历上的公司标志之类的东西，而要看重实际技能。坦率地说，我知道我代表整个 Block 发言，我们不关心某人在哪里工作或生活。只关心：你是否有意愿在这个高速、高工艺的环境中工作，你是否有好的品味并能实现它？所以希望这能改变，但我觉得这是一个重要的公开声明。

I know that's a bit long-winded, but I do think it's important for us as design leaders in this new world to not be overly attached to resume logos and all that. Look at raw skills instead. And transparently from my side, I know I speak for all of Block that we don't care where someone works or lives. It's just: do you have the appetite to work in this high-velocity, high-craft environment, and do you have good taste and can pull it off? So hopefully that changes, but I felt that was an important PSA.

不，我觉得这很好。我很高兴你这么说，因为未来有很多让人畏惧的理由，但这也是让人乐观的理由。这是真正的公平竞争。就在今天，我们发布了一集节目，采访了一个通过人才网络获得了一个很酷的创始设计师职位的人。他的简历很糟糕。

No, I think it's great. I'm glad you said it because there's a lot of reasons to be intimidated about the future, but that is the reason to be optimistic. This is the great leveling of the playing field. Literally just today, we released an episode with this guy who just landed a really cool founding designer role through the talent network. And his resume sucked.

好吧。是的，他也不会因为我说这话而难过。他不喜欢他之前所在的公司，工艺水平很低。然后他就出去做了一个很棒的 portfolio 和一个很酷的 side project，在他的 portfolio 网站上花了很多心思，这足以让我觉得：‘好吧，这家伙真的很棒。天哪，这家伙是个宝贝。’他会超越那些——我敢说——可能在过去五年里在 Meta 只做产品一小部分的人，因为他是一个通才，AI 正在加速他每一个方向的发展。这种原型太令人兴奋了。这是几年来第一次，这是他们的时刻。如果你就是那个人，现在就是你的时代。

Okay. Yeah, he wouldn't even feel bad about me saying it. He didn't like the company he was at, it was very low craft. And he just went out and made a baller portfolio and a really cool side project, sweated a bunch of details on his portfolio site, and it was more than enough for me to think, 'Okay, this guy's really good. What the heck? This guy's a gem.' And he will fly past people who, dare I say, maybe have spent the last five years at Meta on a tiny slice of the product, because he is this generalist that AI is accelerating in every single direction. That archetype is so exciting. And for the first time in a few years, this is their moment. If you are that person, this is your time right now.

我最近重新加入了 Twitter，我会私信很多作品很突出的人。我会说：‘这作品太棒了。’我不看他们的 LinkedIn。我就说，聊聊吧。然后人们就会因此得到工作。这不是说你必须一直发布所有东西，但这是一个积累。我只是觉得你看到工艺以前所未有的速度脱颖而出。以前，你去一家大型科技公司，会有十轮面试，每个人都问‘给我们讲讲这个’。进中情局都比进一些大型科技公司的面试容易。而现在，只是‘给我们看看你做了什么’。我绝对喜欢这种打破过去十年科技设计变得官僚化、过度专业化的感觉，现在我们回归基础。这对我来说太有活力了。这可能就是为什么我现在工作这么兴奋。

I've recently joined Twitter again and I DM quite a lot of people where the work pops out. I'm like, 'That work is sick.' And I don't look at their LinkedIn. I just say, let's chat. And people will get jobs off the back of that. It's not saying you have to post all your stuff all the time, but it builds. I just think you see craft cutting through at a rate it didn't before. Previously, you would go to a large tech company and there would be 10 rounds of interviews, everyone asking 'Tell us about this.' It was easier to get into the CIA than some large tech company interviews. Whereas now it's just, 'Show us what you built.' I absolutely love what feels like the smashing down of the last 10 years where tech design became bureaucratic, overly professionalized, and now we're getting back to basics. That to me is just so energizing. And that's probably why I'm so hyped at the moment at work.

我想回到你之前说的一个话题。你谈到了 Cash 和 Square 之间的联系，以及社区。我圈出了你几周前发的一条推文，你说你正在思考如何在 Square 和 Cash 之间创建共享的 DNA，甚至是视觉 DNA。考虑到我们运营的规模，这不是一个小项目。所以你能谈谈你在那方面的想法吗？

I want to return to something you said earlier. You were talking about the connection between Cash and Square, and neighborhoods. There was a tweet I had circled that you put out a couple weeks ago where you talked about how you're thinking a lot about creating a shared DNA, visual DNA even between Square and Cash. That's not a small project given the scale we're operating at. So can you shine a light on some of the things you're thinking through on that front?

