[Iridescent_]

This just reminds me of my theory of Microsoft's checklist-driven development: Some PM writes down some single-sentence description of a feature (e.g. "Share Wi-Fi passwords with contacts") and the developers just read the list and find the single least-effort way of implementing it. Once done, they can tick the item off the list and go home having done their job, although often in the most excruciatingly stupid way by damaging their users' experience. I do not see how else could M$ so often add features in a way that actively make their products worse to use.

[p_l]

I do wonder of is partially not caused by the fact that underneath, Outlook and Exchange aren't massively using SMTP or MIME, they use MAPI which is built around X.400 even if it's no longer available to run Exchange work external X.400 connectivity.

Take that background, and how MAPI essentially prioritises internal email capabilities, and slowly a perfect storm for creation of such misfeatures emerges.

Internally to a corporation, in Outlook/MAPI/Exchange way richer world, implementing such a feature is both simple and possibly easy more useful (less annoying emails to write when you want to just give a short reaction).

But then you hit two confounding factors - systems outside of corporate Exchange server - so instead of using a richer messaging feature you make it into extra text message - and systemd outside the corporate, where your message now leaks out.

This way you can start with reasonably well thought out user story, and end with crap like the way reactions work - and weird extra headers

[mgkimsal]

2001(?) I got an email from a client and it said "Debbie would like to revoke the earlier email". Might not have said 'revoke' but something like that. And there were a lot of extra headers I hadn't seen before. After some questioning, I got that they'd just installed some Exchange server setup (or whatever the direct predecessor was?) and you could undo email. But the 'undo' was to send an email revoking the earlier one. MAPI/internal clients understood it; to external clients like me, it was just another email. I'm not sure they (the client) quite understood that they couldn't 'undo' emails to me, because they could do it just fine to everyone else (inside the company).

[yason]

Because this is Microsoft we shall apply Gates' razor and must thus conclude that "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice".

[lifestyleguru]

> Gates' razor and must thus conclude that "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice

I like this term, hopefully it enters dictionary. Stupidity doesn't buy yachts, vile malice does.

[philipov]

What you're thinking of is called Grey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice"

[lifestyleguru]

> Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice"

OP didn't mistake anything, this would be a public office clerk and they don't have private jets nor yachts.

[donatj]

I believe you mean Hanlon's Razor?

[gryfft]

They've inverted it ironically to attribute malice to Microsoft. (Not undeservedly.)

[munch117]

Please refrain from content-free meming on HN.

[rrr_oh_man]

Can you elaborate why you would see Gates as a malicious actor?

[quesera]

This is a difficult question to answer without knowing whether your Bill Gates context includes his years at Microsoft, or only as a philanthropist with sketchy friends.

If the former, you'll need to present an argument that Microsoft did not hold back the entire industry for 20 years with low quality products, severe user-hostility, and monopolistic practices.

If the latter, you should read up about the 1980s and 1990s and early 2000s.

[klabb3]

Monopolistic actions are malicious, if you believe in free markets. Gates led the war against Netscape, for one. The setback to the industry and consumers was massive.

Anti-market behavior is today completely normalized, so Gates is very much not alone. Malice is not an unusual phenomenon.

[mihaaly]

Lazy technical managers (incomplete specification) combined with lazy developers (does not improve specification) and task completion count based performance evaluation (implies atomic task allocation with strictly < 1w time estimation) is the devil, not Lucifer.

And they are everywhere.

[tpoacher]

I'm stealing the term Checklist-driven development. Combined with Cha Bu Duo it explains so much of what I see on a daily basis...

[farceSpherule]

This is why PM’s are supposed to work with Business Analysts. Unfortunately, most companies do not have BA’s because, you know, cost. And, most PM’s are not technical and have no engineering background or experience.