3 ms·

The blog is powered by an unfeatures list - and is ugly and lacks the basic things that every wordpress blog has? Features are put in software because people pa

The blog is powered by an unfeatures list - and is ugly and lacks the basic things that every wordpress blog has? Features are put in software because people pay money for them. If nobody added anything to software, or let software evolve at the pace 37signals software evolved at, we'd be using Windows 3.15 by now, maybe. All those tens of thousands of companies making money by adding new features that people want to software are not idiots. It's not that they have failed to ever consider Jasons theory. They have, and it does not make them money. People want features. People will pay for features. That "blog software" that powers your blog - I would not use it. It looks like it sucks. I'd use wordpress, because it has a great many features that I need, and that developed because people like me need them. You want to believe that features are unimportant, simply because you don't have the time or resources to develop new edge features. People who actually sell software will tell you the exact opposite though - features and upgrades are what sell.

scott_s 17y ago
I think you're being reductionist in your interpretation of his point. His point is not that features are unimportant, but that some un-implemented features are equally as important as implemented features. People pay for features, but they also pay for un-features. It's called simplicity, and it helps sell many Apple products, including the iPod.
breck 17y ago
Good feedback >is ugly I agree it is ugly, my co-founder does design and hasn't gotten a change to improve it yet. (The project is a week old). > lacks the basic things that every wordpress blog has I love wordpress. I've used it on many sites. This software isn't meant to be wordpress, it's meant as an alternative. > All those tens of thousands of companies making money by adding new features that people want to software are not idiots. It's not that they have failed to ever consider Jasons theory. They have, and it does not make them money. People want features. People will pay for features. I agree. But I also think many failed companies that you don't hear about, added feature after feature and never got the core right. Once you have the core right, by all means add features when it means more $$$. But don't fall victim to feature creep early. > You want to believe that features are unimportant, simply because you don't have the time or resources to develop new edge features. People who actually sell software will tell you the exact opposite though - features and upgrades are what sell. I think really I just failed too communicate clearly enough. I don't mean never add features. I just mean think harder about it. Humans are wired to feel good when you get something done. This (un)features tactic is a hack to prevent you from adding things without enough thought.
nick007 17y ago
i kind of like the blog... very minimalist. all substance and no fluff.
nkohari 17y ago
Customers are funny, though. People come to us all the time and say, "We love the simplicity of your software! It's just so easy to use! By the way, can you add (feature X) and (feature Y) and (feature Z)?" As a user, it's hard to recognize that the two ideas are actually at odds with each other. It's up to the product owner to keep the product well-maintained as it evolves. Features that contribute to the core of the product, without interfering with the user experience, are the features you want to implement. In the water bottle example, the funnel and the paper towel interfere with the core offering (a convenient way to drink water), so they're rightly "unfeatures."
csmeder 17y ago
Don't be mean, if you don't like his blog thats okay, but to say it "sucks" thats rude. By your definition I would assume you think: http://news.ycombinator.com http://news.ycombinator.com is ugly and lacks the basic things digg has?

scott_s 17y ago

I think you're being reductionist in your interpretation of his point. His point is not that features are unimportant, but that some un-implemented features are equally as important as implemented features. People pay for features, but they also pay for un-features. It's called simplicity, and it helps sell many Apple products, including the iPod.

breck 17y ago

Good feedback >is ugly I agree it is ugly, my co-founder does design and hasn't gotten a change to improve it yet. (The project is a week old). > lacks the basic things that every wordpress blog has I love wordpress. I've used it on many sites. This software isn't meant to be wordpress, it's meant as an alternative. > All those tens of thousands of companies making money by adding new features that people want to software are not idiots. It's not that they have failed to ever consider Jasons theory. They have, and it does not make them money. People want features. People will pay for features. I agree. But I also think many failed companies that you don't hear about, added feature after feature and never got the core right. Once you have the core right, by all means add features when it means more $$$. But don't fall victim to feature creep early. > You want to believe that features are unimportant, simply because you don't have the time or resources to develop new edge features. People who actually sell software will tell you the exact opposite though - features and upgrades are what sell. I think really I just failed too communicate clearly enough. I don't mean never add features. I just mean think harder about it. Humans are wired to feel good when you get something done. This (un)features tactic is a hack to prevent you from adding things without enough thought.

nick007 17y ago

i kind of like the blog... very minimalist. all substance and no fluff.

nkohari 17y ago

Customers are funny, though. People come to us all the time and say, "We love the simplicity of your software! It's just so easy to use! By the way, can you add (feature X) and (feature Y) and (feature Z)?" As a user, it's hard to recognize that the two ideas are actually at odds with each other. It's up to the product owner to keep the product well-maintained as it evolves. Features that contribute to the core of the product, without interfering with the user experience, are the features you want to implement. In the water bottle example, the funnel and the paper towel interfere with the core offering (a convenient way to drink water), so they're rightly "unfeatures."

csmeder 17y ago

Don't be mean, if you don't like his blog thats okay, but to say it "sucks" thats rude. By your definition I would assume you think: http://news.ycombinator.com http://news.ycombinator.com is ugly and lacks the basic things digg has?