这不仅仅是为了改变设计语言而改变。这是最好的说法。如果你考虑连接柜台两边的问题，其中涉及客户体验和设计语言。苹果设备从 iPhone 到 iPad 再到电视的体验，尽管是不同的操作系统和核心体验，但有一种相似感，使得切换非常无缝。之前，因为 Cash App 和 Square 在我们整合公司之前相当独立，没有动力去思考它们如何连接。它们基本上是分开的。所以如果你当时要设计一个平滑的切换，感觉就像在 Toast 和 Venmo 之间切换，因为它们是两家独立的公司。但实际上，Square 和 Cash App 是一家公司，我们要连接它们，这将是史上最酷的事情之一。但我们需要从客户的角度确保体验是无缝的。显而易见的答案是：‘哦，让它们都一样吧。让 Cash App 和 Square 有相同的设计语言和系统。’但如果你仔细审视，Cash App 是最具文化相关性的品牌之一，吸引着非常年轻的一代——我们拥有 25% 的美国青少年。而 Square 是硬核的 B2B 工作软件，人们每天在应用里待 8 小时。所以如果我们开始到处放疯狂的插图和大量留白，人们可能会感到恼火。

It's not just changing design language for the sake of it. That's the best way to phrase it. If you think about that problem of connecting both sides of the counter, there is a customer experience and design language part to it. What works about Apple devices when you go from an iPhone to an iPad to a TV is this feeling of similarity even though they're different OSes and core experiences, making handoffs seamless. A while ago, because Cash App and Square were pretty separate until we functionalized the company, there was no incentive to think about how they connected. They were largely separate things. So if you had to design a smooth handoff at that time, it would have felt like handing off between Toast and Venmo, because they're two separate companies. But actually, Square and Cash App are a single company, and we're going to connect them, and it's going to be one of the coolest things ever. But we need to ensure from a customer standpoint that the experience feels seamless. The obvious answer is, 'Oh, let's just make them both the same. Let's make Cash App and Square have the same design languages and systems.' But if you really interrogate that, Cash App is one of the most culturally relevant brands that appeals to a very young generation—we've got 25% of US teens. And Square is hardcore working B2B software where people are in the app for 8 hours a day. So if we start dropping crazy illustrations and tons of white space everywhere, people might get annoyed.

所以我们团队开始讨论的是：如何连接它们？我认为这归结到更深层次的战略驱动因素。这是我非常热衷的事情：设计比那更深。你可以开始思考我们所谓的共享 DNA。这个想法是兄弟姐妹，而不是双胞胎。如果你考虑这个类比，我们说的是有共享的基础，让它感觉像是 Block 设计的产品——无论是字体、一些共享的基础 token、网格方法——然后上面有独特的个性，让每个品牌都能发光，但也让那个切换时刻不会感觉像在两个不同公司之间跳跃。所以这就是为什么它有趣：设计作为战略资产，因为我们用设计来解决客户问题和业务问题——如何连接柜台的两边。

So what we started talking about as a group is: how do you connect them? I think this comes down to that deeper layer of strategic drivers. And this is something I'm deeply passionate about: design runs deeper than that. You can start to think about what we call shared DNA. The idea is siblings, not twins. If you think about that analogy, we're saying there are shared foundations that make it feel like a Block-designed product—whether that's type, some shared base tokens, approach to the grid—and then unique personalities on top that allow each brand to shine, but also make that handover moment not feel like jumping between two different companies. So that's why it's interesting: design as a strategic asset, because we're using design to solve a customer problem and a business problem—how to connect both sides of the counter.

在最新版本中，我非常喜欢的一个个性亮点是这些个性化支付页面。你能给我们讲讲背后的故事吗？这样的项目是如何出现、获得批准并实现的？要实现这样的东西需要什么，因为它远远超出了许多设计师——尤其是从事 B2B 的设计师——甚至能接触到的传统职责范围？

One of the personality glimpses I really liked from the latest release was these personalized payment pages. Can you give us the backstory there? How does a project like that come up, get greenlit, and be brought to life? What does it take to pull something like that off, because it exists so far outside the traditional box of responsibilities that a lot of designers, especially those working on B2B, get to even sniff?

