4 ms·

The article doesn't say "Don't build features", it says "Don't compete on features". In other words, what is your focus when it comes to selling your product or

The article doesn't say "Don't build features", it says "Don't compete on features". In other words, what is your focus when it comes to selling your product or service? Andrew is arguing that the focus should be on a unique experiental aspect of the service and not raw features. To that I would also add "Don't compete on price". That's not to say that you shouldn't have a price, or that the price shouldn't be competitive, but simply, that price isn't your primary differentiator. We differentiate on service, but we've also got some great features and competitive pricing - we just don't dwell on it. Decent features and good prices are just table stakes - service is our ante and we're all-in.

enjo 15y ago
What is a product if not the sum of its features? Features aren't extraneous things, they are what your product actually does. This article strikes me as one big platitude to be honest. Yes, simplifying your interface and creating well defined interactions are very good things. Yes, your product will be better (and more successful) as it gets easier to use. I agree with that, but that doesn't mean stripping away functionality is always the right approach. Most here would agree that the iPhone is a pretty functional device. Its hardly "simple". It does a ton of things really well. It's not that the device has stripped away features, it's that they have implemented all of those features really well. I guess I'm saying this: don't blame features for terrible UX. Blame poor engineering. edit: I also want to address this: You’ll never win on features against a market leader* This might be true, but not always. Often you can clearly differentiate your product at some low level, but you still have to build out a commiserate feature set to satisfy customer needs. In the end you have a better product, but adoption is slowed until you achieve feature-level parity (at least on certain core features).
- ThomPete 15y ago
  A product is what the features allow you to do. No single feature is the product.
- ctdonath 15y ago
  Old adage: "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." If the whole meets/exceeds user expectations, you don't need to list the parts. If you're listing the parts, you're trying to distract the customer from the inadequate whole by saying the parts are good enough.
andrew_null 15y ago
I'm the author of the article. Great comment and exactly describes what I was trying to convey.
kenjackson 15y ago
I agree that competing on features seems like a mistake (one reason why I think Google+ will not fare that well). But competing on price I think is actually a very different matter. Price changes everything. Price can make the difference between feeling like a sucker or feeling like you just had a marvelous experience. Take something like the iPad. With all of its beauty and design, had it started at $899 or $999 like many speculated, it would have done far poorer. Like potentially flopped. Apple knew price was extremely important and so they were very aggressive on it. The Kindle and Nook are such good sellers, in part, because of their price. They're the impulse buys while you're standing at the checkstand. With that said price isn't always a factor (and in some cases more expensive is better than cheaper), but you should treat price just as you would UX and design -- very seriously.

enjo 15y ago

What is a product if not the sum of its features? Features aren't extraneous things, they are what your product actually does. This article strikes me as one big platitude to be honest. Yes, simplifying your interface and creating well defined interactions are very good things. Yes, your product will be better (and more successful) as it gets easier to use. I agree with that, but that doesn't mean stripping away functionality is always the right approach. Most here would agree that the iPhone is a pretty functional device. Its hardly "simple". It does a ton of things really well. It's not that the device has stripped away features, it's that they have implemented all of those features really well. I guess I'm saying this: don't blame features for terrible UX. Blame poor engineering. edit: I also want to address this: You’ll never win on features against a market leader* This might be true, but not always. Often you can clearly differentiate your product at some low level, but you still have to build out a commiserate feature set to satisfy customer needs. In the end you have a better product, but adoption is slowed until you achieve feature-level parity (at least on certain core features).

ThomPete 15y ago
A product is what the features allow you to do. No single feature is the product.
ctdonath 15y ago
Old adage: "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." If the whole meets/exceeds user expectations, you don't need to list the parts. If you're listing the parts, you're trying to distract the customer from the inadequate whole by saying the parts are good enough.

andrew_null 15y ago

I'm the author of the article. Great comment and exactly describes what I was trying to convey.

kenjackson 15y ago

I agree that competing on features seems like a mistake (one reason why I think Google+ will not fare that well). But competing on price I think is actually a very different matter. Price changes everything. Price can make the difference between feeling like a sucker or feeling like you just had a marvelous experience. Take something like the iPad. With all of its beauty and design, had it started at $899 or $999 like many speculated, it would have done far poorer. Like potentially flopped. Apple knew price was extremely important and so they were very aggressive on it. The Kindle and Nook are such good sellers, in part, because of their price. They're the impulse buys while you're standing at the checkstand. With that said price isn't always a factor (and in some cases more expensive is better than cheaper), but you should treat price just as you would UX and design -- very seriously.