The tech world is obsessed with what’s next. It has become so used to the constant flow of new products and new companies that newness itself has been placed on a pedestal. But outside of a few breakthroughs here and there, most things that are good are good because they got there slowly.
That’s why it always irks me when you hear entrepreneurs being asked “what’s next for you”, usually with the implication of either “what new product are you going to put out” or “what new company will you start next”. Not what improvements or tweaks are you going to make to what you have. All I can think of is the old Spolsky article Good Software Takes Ten Years.
I understand that reporters and outsiders aren’t interested in hearing about how you made this thing a little better or that thing a little smoother. They want fireworks: complete rewrites, massive new features, something brand-new. To people who actually use the product, though, that little tweak you made to remove a nagging problem is often way more important than something big and flashy.
It’s not only good software that takes a decade to develop, good companies do too. If you agree that’s true, it follows that you wouldn’t want promising entrepreneurs to go chasing waterfalls before they know how to paddle in the pond. Or something like that.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I want to see evolution get a chance to work its magic, but if great products and companies keep getting abandoned or bought after 3-5 years, there’ll be less of that. And that’s a damn shame.
Rafael Spínola
on 22 Feb 11I belive that most people focus less on the develop part of the thing. They think there is only value about getting things done. Of course there is, but, is it worth losing all the opportunities in the path that leads you to the done state? It’s like thinking: “I’ll be happy the day I own a Porsche”, and what about until then? Will you be unhappy until that day? Will the joy of your Porsche overcome all the previous unhappiness? Make each day count, give all opportunities a shot.
Christian Kvalheim
on 22 Feb 11Agreed. The focus on the fast win is inherent in our current culture. Gone is the focus on creating a lasting impression. We consider companies like Google ancient by most standards. Create, build, flip and repeat.
Anonymous Coward
on 22 Feb 11i never thought that the twitter argument between u and obie would result in this big blog post. but i agree completely with your ideology
Chris Kottom
on 22 Feb 11Might be a shame, but people who follow this advice run the risk of seeing the object of all that evolution become irrelevant in the face of a changing marketplace. User’s requirements are a moving target, and the fact is they don’t give a damn about the quality of the software, only how well it meets their need.
Neil
on 22 Feb 11Nice, totally agree, I think it’s the journey rather than end result that people focus on.
Christian Kvalheim
on 22 Feb 11@Chris Kottom. I don’t see the two things as mutually exclusive. You can evolve the business to address changes in the marketplace and technology or launch new products. It’s just a focus on the journey instead of the possible instant gratification of a lucky payout.
Dan Gebhardt
on 22 Feb 11As the owner and developer of a software service, I have to disagree with the comment above that users “don’t give a damn about the quality of the software”. Sorry, but placing “the fact is” in front of this statement does not make it true.
It’s all about the total package, features and quality, for which there are no shortcuts.
nik
on 22 Feb 11I think it’s a part of a bigger problem – that people have increasingly shorter attention spans and more frequent news updates with services like Twitter.
Wrote a post on it a while back: http://nquo.posterous.com/seths-blog-driveby-culture-and-the-endless-se-5
Damir
on 22 Feb 11The “next” goes along with the “fast”. How fast can you flip your business/site/project/... became a mantra in recent years. Only after the “fast” comes the “next” and since more and more businesses got (and get) flipped, the “next” became popular.
I have nothing against flipping an (undervalued) asset for it’s perceived value for quick buck, but when this becomes a business in itself, you just gotta ask yourself what real value are you adding to the market and will this model be sustainable for you to endure when younger, smarter and faster come to chase your piece of pie.
Rest assured, they’re coming.
Right Agents
on 22 Feb 11Well, I always thought the next thing was the next killer feature in the product … see FB news feed, FB apps when they first came out. In that context, its actually fun. No rewrites or new companies at all.
Carl - GUI Journal
on 22 Feb 11Absolutely. New, flashy software is both exhilarating and motivating: when we get a new tool, we want to do new, cool work. Unfortunately, if all the little features we’ve come to rely on are missing then the honeymoon ends quickly and we’re off looking for the next flash…or better yet, we return to where we can be the most productive.
Chris Larson
on 22 Feb 11I guess this philosophy is ok as long as your ok being the PHP of the programming world (that can still pay the bills). If you choose to ignore whats next you’ll quickly be replaced by the next company that has more drive and vision.
Adi
on 22 Feb 11You are also obsessed with what’s next. The difference is that you decide a different thing for what’s next.
Gary Bury
on 22 Feb 11I always find it frustrating that the press focus on the “what’s next”, so much so that the press has become boring, a few real stories would be very much welcome.
John Athayde
on 22 Feb 11As my critics and profs in Architecture school always reminded me “God is in the details” (attributed to Mies van der Rohe). A lot of people want to just talk about the big picture or the facade, but when it gets down to the details, they get bored and follow the next shiny thing. The things that persist pay attention to those details and keep working to refine them.
Ben Cohen
on 22 Feb 11I think this may be true for products (people are talking about the iPad 3 and before iPad 2 has even been announced), but I don’t think it’s true of all aspects of tech. Languages and frameworks only start receiving a lot attention and buzz when they hit critical mass, which generally takes a good few years.