那是个人的。我仍然认为我们可以走得更远。

That's a personal one. I still think we can take it even further.

这又回到了那种创造性解决问题的方式，对吧？大多数支付，本质上就是你我之间转账，已经变成了一种商品。所以问题在于：如何让转账体验不那么商品化？如果我们俩现在来头脑风暴，你可能会说：“哦，那能不能发一条特别的消息？”然后你会想：“行，不错。”所以我们实际做的是，查看了人们在支付备注里发送的消息。我们提取了一个列表，用 AI 进行聚合，能够分析数百万条支付备注，找出人们转账的原因。你会发现很多都是功能性的，比如房租——没人会庆祝房租。但也有很多非常情感化的场景，比如毕业、生日、特殊原因的晚餐。然后你顺着这个思路想：为什么这种体验不能超越那种单调的实用主义呢？它不应该。所以我们设计了一系列自定义素材，来对应人们转账时的各种时刻。我们开始测试它是否有效，客户是否喜欢。客户确实很喜欢，他们成了大力倡导者。我认为我们会继续推动这个理念：支付完全个性化，不必永远是一种商品。

Again, it just goes back to that creative problem-solving again, right? Most payments, essentially moving money between you and me, have become a commodity. So the prompt is: how do you start to make the experience of moving money feel less commoditized? If you and I were to ideate on that, you'd probably say, "Oh, what if you could send a special message?" And then you'd think, "Okay, cool." So what we did is we actually looked at the messages people were sending in their payment notes. We pulled a list and aggregated it using AI. We were able to look at millions and millions of payment notes and find out why people are moving money. And you see a lot of things that are functional, right? Like rent—no one's celebrating rent. But you also see a lot of very emotional things, like graduation, birthdays, dinners for a special reason. And then you kind of pull that thread and think, "Why shouldn't that experience be more than just this sad utilitarian thing?" And it shouldn't. So we decided to design a bunch of custom assets that mirror all these moments when people are sending money. That's where we started to see if it worked and if customers loved it. Customers do love it. They're big advocates for it, and I think we will continue to push this idea that it's completely personalized and moving money doesn't need to be a commodity for the rest of the year.

你谈到的很多内容，可能都跟寻找共享 DNA 有关——人们更多把它归入设计系统这个范畴。我知道 Lauren 在负责这块，做得很好。但 Cash 具体产出的东西，坦白说很奇怪，非常非常与众不同。你能谈谈这种张力吗？也就是说，在高层面上，如何同时兼顾规模化工艺所需的系统，又在核心品牌上保持深度创意，以及这种表达是什么样的？我认为这是目前每个科技公司都应该深思的存在性挑战之一。

A lot of the things you're talking about related to maybe finding the shared DNA—people translate more into this design systems bucket. I know Lauren is leading that and doing a great job there. And yet much of what comes out of Cash specifically is frankly bizarre, you know, it's just very, very different. Can you talk a little bit about that tension? Like how do both of those things operate at a high level where you have the systems required for craft at scale while also trying to be deeply creative in the core brand and what that expression looks like? It's one of the most existential challenges that I think every tech company should be thinking about deeply right now.

