3 ms·
What's intriguing to me is that they started with less features. I'll explain. When some new thing comes onto the scene, like IRC or KaZaA or whatever, it is
by godDLL 18y ago
What's intriguing to me is that they started with less features. I'll explain.
When some new thing comes onto the scene, like IRC or KaZaA or whatever, it is usually very shaped, the creators have a specific use patten in mind. And so they stock up on all the features that they think you're going to want. Twitter seems different (not using it myself). It comes with less features.
And now, having listened to that talk, I can see that originally it came with no "features" whatsoever beyond the starter "hunch", a sort of an objectified idea.
That is what's worth a ponder, IMO.
- indiejade 18y agoLess can be more. How the 140 character limit was reached is also interesting; I don't think it's mentioned in the TED video, but it was discussed here: http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/6575 http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/6575
- diN0bot 18y agoi wouldn't call it less features, in general. it's more of finding a good design, an elegant solution. it's understanding the problem really well, distilling out the essential elements, and creating a platform that solves that problem really well, as in fast and easy, with as few obstacles as possible. it's this focus and lack of obstacles and elegance that actually makes good technology flexible. irc and kazaa add on all these features to solve many problems, which add obstacles to understanding and use, removing elegance, removing flexibility and usability.
- idiopathic 18y agoActually, Clay Christensen's definition of disruptive innovation is new technology that has fewer features than existing technology. The new technology finds uses amongst a previously under-served constituency, and then improves in features until it serves existing users better than the old technology did. I seem to recall an interview discussing with Ward Cunningham his invention of wikis. What is interesting to me is not the fewer features but the intelligent selection of only the important ones. I am still amazed by the prescience of Cunningham and Williams.
- jamesbritt 18y agoI'm guessing you meant "fewer features" (but you might plausibly have meant "lesser features"). Careful use of few/fewer/less/lessor makes for useful distinctions.
- godDLL 18y agoI did actually mean both. They have less of simpler features, a clear and focused solution to a problem that did not exist (or did exist, but wasn't obvious). I really love that, the "less is more" approach, the "do one thing and do it well" philosophy. Just like UNIX utilities can be piped together to form a new solution, their service is participating in similar "chains" to become a part of something more. That last sentence is there just to mess with you mate. :) Thanks for pointing out ambiguity in my writing.