Vicky
on 22 Feb 11@DHH
I take it then that there will not be any new product releases any time soon :(
Brandon Hansen
on 22 Feb 11I was at Magic Ruby Conf earlier this month. During the keynote Dave Thomas had the exact same sentiment. It was a bit of a shock at first to hear it, but the more that I think about it, the more that it makes sense from a business standpoint.
I think that there is often a divide between what is good for the business and what the programmer wants to do.
David O.
on 22 Feb 11I think a good company is typically good from the start like good software, then they are refined over the years to be great.
matthew
on 22 Feb 11Hmmm. I could have sworn that I posted a comment earlier today. Nothing I wrote could be considered off-topic, inflammatory or vapid. Or so I thought. What happened?
Kate Washut
on 22 Feb 11I think it’s in many entrepreneurs’ nature to always be seeking the “next thing.” As an entrepreneur (or should I say, starter?) in her 4th year of business, however, that’s never been my raison d’etre. For my partners and me, it’s always been about building a sustainable business that grows in a controlled manner to ensure we’re around to support our clients for a long time. After 4 years, we’re still working on building the company into what we want it to be.
You’re right, David, it’s a long process. And it’s not sexy, but it’s fulfilling and totally worth doing. Thanks for the post.
Matt
on 22 Feb 11But I thought entrepreneurs like you and Obie “got it”.
That particular comment really made me want to smack him.
Obie
on 22 Feb 11@Matt What part of that did you have a problem with, pray tell…
Jarrod Drysdale
on 22 Feb 11I think it’s easy to blame journalists for only chasing certain types of stories, but when it comes down to it they just want to write the kinds of stories people will read.
After striving for coverage of my own little app, I’m starting to understand why people go the funding and acquisition route. It provides instant legitimacy. Bloggers will eat out of your hand if you have a million dollars in funding or (insert story cliche here) because people like to read those stories. That sounds better than working for 10 years without compensation.
We can say we’re smarter and above it, but maybe the reality we face is a culture that doesn’t reward our idealism or the quality of our work?
Robert Sullivan
on 23 Feb 11Every time I see Spolsky mentioned I can’t help but to think that this was the guy that famously wrote that Mozilla would never get anywhere, and IE would reign supreme, because (1) They released broken code (2) They took the time to rewrite the code and do it right. So interesting that he’s apparently seen the error of his ways, and now gives software projects a little more leeway time. I’ve always admired Torvalds philosophy, which is to “release code when it’s ready”. Love it, wish I worked in an environment like that. Also illuminating is to observe the e-mails (on kernel trap) flying back and forth, over seemingly trivial details. Sometimes they get heated, but it is fantastic to see the amount of serious thought that goes into these decisions. I’m thinking in particular of the “sleep” feature Google was pushing for use in their Android phones, perhaps innocently not realizing the massive and complex impact this would have on other platforms if not done right. Anyway, I’ve worked for many organizations and noticed a certain fear to express a position in some permanent form like e-mail, till after the fact. “Well, I knew that wasn’t a good idea, I was going to mention it, but didn’t want to impact the schedule.”
Aaron Breckenridge
on 23 Feb 11Amen
Matt
on 23 Feb 11@Obie it contained a level of arrogance I found to be highly annoying.
Andre Natta
on 23 Feb 11It definitely lends itself to the idea that we’re still more of a throwaway society than we care to admit. Perhaps as folks realize that we can still do a lot of things with “old” stuff they’ll learn to appreciate a slow, sustainable journey instead of always looking for the next great trend.
Paul - Sharing Matters
on 23 Feb 11I totally agree with what you are trying to tell us – we can see that with Basecamp how it evolves step-by-step. It works great for both software producers and users.
But… the example given by Spolsky – Lotus Notes… this software should be banned because it spreads like a virus and it is hardly usable. Even the latest versions have many usability bugs. Lotus brings some weird standards, complicated menus, difficult to understand icons…
It is worse in some cases than Microsoft Outlook Express version from 2001. I am not even talking about its bad design. It is just horrible to use. For somebody who go used to 37signals software or even MS Office 2007 Lotus Notes is a disaster… but it is usually 1/3 of the price of MS Exchange…
Many companies are still using Lotus 6/7 and you know how badly it works there: http://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/
Sakchai Siripanyawuth
on 23 Feb 11I completely agree,
Good software is never really ‘finished’ there is always a lot of ways to develop and innovate the software further. I feel that the reason why people sell their companies or software is because they feel like “I’ve had enough of this, it’s time for me to move on to something else.” people get bored, I think essentially that’s what it comes down to, after they get their bulk of money from the buyer they wanna start something new. Which I also don’t understand why. It’s much easier to build what u have than start something new. If you have a successful running business with a stable revenue stream I think it’s stupid to sell.
Jim Fell
on 23 Feb 11These types of questions are generally asked because people want to know where to steer their stock portfolios.
Gordon @ Primate
on 23 Feb 11The problem is that a lot of people are looking for the next bubble, an easy way to make a freaking huge amount of money. They don’t want to make good software that will generate a decent revenue and be charged out at a fair price, they want that lighting in the bottle that will cause a worldwide storm and make them millions of dollars.
user
on 24 Feb 11So true.
This discussion is closed.