我认为，与其保持一致、本质上商品化，不如站在富有表现力和独特性的那一边，让客户对你的产品产生情感依恋。对，就是“氛围可编程”。比如，我目前最喜欢的一个应用，虽然不是我的设计，但已经存在了，就是 Bump。不知道你有没有用过 Bump，它是一个地图应用。我见过它的设计师，他说：“我们就是随便搞，怎么怪怎么来。”周五的节目嘉宾是 Julian Martin。是的，非常敬佩。我觉得这是个好例子。我认为你必须这么做。我们确实在强迫自己走出舒适区。也许这样描述比较直白，因为传统的项目是：一致性就是严格遵循一个非常严格的设计系统，这是实现一致性的唯一方法，对吧？这在一段时间内是真理。但我不认为这一定是正确的。设计系统必须能够灵活变通，允许更多的表达。然后，如果加上新时代的层面，我相信在新世界中创造锁定效应的主要方式之一，就是打造感觉完全独一无二的应用。所以我在 Cash App 经常说：我希望在 6 个月、一年后，每个坐在餐桌旁的人打开他们的 Cash App 放在桌上，每一个看起来都不一样。这是他们个人身份的完整表达。如果你仔细想想，我们其实有这方面的传统。我们有卡片，对吧？你可能见过那些很酷的借记卡。你可以自定义它们，在上面画画。实际上，当你思考软件开发的未来以及生成式 UI 的发展方向时，未来没有任何东西能阻止我们创造这些完全独一无二的体验。所以这是我目前最关心的事情。我确实认为我们会相对较快地实现这一点——每个 Cash App 都感觉独特，完全围绕用户设计。然后从商业角度来看，为什么我觉得这非常有趣？因为它创造了一种更深层次、更难量化的情感连接，就像你的衣橱一样。衣服在很大程度上是个人身份的表达。我们看到了一个趋势，尤其是在年轻受众中，数字身份与物理身份同等重要。你只需要看看 Fortnite 商店里的数字就知道了。所以我深信并押注，在不久的将来，界面将是个性化定制的、完全独一无二的，至少在 Cash App 的实例中，是你个人身份的完整体现。

I think it's better to be on the side of expressive and unique to customers so that they have an emotional attachment to your product, versus being consistent and essentially commoditized. Yeah, vibe codable. For example, one of my favorite apps that I didn't design at the moment, but it's out there, is Bump. I don't know if you've used Bump. It's a map app. I met the designer and he said, "Yeah, we just YOLO anything. Like, how weird can we make it?" Friday's episode is with Julian Martin. Yeah, mad respect. I think that's a good example. I just think you have to. And we're definitely forcing ourselves to get out of our comfort zones. I guess it's maybe the flat way to describe it, because the traditional project was: consistency is ruthlessly adhering to a very strict design system was the only way to achieve consistency, right? That was the truth for a while. And I don't think that is necessarily true. Design systems have to be able to flex and allow for more expression. And then I think if I put the new age layer on it, I believe one of the primary ways you will create lock-in in the new world is creating apps that feel completely one-of-one. So, what I talk a lot about at Cash App is: I want it in 6 months, a year, I want everyone who's sitting at a dinner table to open their Cash Apps and put them on the table and every single one looks different. It's a complete expression of their personal identity. And if you think about it, we actually have the heritage of doing that. We have our cards, right? You've probably seen the cool debit cards. You can customize them, you can draw on them. And actually when you think about the future of software development and where it's going with generative UI, there is nothing in the future that's going to prevent us from creating these completely one-of-one experiences. So that's what's top of mind for me at the moment. And I do think we will get there relatively quickly—that every Cash App does feel unique and completely designed around the person. And then from a business perspective, why I think that's super interesting is it creates a deeper, harder to quantify emotional connection with a product that is the same as your wardrobe. Clothes are by and large an expression of personal identity. We've seen a trend, particularly in younger audiences, that digital identity is as valuable as physical identity. You just need to look at the Fortnite store to see the numbers there. So I have a very deep belief and a bet that interfaces in the not too distant future will be bespoke, completely one-of-one, and at least in Cash App's instance, a complete representation of your personal identity.

我的大脑已经在运转了：“天哪，这应用到 B2B 领域有多大的可行性？”我们会在这方面走多远？

I mean, my brain is already running like, "Man, how applicable is this to B2B?" Like how far are we going to go into this?

这非常适用。我认为是的。我父亲还在经营一家很小的古董店，对吧？他以前的选择是：他可以拥有自己的小网站，但这对他来说太难管理了。他不是技术型的人。他可是个古董商，你能想象吧？或者他可以把他的古董上传到某个大型集团，那个集团标准化了体验，他的个人风格、他的店铺以及他投入的所有精力，基本上都变成了一个商品化的、类似 DoorDash 的平台。对我来说，这绝不是 B2B 软件的未来。如果我父亲能够创建一个完全定制的解决方案和软件，让他能够服务客户，并创建一个代表他风格和身份的网站，那将彻底改变他的业务轨迹。但他当时做不到。我真诚地认为，未来人们将能够做到这一点。即使在 Square，我们目前也在与许多客户交流并构建产品。你可以看到趋势：人们同样希望 B2B 领域有非常定制的界面，因为每家餐厅都是不同的。

