> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.nevillehobson.io/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # When did bigger become better? - URL: https://www.nevillehobson.io/when-did-bigger-become-better/ - Published: 2026-10-25T09:22:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-25T09:21:59.000Z - Description: A conversation about Jaguar’s new electric car led readers somewhere more interesting: what counts as progress? From larger cars to AI-powered content, having more doesn’t necessarily make daily life better. - Author: Neville Hobson - Tags: Communication, Blogging, Society One of the pleasures of blogging is discovering that readers have found a more interesting question than the one you thought you were asking. When I wrote about [Jaguar’s new electric car](https://www.nevillehobson.io/beautiful-car-shame-about-the-parking-space/) a few weeks ago, and the practical business of parking something so substantial, I expected a conversation about cars. And there was plenty of that, from Jaguar’s design ambitions to the prospect of meeting one in a Somerset country lane. But the comments on [LinkedIn](https://lnkd.in/p/eEKG2qxu?ref=nevillehobson.io) and [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/nevillehobson/posts/pfbid021h4amyt5HKNfDwBHFjs741ggQ6rqgoXQ7sd4EqoYiL3WsRTvhRx4mjrTkWfSiVA4l) also took the discussion somewhere else. They raised questions about status, innovation and what we’ve come to expect when we buy something new. When did progress come to mean having more, rather than having enough? ## **A different view from the car park** The responses were far from unanimous, which made them more interesting. Mark brought an innovation and art-market perspective to the discussion. Arne pointed to Jaguar’s history, reminding us that large cars are hardly a recent invention. Others recognised the practical difficulties, whether in narrow London streets or supermarket car parks. Andrew was rather less persuaded by my suggestion that we were unlikely to encounter Jaguar’s new creation in Somerset’s narrow lanes. He thought someone would certainly try. I suspect he’s right. Taken together, the comments complicated my original observation. A car can be an object of beauty, a statement of identity and a considerable inconvenience to the person trying to park beside it. Those things can all be true. And people have sound reasons for wanting space, comfort and easier access. The difficulty comes when the space one person values begins to reduce the space available to everyone else. That’s where a personal purchasing decision becomes a question about how we live together. ## **What counts as an improvement?** Arne’s observation about our reluctance to pay more unless something has improved stayed with me. It’s a reasonable expectation. If a manufacturer wants us to replace something that still works, we’re entitled to ask what we gain. More room, more power and more equipment are visible answers. They give the sales brochure something concrete to describe. I wonder, though, how readily we would recognise a different kind of improvement. A car that was easier to manoeuvre. A device that needed less attention. Software that helped us finish a task without requiring us to learn three new features first. There’s considerable ingenuity involved in making something simpler, smaller or less demanding. Yet the result may give us less to point at, even when it makes everyday life noticeably better. Do we need to become more comfortable describing progress in those terms? ## **The same question, closer to my usual territory** I recognise something similar in conversations about communication and technology. Give us a tool that can produce more content, reach more channels or automate more activity, and it’s easy to see the possibilities. I enjoy exploring them myself. The more difficult question is what the additional capacity is for. If AI helps someone explain a complicated idea clearly, that’s useful. If it enables an organisation to publish far more material than anyone has time to read, the benefit is rather harder to establish. The number of words produced won’t settle that question. We need to know whether someone understood something, made a better decision or found the information they needed. That was also a theme in my [recent writing about Quartz](https://www.nevillehobson.io/quartz-after-the-obituary-when-journalism-becomes-content-production/). Publishing capacity tells us something about the production process. It leaves open the question of what readers gain. There’s a familiar temptation for communicators: counting what we can readily measure, then letting the count become our definition of success. ## **Leaving room for enough** I still admire the Jaguar. The comments haven’t persuaded me to abandon that view, and I wouldn’t want every car, building or piece of technology designed solely around the most modest practical requirement. Ambition and imagination have their place. But so does the question of fit. Does this thing suit the circumstances in which people will actually use it? What does it ask of them, and of everyone around them? Living in Somerset provides fairly regular opportunities to consider that question. A narrow country lane is a remarkably effective way of bringing an abstract discussion about design back to earth. Perhaps the useful question to ask of the next improvement is simply this: what will it make better in daily life? I’d be interested to hear your examples of something that improved by becoming simpler or demanding less of you. There must be a few worth celebrating. Preferably something we can discuss without blocking the car park. --- (AI-generated image at top created by [Adobe Express](https://new.express.adobe.com/?ref=nevillehobson.io).)