Comment by alkonaut
3 days ago
"The world" runs on _features_ not elegant, fast, or bug free software. To the end user, there is no difference between a lack of a feature, and a bug. Nor is there any meaningful difference between software taking 5 minutes to complete something because of poor performance, compared to the feature not being there and the user having to spend 5 minutes completing the same task manually. It's "slow".
If you keep maximizing value for the end user, then you invariably create slow and buggy software. But also, if you ask the user whether they would want faster and less buggy software in exchange for fewer features, they - surprise - say no. And even more importantly: if you ask the buyer of software, which in the business world is rarely the end user, then they want features even more, and performance and elegance even less. Given the same feature set, a user/buyer would opt for the fastest/least buggy/most elegant software. But if it lacks any features - it loses. The reason to keep software fast and elegant is because it's the most likely path to be able to _keep_ adding features to it as to not be the less feature rich offering. People will describe the fast and elegant solution with great reviews, praising how good it feels to use. Which might lead people to think that it's an important aspect. But in the end - they wouldn't buy it at all if it didn't do what they wanted. They'd go for the slow frustrating buggy mess if it has the critical feature they need.
Almost all of my nontechnical friends and family members have at some point complained about bloated and overly complicated software that they are required to use.
Also remember that Microsoft at this point has to drag their users kicking and screaming into using the next Windows version. If users were let to decide for themselves, many would have never upgraded past Windows XP. All that despite all the pretty new features in the later versions.
I'm fully with you that businesses and investors want "features" for their own sake, but definitely not users.
Every time I offer alternatives to slow hardware, people find a missing feature that makes them stick to what they're currently using. Other times the features are there but the buttons for it are in another place and people don't want to learn something new. And that's for free software, with paid software things become even worse because suddenly the hours they spend on loading times is worthless compared to a one-time fee.
Complaining about slow software happens all the time, but when given the choice between features and performance, features win every time. Same with workflow familiarity; you can have the slowest, most broken, hacked together spreadsheet-as-a-software-replacement mess, but people will stick to it and complain how bad it is unless you force them to use a faster alternative that looks different.
Every software you use has more bloat than useful features? Probably not. And what's useless to one user might be useful to another.
No way.
You've got it totally backwards. Companies push features onto users who do not want them in order to make sales through forced upgrades because the old version is discontinued.
If people could, no one would ever upgrade anything anymore. Look at how hard MS has to work to force anyone to upgrade. I have never heard of anyone who wanted a new version of Windows, Office, Slack, Zoom, etc.
This is also why everything (like Photoshop) is being forced into the cloud. The vast majority of people don't want the new features that are being offered. Including buyers at businesses. So the answer to keep revenue up is to force people to buy regardless of what features are being offered or not.
> You've got it totally backwards. Companies push features onto users who do not want them in order to make sales through forced upgrades because the old version is discontinued.
I think this is more a consumer perspective than a B2B one. I'm thinking about the business case. I.e. businesses purchase software (or has bespoke software developed). Then they pay for fixes/features/improvements. There is often a direct communication between the buyer and the developer (whether it's off-the shelf, inhouse or made to spec). I'm in this business and the dialog is very short "great work adding feature A. We want feature B too now. And oh the users say the software is also a bit slow can you make it go faster? Me: do you want feature B or faster first? Them (always) oh feature B. That saves us man-weeks every month". Then that goes on for feature C, D, E, ...Z.
In this case, I don't know how frustrated the users are, because the customer is not the user - it's the users' managers.
In the consumer space, the user is usually the buyer. That's one huge difference. You can choose the software that frustrates you the least, perhaps the leanest one, and instead have to do a few manual steps (e.g. choose vscode over vs, which means less bloated software but also many fewer features).
Agree WRT the tradeoff between features and elegance.
Although, I do wonder if there’s an additional tradeoff here. Existing users, can apparently do what they need to do with the software, because they are already doing it. Adding a new feature might… allow them to get rid of some other software, or do something new (but, that something new must not be so earth shattering, because they didn’t seek out other software to do it, and they were getting by without it). Therefore, I speculate that existing users, if they really were introspective, would ask for those performance improvements first. And maybe a couple little enhancements.
Potential new users on the other hand, either haven’t heard of your software yet, or they need it to do something else before they find it useful. They are the ones that reasonably should be looking for new features.
So, in “features vs performance” decision is also a signal about where the developers’ priorities lay: adding new users or keeping old ones happy. So, it is basically unsurprising that:
* techies tend to prefer the latter—we’ve played this game before, and know we want to be the priority for the bulk of the time using the thing, not just while we’re being acquired.
* buggy slow featureful software dominates the field—this is produced by companies that are prioritizing growth first.
* history is littered with beautiful, elegant software that users miss dearly, but which didn’t catch on broadly enough to sustain the company.
However, the tradeoff is real in both directions; most people spend most of their time as users instead of potential users. I think this is probably a big force behind the general perception that software and computers are incredibly shit nowadays.
Perfectly put. People who try to argue that more time should be spent on making software perform better probably aren't thinking about who's going to pay for that.
For the home/office computer, the money spent on more RAM and a better CPU enables all software it runs to be shipped more cheaply and with more features.