It's so applicable. I think it is. So, my dad still runs a tiny little small business antique shop, right? And his options previously were: he could have his own little website, which was so difficult for him to manage. He's not a technological guy. He's an antique dealer for God's sake, right? You can kind of picture it. Or he could upload his antiques to some big conglomerate that standardizes the experience, and his personal touch and his shop and all the effort he puts into it basically just goes into this commoditized, DoorDash-esque platform. That to me is just not the future of B2B software. If my dad was able to create a completely bespoke solution and piece of software that allowed him to serve his customers and create a website that was a representation of his style and identity, it would have changed his entire course of his business. But he wasn't able to do that. And I genuinely think in the future that people will be able to do that. And even at Square, we're talking with lots of customers at the moment and building stuff. And you can kind of see the direction of travel that people want very bespoke interfaces as much for B2B, because every restaurant is different.

我认为这是设计领域未来最大的机遇之一：如何创造这些东西？又如何确保它们以连贯的方式整合在一起？无论哪个行业，创造力作为竞争优势都感觉会越来越重要。作为设计师，这很令人兴奋，对吧？因为如果你的产品没有某种特质——当然，总会有自上而下的企业合同存在，但选择非常丰富，其中一个选择就是自己动手做。所以产品必须足够好，门槛在提高，就像你之前说的设计师的门槛在提高一样，产品的门槛也在提高，尤其是 SaaS 产品。我希望如此，也许我错了，但我真的真的希望如此。我只是觉得以前软件基本上必须大规模生产，几乎对每个客户都得一刀切。如果你在 Workday 签了一千万的合同，可能会得到一些定制，但大体上还是同一个产品。我认为软件创造的整个理念正在受到挑战，这让我非常振奋。如果我不相信创造力在这个新世界中有作用，我就会辞职放弃，我妻子是个很棒的面包师，我就去支持她开面包店。真的，但我真心相信，如果更多企业真正以创造力为引领，并将其作为大规模驱动成果的工具，世界会变得更美好，这正是我个人充满激情的原因。设计师出身的创始人很少，设计师进入董事会的也很少，我认为设计常常被误解为只是像素推手，其实不是，它是创造性的问题解决。整个设计行业可以用非常不同的方式看待问题并解决问题，这是一种技能，坦白说，我认为它会让世界变得比现在好得多——现在到处都是巨型企业，社区小生意不够繁荣，软件一刀切，产品千篇一律。我认为这里有一个普遍的机会，不太想说得太哲学，就是让设计去对抗过去十年那种一切都被大企业垄断的潮流，回归到以创造力为核心，社区商业、本地化。这对我来说非常非常振奋。

And I just think that's like one of the biggest opportunities ahead for design in general, which is like how do you make this stuff? And then how do you make sure it comes together in a cohesive way? Creativity as a competitive advantage regardless of industry does feel like it's going to become more of a thing. Which that's exciting as a designer, you know? Because if your product doesn't have something that obviously there's this bucket of top-down enterprise contracts that they're always going to exist, but there is an abundance of choice and one of the choices is make it yourself. So, it's got to be good, you know, the bar in the same way that you were talking about the bar is rising for designers, it also is going to rise for products specifically SaaS probably. I hope so. Maybe I'm wrong. I really really hope so. I just think software was mass produced previously essentially and it had to be one size fits all for almost every customer and if you were in Workday and signing a contract for like 10 million, you probably got some customization to it, but by and large it's the same product. And I just think that whole notion of how software is created is being challenged and that to me is just so energizing. If I didn't believe that creativity had a role in this new world, I would quit my job and give up and my wife's an amazing baker, I would just support her doing like bakery. Like honestly, but I genuinely believe that the world would be a better place if more businesses really led with creativity and used it as a tool to drive the outcomes at scale and that's really what fires me up personally. There's very few designer founders, there's very few designers on boards and I think design is often misconceived as just pixel pushing and it's not. It's like creative problem solving. The design industry at large can look at problems in a very different way and come at them in a very different way and that's like a skill set that transparently I think would make the world a much better place than today where it's like, you know, just giant conglomerates in every shopping mall and not enough neighborhood businesses thriving and one-size-fits-all software and mass-produced clones. Like I think there's an opportunity here generally, not to go too philosophical, is for design to push against that tide of the last 10 years that it's all conglomerates and go back towards more of creativity at the heart of everything, neighborhood businesses, neighborhood stuff. And I think that's very, very energizing for me.

