We’re working on our next product right now and I think we just cut down the feature list by about 2/3. Wow does that feel good. Faster to market, easier to design, more attention to detail on the 1/3 that remains, and lower cost of change. Less is also surprisingly more flexible.
So does that mean after you launch the product you guys will be building in the rest of the 66%? Or is it a feature-set not worthy of versioning?
So does that mean after you launch the product you guys will be building in the rest of the 66%? Or is it a feature-set not worthy of versioning?
Great question. And the answer is: we don't know. That's the power of launching with less -- you get to decide on the "more" part later.
This seems to be a regular talking point for you guys recently....less is more. But I don't think that's always the case. It depends on the product of course, but don't over look the rapidly growing "hacker" community. For those people, it's the extra features that sometimes make or break a product.
(I'm not sure I'm saying this exactly right, or giving good enough examples. Just kind of thinking out loud.)
I guess the challenge is finding a happy medium.
Any hints on what this mystery product may be? ;)
"That's the power of launching with less -- you get to decide on the 'more' part later."
I think that's a great approach. It's what Apple often does and it has worked very well for them. It tends to make for a more focused app that's easier to use, with less clutter. It leaves plenty of room to grow... The focus of the app can evolve or even expand. Plus you have the advantage of being able to look at people's feedback to decide how it should grow.
Launching with less is typically a great idea. If it is the right less. Deciding on the 33% that will be included is definately the hard, hair-pulling, fist-pounting, chest-beating part. (unless your team members never have opinions of their own).
And of course it depends on the product. I don't want a foundation and studs for a house -- I want the whole 100%.
You guys are working on a lot of indepent (37 signals only) projects these days... are you still keeping busy with the 37signals Services (list to the right of this posting)?
I just want to know what happened to the other 1% of the features.
I am launching a new product too! It is called "Nothing!"...it has no features at all! And you can't imagine how clean the zero lines of ruby code are...beat that!
I wish I could convince my clients of this!
Oh, and can we get an icon to whet our appetites yet? ;-)
It wouldn't happen to be imeem would it? As soon as I got in, I thought, hmm... this looks like 37signals' handiwork :)
The real key is to remain true to the original intent of the product...whatever the vision of it was/is. You should be able to say that our app does_______. All features that do not jive with blank are not real a core part of the application and can wait for later releases. It just cool to see/hear/patronize a company that gets it. Meanwhile, bs is getting released everywhere with blah, blah feature that no one can use or even understand......blah, blah.
Another bonus of having less features is you can add the missing features in at a later date and charge for an upgrade ;-)
66% was taken out, 33% left.. where's the last percent? Or is it 2/3 and 1/3? :)
Of course it's not imeem . . . it's only for windoze. The Sig's work is always multi-platform!
Hmmmm - sounds great. That must mean it will cost 66% less. I assume you've done exhaustive market research so you know exactly what your customers need. I also assume you aren't taking the Microsoft approach which is to get mediocre out fast and clean it up later. (Sorry guys - I know better but I saw an earlier allusion to Apple)
-bruce
OK, I'm going to be a bit contrary on the "less is great" bandwagon.
Would you buy a car that launched with less - we'll include the engine and breaks, but you're going to have to wait till later for the stereo, air conditioning and carpet for the floors - because "less is more"?
Would you buy a DVD player that comes with the ability to play, but not to fast-forward and rewind, because "less is more"?
Why is it not acceptable to do that with most consumer products, but it's not only standard operating procedure in the software world, but even advocated as a good thing? One of the reasons people have a love/hate relationship with computers and software is because of this endless update and "improvement" cycle. It makes for a great revenue model for software developers, because people have to keep updating every so often in order to get the "more" they would have liked to get in the first place. But it's not necessarily the greatest thing for consumers.
I don't think he's saying they'll release a product that won't have features that people will use (like fast forward on a DVD player). But by eliminating the non-essential, they can cut down on complexity which speeds development, testing and deployment. It's not worth investing 2 months to add widget X if 10% of people use it 10% of the time, but the customers see that they'd really like the ability to do Y. You get two extra months of revenue, feedback and time to develop in the direction the customer wants. And that's a Good Thing.
Agree with "One of several steves"...
Less is only More when the "More" is fluff -- extra features or functions that are used rarely if ever. Fluff would be a DVD player that had a clock, but wasn't able to record. Why would the DVD player need the clock. Just a waste.
Would you buy a car that launched with less - we'll include the engine and breaks [sic] , but you're going to have to wait till later for the stereo, air conditioning and carpet for the floors - because "less is more"?
I think it's all relative to cost. If that car looked like a 911 Coupe, had Brembo brakes, and a 911-like engine, I would buy it if the price was right — say, $25,000 versus $70,000. That automaker would sell thousands of them, just like Apple is going to sell millions of iPod shuffles for $99, even without a screen or a scroll wheel. It's all about the price point (man, I hate that expression).
Basecamp has been successful for 37signals because it has the features that most people need to be productive, it's seriously focused on usability, and, most importantly, it's an incredible value compared to the other project management tools out there. This price comparison chart says it all.
If I only got the engine and the brakes right off the bat, but the manufacturer came to my house to put in all the other stuff over time, and at no additional cost to me, I'd buy that car in a second.
Rob, the problem with:
"Less is only More when the 'More' is fluff"'
is that it's rarely 'fluff' for everyone. it could be the single most important feature for 1 person (too bad for them). it could be really very important for 30% of the potential market (hmm...)
and it's often hard to know.
I'm starting to see the less is more vision. it helps fill the gap between 'usability' (good interface) and actual 'usage'. The more features, the more the design/interface errors add up, turning people off. it's easier to write smaller software well. We have an expensive contract with salesforce.com here. only one guy actually uses it much. too deep for too little pay-off.
BUT one of the beauties of feature rich apps - besides letting skilled users come closer to doing EXACTLY what they want to do - is that when they are designed well, they allow users several paths to their goals. because as anyone who is married or has sibblings knows: not everyone thinks the same way. so beware of when less is... just less.
Of course it's not imeem . . . it's only for windoze. The Sig's work is always multi-platform!
and besides, it's beveled. 37signals don't do bevels, do they?
;-)
"I am launching a new product too! It is called "Nothing!"...it has no features at all! And you can't imagine how clean the zero lines of ruby code are...beat that!"
Heh. I tried to do that in java, but it was hundreds of lines of code.
Julien wrote: "Less is only More when the 'More' is fluff"' is that it's rarely 'fluff' for everyone. it could be the single most important feature for 1 person (too bad for them). it could be really very important for 30% of the potential market (hmm...) and it's often hard to know."
It's often hard to know, but not really that hard if you work hard at responding to customers. The point is not to simply go shotgun on features right out of the gate. There's a difference between *launching* a product with just a few features and *sticking* with those features forever in the face of customer requests.
And if a feature's the single most important feature for just one person, well, tough. No one expects you to build a product or business catering to one person. (Now if that feature happens to be a great idea that no one's thought of, that's different.)
I'd say it's likely to be a win-win as long as you pay attention to the market.
If you launch with the right key features, you can then turn your attention to feedback to know what additional features are worth something more in the marketplace.
If you launch light with the wrong features and no one responds, you have your answer, you make your changes, and put it back out. You've not only made something useful to the people who will use it, but by launching light you make it possible for a speedy turnaround and reinforce the perception that you're tuned-in and responsive to your target market, because you ARE in tune and responsive.