I'm very sympathetic to designs at the beck and call of someone else making the decision on features, but I'm not sure that some of the points above are the rig

I'm very sympathetic to designs at the beck and call of someone else making the decision on features, but I'm not sure that some of the points above are the right way to frame it. > you bought that over-complicated appliance for the same reason everyone else does: it has more features, and you like features. Everyone wants features. I don't think this is accurate for a substantial part of the population. A novel-length feature list is a guaranteed way to ensure that no one really understands what your product does. A product I worked on had the usual hundreds of features and novel-length user guide, and probably one of the most common questions our support team would ingest was "can product X do thing Y?" which was even just a quick online search away. Featureful updates I think look better for the people investing in the product, not the ones selling/buying it. It justifies expenditures, can be correlated to growth/progress, etc. For specialized products, e.g., coffee makers, I have personal doubts that a substantial amount of buyers care much more than reading a few reviews to confirm that the product "makes good coffee" or " is easy to clean". > Second, that designer likely has as much real agency as the engineers building the firmware for the control board. Corporate mandated 12 months ago, “A coffee maker with features A, B, and C and price point P and trim level T.” The designer likely has no place to argue with any of that. A product marketing executive made these decisions, and for one reason — to build what sells. This one I agree with mostly, except for the "build what sells" part. What sells is what the company effectively SEO spams and price-points well within the market. Let's not forget Juicero's history and how well it sold until someone did the groundbreaking journalism of actually using the device and showing how ridiculous it was. I think it helps support the idea that enough moxy/aggressive marketing, you can get just about anything to fly for awhile to turn a profit. And Juicero is just one example of many such things; I doubt that the executive guidance on Juicero was anything more than "Make it squish these bags, read our juice DRM, and set up a subscription service to buy more juice bags." The answer to this is pretty complex I guess, as voting with our wallets is historically pretty ineffective at enacting change. There are a lot of tricks that can be used to make hot garbage a top seller; Amazon is raking in billions doing just this and has been for years, despite constant outrage articles and proof of the garbage-ness of the services. At a certain point, change does need to come from within the company rather than external pressures; the market gets fooled really easily by fancy enough presentations and rich enough people talking about a failed product for 30 seconds. I think that's why the author made the call-out; I read it as fairly tongue in cheek, but it has an element of truth that the pushback likely needs to come internally; I think the author though, and many people, realize this is not as simple of a situation as that though for the points you mentioned about executive decisions. I don't think designers should completely abandon their agency though on products; saving money is pretty persuasive to the decision makers, and probably _that_ is the best way to influence products via a wallet. Just it's the company's wallet, not the consumers.