Darwinism suggests a system that evolves through “natural” means. Iterative design has nothing to do with Darwinism except for the fact that it couples well with it as long as you’re A/B testing and getting the right data (so you can spot a success/failure).

Mentioning Google as an example of why iterations or Darwinism should be debunked is also a misinterpretation of the facts. For one, a failed product is not an iteration. Iterative design is more like Apple does, which is debatable whether or not it is innovative, but it surely is successful. Second, say you take a product as an iteration, and it failed. If it failed you take it off the market. That’s evolution. The things that work stay. The things that fail go away. And as in evolution, it takes much more failures for there to be a success. So there’s no need to expect a wide range of successes on any system. Taking the example of Google, they have a few successful products, but there’s no way to anticipate such success. They made it and it was successful. And now they have created a robust infrastructure to try out new things and test quickly if it is a failure or not (instead of investing too much on it).

Or take Amazon’s 3D smartphone. Sure, it failed, but that’s OK. What Jeff Bezos probably means by saying it will take a few iterations is that it is not ready for the market yet. Just as touch screens were not ready for the market before the iPhone. Just as tablets were not ready for the market before the iPad. Just as VR was not ready for the market before the Oculus Rift. And so on.

Fair enough, designing a product can’t anticipate the market or the data. So you’re better off designing from what your gut tells you or proper application of design principles. But that also doesn’t mean you should dismiss the powers of nature, and the fact that the market has its own incremental evolution. Being aware of such will help you realize that a product is not a universal failure perpetuated through eternity, but a failure under a very specific context.