[sheetjs]

The problem is that the total economic value (as measured by market price) for the users who only use that 80% of perceived functionality is close to 0 (google docs and OO/LO are free)

The incredibly difficult 20% is what people pay for. It's what the businesses that shell out billions of dollars a year pay for. And it's what a successful product in the space needs to tackle

[kbenson]

On the other hand, you are taking what appears to be a general observation and applying it to this specific instance. Sure, there are plenty of free spreadsheets available. But what about other areas? There's plenty of areas still where a well executed easy to use minimal version of a product can compete in the existing for-pay ecosystem, and as we are discussing, minimal can pay off since 20% of functionality may take 5% or less of the time it would take to do 100%.

[phillmv]

Y'alls be talking about different things.

You're talking about "feature minimalism is a good design philosophy".

The other dudes are talking about "bridging the gap between a sweet demo and a final product is a tremendous assload of work".

[kbenson]

No, I'm specifically just saying that not everyone's "final product" is the same thing, and depending on the target market and audience, a minimal product may be worthwhile, and the economic value isn't always "close to 0", as the parent I replied to stated.

Also, I don't think that "feature minimalism is a good design philosophy" is always true, even though it may guide you well in most cases.

[judk]

Um no. Google docs is free for the same reason IE was free. The economic value is tremendous, such that the creator is willing to spend billions on it.