我在 Twitter 上看到，大概是昨晚，有人称之为“利基经济”。我完全接受这个说法，因为我觉得它和设计师非常相关。即使我们能够正确识别问题——整体来说，我们很擅长这个，对吧？这就是我们的工作——但以前这并不重要，因为要真正去解决问题，仍然需要很高的前期成本和技能门槛。而现在突然之间，成本变成了代币成本，时间成本也降低了。我们不再依赖别人去解决问题。所以我真的希望有很多由设计驱动的企业，它们不一定要成为十亿美元的公司，那不重要，对吧？这就是利基经济。我认为利基经济可以由设计师驱动，我对未来非常兴奋。

I saw something on Twitter, I think actually it was last night, referred to this as the niche economy. And I'm totally adopting it because I think that it's so relevant for designers because even if we were able to correctly identify a problem, which as a whole, like a given the population, we're pretty good at, right? Like that's what we do. It didn't really matter because there was still such an upfront cost and skill gap to actually be able to go and solve the problem. Where all of a sudden now, it's token cost. And the time cost is driven down. We are not reliant on other people to actually go and solve the problem. So, I do hope that there are so many design-created businesses that don't necessarily have to be these billion-dollar companies. It doesn't matter, right? It's like the niche economy. I think the niche economy can be driven by designers and I'm very excited about the future for that.

我喜欢这个说法。这几乎就像我们之前说的，在开始录制之前，我提到未来的科技公司可能像 CPG（消费品公司）一样。这和那个想法很相似：五年后，是像 Method 那样一个软件服务十亿人，还是拆分成三十个解决更小利基的软件？所以，你的健身应用在这里预订，你的本地社区就是你的居住地。对我来说，那是一个更具竞争力和更美好的世界，我希望它存在，但也不排除它被那些大型 AI 公司吞噬。不过，为了世界的美好，如果朝这个方向发展就太棒了。老实说，我希望设计继续在塑造它的过程中发挥作用。

I love that phrase. And it's almost like we were saying earlier is before we kind of press record, I was talking about the I think future tech companies might be like CPGs. And it's not dissimilar to that where it's like actually, is it one piece of software in 5 years time that serves a billion people like Method does or is it split up into 30 pieces of software that solve much smaller niches? So, you go to, you know, your fitness app is booked here, like your local community is just your where you live. Like that to me feels like a much more competitive and better world, which I hope exists, but it also could just not and get eaten by these big AI companies. But yeah, I think for the good of the world, it would be amazing if it went this way. And I hope design continues to have a role in shaping it, to be honest.

Cam，这期节目非常振奋人心。感谢你今天来做客，给了我很多思考，也让我更多地了解了你们如何运作以及正在发生的一切，非常精彩。所以，感谢你揭开帷幕，和我们交流。衷心感谢，也谢谢大家的收听，希望你们喜欢。在结束之前，我想花一分钟介绍一下我最喜欢的产品，因为经常有人问我的技术栈。Framer 是我建网站的工具，Gen way 是我做研究的方式，Granola 是我在评审时记笔记的工具，Jitter 是我制作设计动画的工具，Lovable 是我用代码实现想法的工具，Mobbin 是我寻找设计灵感的地方，Paper 是我像创意人一样设计的工具，Raycast 是我每一步的快捷方式。我精心挑选了这些公司，这样我才能全职做这些节目。到目前为止，支持节目的最佳方式就是去看看它们。你可以在 dive.club/partners 找到完整列表。

Cam, this has been incredibly energizing. I appreciate you coming on today and give me a lot to think about and also just learning more about how you all operate and everything that's going on has been just fascinating. So, thanks for coming on, pulling back the curtain, and talking with us today. Duly appreciate it and thanks for listening and I hope it was enjoyable for you guys. Before I let you go, I want to take just 1 minute to run you through my favorite products because I'm constantly asked what's in my stack. Framer is how I build websites. Gen way is how I do research. Granola is how I take notes during crit. Jitter is how I animate my designs. Lovable is how I build my ideas in code. Mobbin is how I find design inspiration. Paper is how I design like a creative and Raycast is my shortcut every step of the way. Now, I've hand selected these companies so that I can do these episodes full-time. So, by far, the number one way to support the show is to check them out. You can find the full list at dive.club/partners.