4 ms·

...unless features are what you're competing on. Usually this is the correct advice, but there are markets out there of people who need to take the next step u

...unless features are what you're competing on. Usually this is the correct advice, but there are markets out there of people who need to take the next step up from a basic product and features are exactly what they're looking for. Take Basecamp for example. There was recently an article on HN from someone who clearly outgrew the product. The consensus on HN was "this guy isn't in Basecamp's target market", and that's absolutely true. But that also means he IS in a market of people looking for something like Basecamp but with more features. Something in between Basecamp and, say, MS Project. For these markets, competing on features may work. Just don't go overboard, or you'll end up remaking MS Project :)

andrew_null 15y ago
(I am the original author of the blog post) Disagree. What does it meant to have Basecamp with "more features"? Features aren't in themselves good things. Instead, you end up needing to focus the new features around a particular theme or value proposition- be it better collaboration, or better security, or whatever. And then while you're adding features in that direction, oftentimes you don't need to implement the full Basecamp featureset. You just need to be better in a direction that's valuable and enough of the base featureset to have an OK product. Seriously, it's not a good idea to start up a new product and expect to build all of Basecamp AND add new features and be successful. That'd take years to even get the first version of the product out. Avoid unless you have millions in funding and an excellent team from the get-go that knows exactly how to execute this strategy.