6 ms·

Nope. Only after our software reached a certain amount of features (compared to our competition, mainly) did we start to experience real growth. Our customers

Nope. Only after our software reached a certain amount of features (compared to our competition, mainly) did we start to experience real growth. Our customers would not accept not having some features because the fewer features are so great. Nope. They need many features, and have complex workflows, that's how it goes. This doesn't mean that the features you offer shouldn't have a clear purpose and be easy to use.

stingraycharles 7y ago
My experience is that who you're selling to matters a lot. In case of B2B, enterprises usually have tons of requirements and the approach of "less features but better" will not work: there's too much enterprise "cruft" that need to be implemented (e.g. SSO, audit logs, RBAC, etc) before they will even start considering you.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  ...which coincidentally is also where almost all the money is. The average computer user doesn't buy anything. They use whatever software they need for work (which is B2B by extension) and whatever came pre-installed on their machine. Even if you have a really simple app that's been designed to perfection and solves their exact problem, they will complain about paying more than a couple of dollars. Maybe if you have a "the user is the product" type of business, simple and focused is really the way to go. Otherwise, beware.
- eitland 7y ago
  > there's too much enterprise "cruft" that need to be implemented (e.g. SSO, audit logs, RBAC, etc) before they will even start considering you. Calling SSO, audit logs and RBAC "cruft" in a business setting might not exactly inspire confidence in prospective customers.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    I think your parent poster's point is that SSO, audit logs, and RBAC aren't core product features. We could have a development team spend weeks on all of these, without implementing one feature that solves the core customer problem, that would get another business to use our product.
    - stingraycharles 7y ago
      This was exactly my point, thanks for elaborating.
      - benologist 7y ago
        A while back I stared extracting all this cruft / boilerplate stuff into a parallel web application that complements your web app so we can avoid rewriting it and let it stably do the boring stuff while your application develops independently. I have a few details left to take care of in the coming weeks and then it will just be a rock-solid, well-tested, well-documented companion web app for everything from tiny web apps through to SaaS and Stripe Connect platforms which it supports through modules. https://userdashboard.github.io/home https://userdashboard.github.io/home
        eitland 7y ago
        Based on a cursory review this looks really useful! I'm bookmarking this for future reference, both to use it for side projects and to study.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        benologist 7y ago
        Thanks! Let me know if you need any help or have any questions. In the next couple weeks it's going to reach feature-completion with internationalization.
Roritharr 7y ago
I can only underline that, before joining our current startup I was always of the impression that quality always trumps quantity, but the past four years really have shown me that in some markets it's really just about checkboxes and shipping mvps of features instead of actually pushing for the best possible ux, especially in a low price sector (5-30€/month).
- mark-r 7y ago
  I got one of my best jobs because I was able to implement a feature that was probably never used by a single customer. It was definitely a checkbox item, our main competitor offered it so we had to as well.
huhtenberg 7y ago
The problem probably wasn't that you didn't have enough features. The problem was that your minimalist feature set didn't solve any real problems for anyone. You must've been aiming at people with complex problems, which required complex solutions, so it's unsurprising that that you had to have a feature set to match to be actually useful.
- meerita 7y ago
  You don't need to solve problems too. You can create needs instead and they're much more stronger than problems http://minid.net/2019/07/30/on-building-products-for-necessities-instead-for-solving-a-problem/ http://minid.net/2019/07/30/on-building-products-for-necessi...
  - jmatthews 7y ago
    It's a good concept but needs fleshing out I think. I understand the thrust of the idea but it could also be seen as just playing word games. What specifically is the difference between a need and a problem? What methodology might one use to search for needs? I wish this idea were a bit more developed.
    - meerita 7y ago
      Semantically are different things. A problem is a doubt and a need is driven feeling. Both things can cross in a situation but isn't apply 100% of the times. Since both need and problems can be subjective, the idea is to trigger the need instead of finding posible problems to solve. As the rule #1 say: not everyone has a problem, but you can create a need in everyone.
CivBase 7y ago
Could it be that a "great" product and a "commercially successful" product are not the same thing? I work at a large employer who spends a lot on tools. I would characterize many of those tools as not being "great" for our needs. Replacing those tools is difficult because of the costs and logistics of licensing accross a large enterprise. In my experience, businesses (and consumers) would rather buy a "good enough" solution for a complex problem than multiple "great" solutions which solve the same problem when engineered to work in conjunction with one another. Why do you think MS Office is so popular?
3xblah 7y ago
Does this mean it is not possible to have a "great" software product, one that does things "better", that does not also generate "real growth"? Is it possible to have a "not great" product which neverthless generates "real growth"? Is "real growth" the sole measure/determinant of whether a product is "great"? Does that mean a small number of users who believe a product is "great" are "wrong" about said greatness if the product never experiences "real growth"?
- makapuf 7y ago
  Sure, revenue != greatness. But a small number of users who find a product should have a minimum viable set of high quality features to be useful can also be right. Case in point : the iPhone. it's a ipod/a (crappy compared to a laptop) web browsing device/ a (big) phone (and a camera/a flashlight/a game console...) . And it was feature packed from day one. And more or less replaced the products it embodied (sometimes a bit worse but portable and "free" once you have it in your pocket) Other case: a computer. It's so versatile and has so many uses and features its not even funny. Gaming, accounting, word processor, paint tablet. Each worse than a dedicated hardware at the start.

