

Launch with bugs - scott_meade
http://scottmeade.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/launch-with-bugs-its-okay-really/

======
spartango
How many (and what type) bugs you can afford to let slide really depends on
your users' needs:

As a biomedical technology, we have to demonstrate the scientific accuracy of
the product we ship. We also have to be aware of the consequences of bugs to
our users. While Facebook users may not mind a slightly finicky widget,
laboratory technicians are much more sensitive.

I'm all for rapid iteration and product development, but I think it's
important to ship things that are context-appropriate. I also feel that
there's substantial, if intangible, value to being proud of what you ship.

I worry that a culture of shipping somewhat-broken things may end up doing us
harm.

~~~
asynchronous13
That was my first thought as well. I make unmanned helicopters -- it's cool to
ship a half-ton flying machine with software bugs, right?

But the article did at least make it clear that the advice was targeted at
smaller SaaS providers. Depending on the users needs, that might be okay.

------
te_chris
Sigh, more "everybody do this" writing. I guess the internet loves binaries
and absolutely hates subtlety, but does shit like this really need to keep
being brought up when the really appropriate answer is just do what your
audience will put up with?

------
bproctor
I think whether or not it's a good idea to launch has to do with what those
bugs are. The number of bugs is pretty much irrelevant.

~~~
scott_meade
Good point. So, more accurately, don't let the fear that their just might be
undiscovered small bugs prevent you from launching.

~~~
jmathai
Not just undiscovered bugs but non-critical bugs. If it doesn't cause data
corruption then I say launch and fix it later.

Fixing that bug is probably less valuable than getting the feature into the
hands of users.

Also, don't stress about "losing" users. There are plenty of users and you'll
be surprised how forgiving your users will be if you're open about bugs and
fixing them.

~~~
swensel
Agreed. It's better to just get the product out there.

------
fmblwntr
Wasn't surprised to see this was a Rails developer.

------
codegeek
More appropriate title should have been "launch with lots of bugs and it is
still ok" in the context of this post. "Launch with bugs" will have meaning
when you could actually launch without bugs. Of course, any software will have
bugs when launched or even if well matured.

------
chris_wot
Works well when you control the patch/upgrade deployment. Not so good when you
don't. And not so good when it stops your customer doing what they want to do.

------
damian2000
This is too general ... "Launch with bugs that are unimportant to the main
features of your product" might be better.

~~~
bradhe
Bingo. I've seen (and shipped...) a lot of shit software under the guise of
"bugs are OK--done is better than perfect...right? ...guys?"

------
wmt
It's as if the author believes that Basecamp was released with +100 known
bugs.

------
jmurda
Nobody's perfect, you cannot choose, start with, or without bugs...

