yep, totally right, I'll go back to studying maslow again;)
Leo
· 1 year ago
Yup right on the money there. :-)
Ashley
· 1 year ago
Interesting thoughts. As per my recent discovery, could say that another example of a simple yet powerful online service is blogupp.com. it's meant for bloggers and is fully usable without signing up or recording a profile.
gruvr local live music map
· 1 year ago
Hey grazr buds!
Nice to see you're reading this.
"Feature creep" - now there's a term I haven't heard much since... wow, the 80s! It's a term like a 'kludge'... anyone remember that?
But yes the image of getting tangled in a jungle of 'features' has been a recognised danger for a long time. Too bad Microsoft never got that message.
They're trying to perfect the old Lycos mo-blog 'update via email' function by simplifying it... and immediately getting tons of requests for: more features!
Facey Spacey Technologies
· 1 year ago
And one very little nuance I'd like to add to Stan's awesome point is: when twitter started to get bit, it confused the hell out of me how a service that operated based on 1 firm and a feed of responses could get so popular. So essentially, it's minimalism was extremely intriguing. I just had to find out how something so featureless could be so useful--I wanted to make it useful for my self!
Really interesting article - what is the service for video on the web? currently youtube handles most needs, posting, commenting and consuming? But cant be described as KISS?
Matt
· 1 year ago
I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment that making something with fewer features will make it more popular. I like Twitter but I think it's popular for reasons that have nothing to do with factors you mention in your article.
Your argument vis-Ã -vis "Add a couple of features to Twitter and it's Wordpress. Why is a Wordpress minus a couple of features so popular?" Seems to assume that Twitter is more popular than WordPress, which I don't think is true.
There are no hard rules about simplicity and complexity -- both are needed at different times.
Petty
· 1 year ago
"how is it possible that Twitter remains popular despite their frequent technical problems and the fact that there are other similar services out there which offer more?"
A possible answer might be that if one day Scobbles or other "twitter-popular" guy/girl left Twitter it's possible that many of us would follow him/her where he goes for various reasons. Coz in many cases you dont stay at Twitter because of its simplicity or functionality but because there are some people out there that you follow and interact.
VCMike
· 1 year ago
An excellent post which, while not a universal formula for every web success story, sums up a powerful observation.
The challenge, though, is monetizing simplicity.
terra210
· 1 year ago
The term "monetizing simplicity" is perfect. The fact that it creates a challenge, is really curious. Why is it a challenge? Are you saying that monetizing complexity is less of a challenge?
kris@research2zero.com
· 1 year ago
Well said. I don't think it's all about less. There is an instant productivity that comes with some of these services. Wordpress allows someone to set up a blog in a few minutes and Feedburner provides some pretty powerful related tools that can be configured in another hour or so. However they are both fairly powerful and feature rich.
In contrast using a tool like Photoshop means a substantial learning curve to produce anything. This is why many turn to a simple download that provides some basic image editing. Adobe could actually deliver functions this way over time so that they could be both a "simple one operation solution" and all the complexity and capability of Photoshop at the same time.
One thing for sure is that today doing one important thing well (search, one-to-many IM) is critical. Many users today are very task oriented. They go to Google and type in "clone my Mac drive to upgrade" and get pointed over to a tool like SuperDuper that does the job. One could say this is just an aspect of a comprehensive suite of backup software but who has the desire and time to figure that out!
Software companies of the world pay attention!
David S.( @seemsArtless on Twi
· 1 year ago
I'm having a tough time separating out 'web service' vs 'online software' here. This theory applies to a web service like Twitter, for sure, but not as cleanly to online software like Flickr.
What made Flickr so popular isn't the fact that it is simple to upload photos, but that they added in a whole set of additional functions that made it possible to create all sorts of communities around the photos. If you want to make Flickr simple, you'd remove those extra features and reduce Flickr to a web service to store and display photos.
dave mcclure
· 1 year ago
nice piece, altho i wonder if you couldn't have said that in 2 paragraphs instead of 2 pages ;)
John Ramey
· 1 year ago
Great post, very accurate. One of the implications of the web migrating towards platforms is that there will be less superstars in the future than there have been in previous years.
