|
|
|
|
|
by rpdillon
369 days ago
|
|
This is a particular brand of take strikes me as lazy. In general, each type of product is going to have some core features that almost everyone needs. And then there's going to be a long tail of features that fewer and fewer users need to make use of the tool effectively. Office tools like LibreOffice and Google Sheets strike a sort of 80/20, where they can build perhaps less than half the features of the totally complete product, but still serve a huge percentage of the market's needs (maybe 95%+, since most users aren't power users). So when I see critiques of GIMP versus Photoshop, or Linux versus Windows, or LibreOffice versus Microsoft Office, saying "oh, it has fewer features and therefore nobody can take it seriously" it's just reductive, and provides zero useful insight. It's all about the particular needs of the person or organization and how those intersect with the features of the product they're thinking of adopting. |
|
I'm convinced the people who insist on "features" in these products don't actually use them, because if they did they would realize they suck and are a distraction from a poor core product. It's like people in the US who live in downtown apartments and insist on driving massive overpriced pickup trucks to commute to work and get groceries, never hauling or towing or leaving the pavement. They would be better served by commuter vehicles, but all they've ever driven is show trucks and learning new things is scary. If they did attempt to do real work, they would quickly realize the bed can't hold a standard sheet of plywood.
The important thing is that they FEEL like they have capability at their fingertips, even if this is obviously an illusion to people who actually use those capabilities.