Is lesser more? - Lessons for product companies

The one significant difference I notice between Microsoft & Google as a product philosophy is while Microsoft tries to add more features, Google is minimalistic. Both happen to be at 2 ends of a spectrum. I acknoweldge that the comparison may be not entirely holistic and the product segment/ application / etc... all do play a role. However the merit of my observations hopefully is not diluted.

My personal preference is the minimalistic approach. I became aware of this preference since my college days when the scientific calculator I used has more than 100 functions and I would go about getting my work done with about 25 functions. Most functions were derived from the 25 and hence I need not have known the remaining function. Happily I did confirm that I was not the only oddity and the majority of my classmates fell in the same category. In my view, the reason is more sociological where most of us try to use limited options instinctively as a mechanism to handle information overload.

The point to consider is given its existing legacy, Microsoft will find it very difficult to become minimalistic (across its existing users there will always be someone who will be using the more esoteric functions) and they will find it far more difficult to create THE minimalistic set to the majority. As Google goes for its next versions and slowly starts adding features will they fall in the Microsoft feature trap?

One can also extend the Microsoft dilemma to most other product companies. In my observation, product companies tend to over invest in adding more and more features, without considering the cost benefit of these features. A lot of features come in because competition provides it, some product manager likes the idea a lot or it was done bespoke for one customer and can be brought in for free! The real cost of losing the minimalistic approach is compromised and the cost of maintaining a low value adding feature for ever is not considered. The odds are in most products there will easily be 20% features which can be cut out overnight without any customer missing them! (A bold hypothesis – that does not have much data but just a number to stimulate a conversation)

So what can product companies really do? All products can invest in usability that much more. Making your products intuitive, consistent and easy to use are huge opportunities. A favorite definition on usability is – “the need for a user manual means that the product is defective”. Look at the way you learn to user your mobile phones, microwave ovens, printers, laptops, etc.. (How many times have our referred to the user manual and how you could have creatively eliminated the same with better design?). The lack of usability will also mean a lot of features never get used!! (despite training and documentation!!)

Another area that enterprise products can proactively over invest in the non-functional capabilities: reliability, performance, scalability, security, etc..

SO how do we handle increased fucntionality needs of users?...Is better configurability a better answer? - perhaps so, I do think we can more richly personalise the functionality by looking at the unique needs of each user segment and exposing the appropriate features.

All of the above observations need much more elaboration ..but will try and cover it in a separate blog – I am dangerously close to my self imposed 500 word limit!