Where "success" used to be building up a powerful feature-set for a specific use, the largest success going forward will be building a platform. But there are far fewer possible platforms than possible feature-sets.
I think you'll start seeing a growth of "middle class" web apps/startups that build cash businesses worth sub $50m.
arpit
· 1 year ago
Excellent post. To use the cliched quote: "Lack of features can be a feature" :)
Ahmed
· 1 year ago
Smaller Size
Dan
· 1 year ago
I have to disagree with some of what said here.
this article is true but for a specific set of services that you can offer on the net. but many other services, do require a more complex system. the problem is that up to now many system are being built without consideration for the user experience and because of that many systems are too complex to use.
in addition to that viewers of this blog and others, i categorize most of them as users that visit many sites and use them for a short time each site. but u have to remember there are users who visit fewer sites and stay there along time, just because they have depth of interest (i am such one) and i am looking for more tools to use and enhance my experience, but its very service oriented. so for some of us less is still less... :)
Paul Griffiths
· 1 year ago
Your post is wise to the way that human beings can adopt and manage change.
By example, I had a microwave/toaster oven for a brief period of time. It was left by the previous residents of the house. Wonder why? Because I'm sure they found it difficult - as I did - to determine how long to cook something (no numerical keys; just dials) and to take items out when it was a toaster (you needed tongs) and why you couldn't leave things on top of it (much surface area hotter than a microwave).
In short it was a "time saving" device, but only if I could adapt to it. I couldn't. I had a solid understanding of a Platonic microwave and toaster oven ideal.
Twitter is an excellent example of an application that is so simple, you know we are still working to understand and appreciate its value. In that sense, adding more features to something we are still in the process of discovering, robs that experience of joy.
Peter
· 1 year ago
Great post. Very informative indeed about "Less is More"..=)
Binny V A
· 1 year ago
> Twitter belongs to a new breed of services, perhaps accidentally discovered, that win by doing less, not more.
There is another factor - Twitter was the first. Once enough people got in, the 'social inertia' factor prevents them from moving to another application. That's why Qwerty is more popular than Dvorak - and why windows is still popular than Linux.
Paul r
· 1 year ago
Great post Stan. I agree with that - in a networked society/economy - it is important to be influential in as many networks as possible. The easier it is for people to participate, network effects ramp-up.
I'm new to Twitter (@conem) but so far I'm really impressed with the scope and reach of who I can connect with. Twitter crosses organisational, geographic and cultural barriers.
To me, Twitter is about creating and sharing knowledge and news about events -it's more than a one-to-many short message broadcast. I decide on the level of my engagement. It's very easy to use.
I can tolerate some technical problems, given the benefits.
Leo Spaceman
· 1 year ago
They survive for one simple reason... they've achieved a network effect. Like ebay, once formidable network effects are achieved you can $hit on your users and they won't leave.
Courty
· 1 year ago
I disagree with your intro paragraph, and I think it contradicts much of what you say later on. Yes, additional features can be bad, but not because they increase specialization. It's just the opposite: having a complex web app with tons of features decreases specialization (and thus appeal). Looking at your examples of Twitter and Google back in the day, it seems that's how it works.
You offer some interesting opinions on why simple applications tend to succeed, but I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that users' "willingness to learn the nuts and bolts of a complex application has diminished." I'm not sure that it's diminished, but simply that we're catering to a new crowd now. Then years ago, how many people spent multiple hours a day browsing the internet? Hardly anyone compared to the world of today -- probably only your most techsavvy friends. I'd argue that these are the people who are and have always been willing to learn how to get the most out of any complex app, but that these new casual users are not. And since a social networks is only valuable when it has lots of users, it's best to cater to these casual people as well by focusing on simplicity. The majority will only do what's simple, and so the bigger, better, more complex apps will never really have enough people to succeed.
The other I'd say that turns people off about big, do-everything applications is overlap. Nobody really wants to use a service whose features they already make use of at other locations, even if this service provides some different features as well. For example, I don't know a soul who makes regular use of Facebook chat, because everyone already uses GTalk/Chat, AIM, and other services.
