Hi Bob, in another thread you said:
"I don't want to become bloatware. Unfortunately that's a tendency as things mature, for two reasons: 1) As a general tool matures, it goes into more niches both to respond to users...
2) Somewhere along the way most users have their basic needs met, but still want fresh updates, free tech support, etc. ... Companies add bloat to increase (for some people) the value perception, ... [etc]"
I think this is severely mistaken. I know you're the CEO of a software company while I'm just a little old consumer. But maybe the CEO sometimes forgets what its like to be a consumer.
(And we know that even CEO's make mistakes - You've admitted that Logos Now was a mistake, I'm sure you're tempted to think it was a mistake to promise people that the software would always be free, setting up a situation where ongoing costs to you are not met by ongoing payments by the consumers.)
It is a little bit scary for me to hear you say that bloat is somewhat inevitable and that you need to do it to increase value perception, because it seems so far from what people actually value in their software.
Do you know what I look for in software? It's this: it works and does the things I need it to do. That is it. When I look at the one that has 500 features and the one that has 5 features, I choose the one that does what I need it to do.
- Evernote is FAR from the most feature-rich cloud-based note service. In many ways it has a poverty of features. But it does a superb job of the few things I need it to do.
- Gmail is far from the most feature rich email provider. But for sending and receiving email, it has exactly the right features to let me do what I want to do.
- I downgraded from one task manager app to another with less features, because the extra features actually got in the way of what I was trying to do
- I have no idea if Microsoft Office has more or less features than other office apps. It just never entered my mind. The only thing that mattered is that it works really well, and didn't make me tear my hair out like other ones did. It was polished, so I used it. It did what I needed it to do.
In fact if you look at the market leader in every software category, I put it to you that you will find in EVERY category an app that is not, on paper, the one with the most 'value perception' (most features). And yet people flock to it because its just the one that does the job best.
Good businesses do the things that people want, and they do them well. And if they do a really good job of that, people will buy it. Because people will talk about it. I have convinced dozens of people to buy Logos over Accompetitor because I am convinced it does what I need and they need best. And do you know how many times the number of features has even been a factor in that discussion? 0. Zero times. The empty tomb interactive is not even relevant. They have 3 or 4 things they need to do as Bible College students and future pastors, and Logos does those things better than the competition. That is the end of the story.
Initially I didn't buy Logos because it was slower than Accompetitor. But then the reading experience was better on Logos, and the Guides were helpful. Then Logos got faster and I made the switch to Logos. Do you know how many features factored in that decision? About 5. I'm not saying features are irrelevant. I'm saying the right features are decisive and the number of features is irrelevant.
In other words I am saying that you are 100% wrong when you say this:
"long-time customers want more books, want more attention on software development that while important, attracts fewer new customers (new customers notice new features; experienced customers want more performance and polishing), and less other stuff"
What's wrong with that statement? It misunderstands new customers. New customers don't notice new features at all, because the customer is new... they don't really know what's new and what's old! They just care that it does the job they are looking for. And if you look into it, probably what you will find is that the number 1 thing that attracts new customers is satisfied long-time customers. If you polish the software so that it does its core tasks better than anyone else, people will buy it.
Actually, it's scary that you think 'increased value perception' is a worthy goal. (How much does this explain the outcry on Logos forums every time that inflated 'value perception' is not reached?)
Value perception that is not backed up by true value (aka bloat) is a recipe for dissatisfaction down the track.
Value perception that is accurate to true value will spread by word of mouth.
Bloat is not true value. A classic example is the empty tomb interactive compared with the features many people have been asking for on Uservoice for years. 1000 votes for better interaction with Evernote, or 630 votes for better offline lookups on mobile apps. I know several people who have chosen to spend their $X000 with Accompetitor because of the better offline lookups on mobile apps. But wait, they miss out on the empty tomb interactive!?! To think that would influence their decision is laughable. But Faithlife spent development dollars on it because it increases 'value perception'.
Yes I know that these things don't look as glossy on marketing copy ('value perception'), but they are what the users are saying will make their software more useful ('true value'), and by so doing they will be more likely to tell others to use the product.
Give people software that works really well - faster, easier, more efficient. Some of your features truly are brilliant ('true value') and I commend you on those innovations. But any time you are doing things simply for the sake of having a new thing to offer, that useless bloat will not help you sell products and won't make our lives any better.
