|
|
|
|
|
|
by vlovich123
1758 days ago
|
|
|
> Even after features or products are deemed to have little to no value, teams keep them around for ages instead of responsibly removing them. The most common argument we hear is, “This [small subset] customer [sic] regularly uses the feature and we’ll lose out, if we remove it.” Instead of associating unshipping with the traditional ‘What do we lose?‘ perspective, let’s reframe to a ‘What do we gain?‘ perspective. After all, unshipping can actually improve product metrics. Conversely Google does this all the time and has enough of a brand reputation problem around it that they struggle to launch new lines of business that rely on trust that you’re not going to take away the product shortly after launch. Case in point for one of the large reasons I think Stadia failed in addition to the absurd pricing model. There were other headwinds but I think Microsoft proved with Xbox that you can stick around long enough to be successful. I think Apple’s ecosystem is more forgiving here, but that’s because they’re generally more careful about bringing out products in the first place and then taking a very long time to sunset them (eg iTunes). User trust is real and you can sacrifice it if you must, but that isn’t reflected by usage numbers today. |
|
|
It's well known that 99% of the users use about 1% of MS Excel's features (exaggerating, but bear with me).
The kicker? It's different 1% for each users.
Remove the "infrequently" used features, and the product is no more.
More on that from Spolsky: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/03/23/strategy-letter-iv...