With that said, features are not a bad thing: they make good services better and more powerful, and I doubt there exists someone who'd refuse to use a service because it's better and more powerful than it otherwise could be. What's important is being smart in implementing these features, so they don't make your sight overly complex and turn-off casual users. Equally important is releasing the features at a gradual and easily-manageable pace. Once you have millions of users, it's okay to pile on the features and improvements -- people won't like them to begin with, but if these features are actually worthwhile then your users will adjust. Hopefully at this point your user-based is being propelled by virtually-unstoppable viral growth, so you app is valuable enough that new users are willing to take the time to learn about your features.
Facebook is a perfect example of this style of development in action.
gmonk
· 1 year ago
There's a question here as to cause and effect. You are postulating that developers add too many features which leads to failure. But often, the problem is that the one core feature that the product was launched with flubbed, then the developers tried to make up for that by adding on more features. Ex post, it looks like the simple systems succeed and the complicated ones fail. But often the simple ones manage to avoid getting complicated because they succeed early and the developers are smart enough to know not to mess with success. So the lesson may be a bit different: launch with something simple and if it doesn't work, don't lard it up; trash it and start over.
sophia(at)qlubb.com
· 1 year ago
100% in total agreement. The need for simplicity also reflects the maturity of the market (ironically). The new users are by their nature more technical, more interested in pushing the limits of the product/service. When the market becomes more mainstream, you find that the majority of users just want to use the core functionality. The introduction of whiz-bang bells and whistles just overwhelms the user and adds confusion to the interface. Two examples are… Tivo vs the the VCR/DVD controllers of the past. And the Flip videorecorder vs digital camcorders.
Because Qlubb’s market comprises the mainstream audience, we made a VERY conscious decision to take out functionality rather than add functionality. But it has not been easy; it’s too easy to fall into the feature-race trap.
But as with all markets, a big developing market will need to differentiate among the various user classes – one size does not fit all. And one of those markets will comprise the basic, mainstream user who wants simplicity.
Tina Turner Tickets
· 1 year ago
K.I.S.S is without a doubt the only way to do things.
maven
· 9 months ago
StreetMavens.com a site that launched Monday is focusing on the status update as well, but doing so in a much more useful manner. The question on this site is "What's happening in your town?" This is definitely ahead of the curve and answers the question "How do you use something like status updates?" They are organizing the social "chatter" by City and further by category in real time. It allows you to know everything that's happening in your town without having to "follow" thousands of people.
All Comments
As per my recent discovery, could say that another example of a simple yet powerful online service is blogupp.com. it's meant for bloggers and is fully usable without signing up or recording a profile.
Nice to see you're reading this.
"Feature creep" - now there's a term I haven't heard much since... wow, the 80s! It's a term like a 'kludge'... anyone remember that?
But yes the image of getting tangled in a jungle of 'features' has been a recognised danger for a long time. Too bad Microsoft never got that message.
Oh, my fave recent example of a KISS service:
http://posterous.com/
They're trying to perfect the old Lycos mo-blog 'update via email' function by simplifying it...
and immediately getting tons of requests for: more features!
James
from
FaceySpacey.com - "The Startup Incubator"
Your argument vis-Ã -vis "Add a couple of features to Twitter and it's Wordpress. Why is a Wordpress minus a couple of features so popular?" Seems to assume that Twitter is more popular than WordPress, which I don't think is true.
There are no hard rules about simplicity and complexity -- both are needed at different times.
A possible answer might be that if one day Scobbles or other "twitter-popular" guy/girl left Twitter it's possible that many of us would follow him/her where he goes for various reasons. Coz in many cases you dont stay at Twitter because of its simplicity or functionality but because there are some people out there that you follow and interact.
The challenge, though, is monetizing simplicity.
In contrast using a tool like Photoshop means a substantial learning curve to produce anything. This is why many turn to a simple download that provides some basic image editing. Adobe could actually deliver functions this way over time so that they could be both a "simple one operation solution" and all the complexity and capability of Photoshop at the same time.
One thing for sure is that today doing one important thing well (search, one-to-many IM) is critical. Many users today are very task oriented. They go to Google and type in "clone my Mac drive to upgrade" and get pointed over to a tool like SuperDuper that does the job. One could say this is just an aspect of a comprehensive suite of backup software but who has the desire and time to figure that out!