stingraycharles 7y ago

My experience is that who you're selling to matters a lot. In case of B2B, enterprises usually have tons of requirements and the approach of "less features but better" will not work: there's too much enterprise "cruft" that need to be implemented (e.g. SSO, audit logs, RBAC, etc) before they will even start considering you.

gridlockd 7y ago
...which coincidentally is also where almost all the money is. The average computer user doesn't buy anything. They use whatever software they need for work (which is B2B by extension) and whatever came pre-installed on their machine. Even if you have a really simple app that's been designed to perfection and solves their exact problem, they will complain about paying more than a couple of dollars. Maybe if you have a "the user is the product" type of business, simple and focused is really the way to go. Otherwise, beware.
eitland 7y ago
> there's too much enterprise "cruft" that need to be implemented (e.g. SSO, audit logs, RBAC, etc) before they will even start considering you. Calling SSO, audit logs and RBAC "cruft" in a business setting might not exactly inspire confidence in prospective customers.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  I think your parent poster's point is that SSO, audit logs, and RBAC aren't core product features. We could have a development team spend weeks on all of these, without implementing one feature that solves the core customer problem, that would get another business to use our product.
  - stingraycharles 7y ago
    This was exactly my point, thanks for elaborating.
    - benologist 7y ago
      A while back I stared extracting all this cruft / boilerplate stuff into a parallel web application that complements your web app so we can avoid rewriting it and let it stably do the boring stuff while your application develops independently. I have a few details left to take care of in the coming weeks and then it will just be a rock-solid, well-tested, well-documented companion web app for everything from tiny web apps through to SaaS and Stripe Connect platforms which it supports through modules. https://userdashboard.github.io/home https://userdashboard.github.io/home
      - eitland 7y ago
        Based on a cursory review this looks really useful! I'm bookmarking this for future reference, both to use it for side projects and to study.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        benologist 7y ago
        Thanks! Let me know if you need any help or have any questions. In the next couple weeks it's going to reach feature-completion with internationalization.

Roritharr 7y ago

I can only underline that, before joining our current startup I was always of the impression that quality always trumps quantity, but the past four years really have shown me that in some markets it's really just about checkboxes and shipping mvps of features instead of actually pushing for the best possible ux, especially in a low price sector (5-30€/month).

mark-r 7y ago
I got one of my best jobs because I was able to implement a feature that was probably never used by a single customer. It was definitely a checkbox item, our main competitor offered it so we had to as well.

huhtenberg 7y ago

The problem probably wasn't that you didn't have enough features. The problem was that your minimalist feature set didn't solve any real problems for anyone. You must've been aiming at people with complex problems, which required complex solutions, so it's unsurprising that that you had to have a feature set to match to be actually useful.

meerita 7y ago
You don't need to solve problems too. You can create needs instead and they're much more stronger than problems http://minid.net/2019/07/30/on-building-products-for-necessities-instead-for-solving-a-problem/ http://minid.net/2019/07/30/on-building-products-for-necessi...
- jmatthews 7y ago
  It's a good concept but needs fleshing out I think. I understand the thrust of the idea but it could also be seen as just playing word games. What specifically is the difference between a need and a problem? What methodology might one use to search for needs? I wish this idea were a bit more developed.
  - meerita 7y ago
    Semantically are different things. A problem is a doubt and a need is driven feeling. Both things can cross in a situation but isn't apply 100% of the times. Since both need and problems can be subjective, the idea is to trigger the need instead of finding posible problems to solve. As the rule #1 say: not everyone has a problem, but you can create a need in everyone.

CivBase 7y ago

Could it be that a "great" product and a "commercially successful" product are not the same thing? I work at a large employer who spends a lot on tools. I would characterize many of those tools as not being "great" for our needs. Replacing those tools is difficult because of the costs and logistics of licensing accross a large enterprise. In my experience, businesses (and consumers) would rather buy a "good enough" solution for a complex problem than multiple "great" solutions which solve the same problem when engineered to work in conjunction with one another. Why do you think MS Office is so popular?

3xblah 7y ago

Does this mean it is not possible to have a "great" software product, one that does things "better", that does not also generate "real growth"? Is it possible to have a "not great" product which neverthless generates "real growth"? Is "real growth" the sole measure/determinant of whether a product is "great"? Does that mean a small number of users who believe a product is "great" are "wrong" about said greatness if the product never experiences "real growth"?

makapuf 7y ago
Sure, revenue != greatness. But a small number of users who find a product should have a minimum viable set of high quality features to be useful can also be right. Case in point : the iPhone. it's a ipod/a (crappy compared to a laptop) web browsing device/ a (big) phone (and a camera/a flashlight/a game console...) . And it was feature packed from day one. And more or less replaced the products it embodied (sometimes a bit worse but portable and "free" once you have it in your pocket) Other case: a computer. It's so versatile and has so many uses and features its not even funny. Gaming, accounting, word processor, paint tablet. Each worse than a dedicated hardware at the start.