4 ms·

A couple weeks ago, they decided to pull the feature because it was too confusing and it wasn’t adding value. This is wrong. If the feature weren't adding valu

A couple weeks ago, they decided to pull the feature because it was too confusing and it wasn’t adding value. This is wrong. If the feature weren't adding value, the users wouldn't care if it disappeared. In this case, it added the value of allowing a family to have separate queues and ratings with a single account. Whether Netflix was able to capitalize on that value is another story...

johns 18y ago
I think he's saying NetFlix thought it wasn't adding value, which it clearly was.
- jpeterson 18y ago
  I don't think so. The whole point of his post is that once you introduce a feature, users will demand you to keep it even if it doesn't add value.
  - BRadmin 18y ago
    with 82M subscribers, 82-164K using this feature, and 1286 comments -- a large majority of the userbase was getting no value out of it, while a small proportion was.... it's not so easy to define 'value' in a scenario like this.
    - ericb 18y ago
      Percentage wise, 164,000 is low for netflix. However, many people here would kill for 164,000 users.
- ajross 18y ago
  Well, no. I think the point of the blog post was that adding features is expensive (more so than the simple development costs) and that adding needless features is incurring needless expense. That much is spot on. The problem was that, as reality demonstrated, a "needless" feature is something that is very much in the eye of the beholder. Some folks really loved this gadget, apparently (I know zilch about the whole affair). So maybe it's a poor example of an otherwise valid point.
michaelneale 18y ago
I think this is like when Joel S talked about the problem with the 80/20 rule - sure, most users only use 20% of the features, but they are a different 20% for each user. 37s and others don't seem to agree with this, and want to have a pure 20% - and claim that the interfaces that result with Joel's way are "enterprisey" (a term I have heard a lot to describe anything which isn't consumer level simple).

johns 18y ago

I think he's saying NetFlix thought it wasn't adding value, which it clearly was.

jpeterson 18y ago
I don't think so. The whole point of his post is that once you introduce a feature, users will demand you to keep it even if it doesn't add value.
- BRadmin 18y ago
  with 82M subscribers, 82-164K using this feature, and 1286 comments -- a large majority of the userbase was getting no value out of it, while a small proportion was.... it's not so easy to define 'value' in a scenario like this.
  - ericb 18y ago
    Percentage wise, 164,000 is low for netflix. However, many people here would kill for 164,000 users.
ajross 18y ago
Well, no. I think the point of the blog post was that adding features is expensive (more so than the simple development costs) and that adding needless features is incurring needless expense. That much is spot on. The problem was that, as reality demonstrated, a "needless" feature is something that is very much in the eye of the beholder. Some folks really loved this gadget, apparently (I know zilch about the whole affair). So maybe it's a poor example of an otherwise valid point.

michaelneale 18y ago

I think this is like when Joel S talked about the problem with the 80/20 rule - sure, most users only use 20% of the features, but they are a different 20% for each user. 37s and others don't seem to agree with this, and want to have a pure 20% - and claim that the interfaces that result with Joel's way are "enterprisey" (a term I have heard a lot to describe anything which isn't consumer level simple).