Software companies of the world pay attention!
What made Flickr so popular isn't the fact that it is simple to upload photos, but that they added in a whole set of additional functions that made it possible to create all sorts of communities around the photos. If you want to make Flickr simple, you'd remove those extra features and reduce Flickr to a web service to store and display photos.
Where "success" used to be building up a powerful feature-set for a specific use, the largest success going forward will be building a platform. But there are far fewer possible platforms than possible feature-sets.
I think you'll start seeing a growth of "middle class" web apps/startups that build cash businesses worth sub $50m.
this article is true but for a specific set of services that you can offer on the net. but many other services, do require a more complex system.
the problem is that up to now many system are being built without consideration for the user experience and because of that many systems are too complex to use.
in addition to that viewers of this blog and others, i categorize most of them as users that visit many sites and use them for a short time each site. but u have to remember there are users who visit fewer sites and stay there along time, just because they have depth of interest (i am such one) and i am looking for more tools to use and enhance my experience, but its very service oriented.
so for some of us less is still less... :)
By example, I had a microwave/toaster oven for a brief period of time. It was left by the previous residents of the house. Wonder why? Because I'm sure they found it difficult - as I did - to determine how long to cook something (no numerical keys; just dials) and to take items out when it was a toaster (you needed tongs) and why you couldn't leave things on top of it (much surface area hotter than a microwave).
In short it was a "time saving" device, but only if I could adapt to it. I couldn't. I had a solid understanding of a Platonic microwave and toaster oven ideal.
Twitter is an excellent example of an application that is so simple, you know we are still working to understand and appreciate its value. In that sense, adding more features to something we are still in the process of discovering, robs that experience of joy.
There is another factor - Twitter was the first. Once enough people got in, the 'social inertia' factor prevents them from moving to another application. That's why Qwerty is more popular than Dvorak - and why windows is still popular than Linux.
I'm new to Twitter (@conem) but so far I'm really impressed with the scope and reach of who I can connect with. Twitter crosses organisational, geographic and cultural barriers.
To me, Twitter is about creating and sharing knowledge and news about events -it's more than a one-to-many short message broadcast. I decide on the level of my engagement. It's very easy to use.
I can tolerate some technical problems, given the benefits.
You offer some interesting opinions on why simple applications tend to succeed, but I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that users' "willingness to learn the nuts and bolts of a complex application has diminished." I'm not sure that it's diminished, but simply that we're catering to a new crowd now. Then years ago, how many people spent multiple hours a day browsing the internet? Hardly anyone compared to the world of today -- probably only your most techsavvy friends. I'd argue that these are the people who are and have always been willing to learn how to get the most out of any complex app, but that these new casual users are not. And since a social networks is only valuable when it has lots of users, it's best to cater to these casual people as well by focusing on simplicity. The majority will only do what's simple, and so the bigger, better, more complex apps will never really have enough people to succeed.
The other I'd say that turns people off about big, do-everything applications is overlap. Nobody really wants to use a service whose features they already make use of at other locations, even if this service provides some different features as well. For example, I don't know a soul who makes regular use of Facebook chat, because everyone already uses GTalk/Chat, AIM, and other services.
With that said, features are not a bad thing: they make good services better and more powerful, and I doubt there exists someone who'd refuse to use a service because it's better and more powerful than it otherwise could be. What's important is being smart in implementing these features, so they don't make your sight overly complex and turn-off casual users. Equally important is releasing the features at a gradual and easily-manageable pace. Once you have millions of users, it's okay to pile on the features and improvements -- people won't like them to begin with, but if these features are actually worthwhile then your users will adjust. Hopefully at this point your user-based is being propelled by virtually-unstoppable viral growth, so you app is valuable enough that new users are willing to take the time to learn about your features.
Facebook is a perfect example of this style of development in action.
Because Qlubb’s market comprises the mainstream audience, we made a VERY conscious decision to take out functionality rather than add functionality. But it has not been easy; it’s too easy to fall into the feature-race trap.
But as with all markets, a big developing market will need to differentiate among the various user classes – one size does not fit all. And one of those markets will comprise the basic, mainstream user who wants simplicity.