
Why is 37signals so arrogant? - rglullis
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/why_is_37signals_so_1.html
======
nonrecursive
If I recall correctly, the "I'm not developing software for other people"
quote is in regard to Rails, not the 37signals line of services.

Besides that, 37signals continues to grow and be successful, and apparently
something like 92% of their users are really happy with them. So, arrogant or
not, they must be providing something those users want, which by Norman's own
standards is "essential for business success".

As much as I like Don Norman and dislike the tone and style of writing at 37s,
this seems more like a reaction to being criticized than a well-thought
article. It looks like he was reaching for any reason to be able to foretell
their doomed future, even if that meant taking statements out of context and
ignoring salient facts.

~~~
mixmax
The primary reason they have success is that they are really really good at
marketing.

This discussion is a good example - here we are talking about them, and
probably referring a few users to them in the process.

~~~
run4yourlives
The primary reason they have as many customers as they do is because of
marketing, but the reason they're successful is that many of those customers
really like their products.

They know they aren't for everyone, they're just betting that there are enough
people out there that like them to be very successful. So far, it seems
they're right.

------
Prrometheus
By earning enough revenue to cover their costs, 37signals is automatically
more successful than 98% of other software startups that have ever existed. If
the author believes his philosophy is better, then I suggest he buy them out
and have them work his way.

But honestly, I think he is blogging just to see himself type. Both 37signals
and the author aim to "make something people want", but they approach that
problem with different philosophies. The author acknowledges that the
37signals philosophy is successful at making simple things for people with
simple needs, a valid market niche.

The 37signals attitude is not "a symbol of eventual failure" as long as they
can continue to make things people want. By focusing on his customer feedback,
I'm assuming Don Norman can also be successful. There is no One Right Answer,
and it riles me to no end when people insist that there is. In fact, these
approaches aren't even mutually exclusive. Does Don Norman honestly believe
that 37signals NEVER reads customer feedback and NEVER does any usability
studies?

Paul Graham insists that a startup should not focus on revenues, but Viaweb
did in fact sell a service and was profitable. Should he then write angry
blogposts condemning his past self for "doing it wrong"? Should he yell that
young Paul Graham is "bound to fail"?

The only thing that I learned from this article is that I never want to work
for Don Norman. He should have a nice cup of tea, reflect, and then delete
this blog post.

------
bouncingsoul
It's not that 37signals writes software for themselves and no one else: they
write it for themselves and people _like_ them.

Their thinking is that they _know_ themselves and what they want, so they seek
to satisfy their needs. If they tried to satisfy other people's needs – needs
they don't have or understand – how will they know how to succeed?

Companies do that, yes. Apple is doing it by adding enterprise features to the
iPhone – I'm not sure Apple gets the enterprise culture, and Apple employees
probably don't use Microsoft Entourage, but they're adding enterprise features
to satisfy a customer that isn't them.

37signals has chosen not to do that. And I think that's a choice they can
make. I also don't find anything inherently wrong with arrogance.

Norman's article seems contradictory. He says at the beginning that simplicity
is bad, but says customers complain about complexity, then he highlights
Southwest Airlines refusal to add requested features as a good thing – but
37signals is bad because they don't add requested features.

I love my Backpack. I've enjoyed using Writeboard in the past. Ironically, I
feel like Norman's saying I'm dumb for being satisfied with these tools.

Norman's post reminds me of designers complaining about the success of
MySpace. "It's so poorly designed, it's success must be a fluke! If people
only saw a well designed option they would abandon MySpace." Here Norman is
saying 37signals doesn't _deserve_ success because they aren't doing things
the way he's familiar with.

~~~
webwright
"It's not that 37signals writes software for themselves and no one else: they
write it for themselves and people like them."

I don't think that's true. I think the correct statement is:

"It's not that 37signals writes software for themselves and no one else: they
write it for themselves and people WHO HAPPEN TO BE like them."

There's a difference.

I think you are utterly misunderstanding Norman. He's not saying you're dumb
for using those tools-- he's saying that 37s is dumb for not trying to
understand and adapt to their customers. (Incidentally, is exactly what Apple
is doing with the SDK and Enterprise features)

Because of their arrogance, they are leaving money, customers, and customer
happiness "on the table". No harm in that-- they're rich and have enough happy
customers...

~~~
bouncingsoul
Adapt to what customers? People like Norman? The advanced customers 37signals
isn't trying to serve?

You assume that trying to please a completely different type of customer
doesn't alienate your current customers.

What if Apple added half the features of Final Cut Pro to the next iMovie, or
if Microsoft made Windows Movie Maker nearly as complicated as Adobe Premiere?
The advanced video editors would rejoice, but the people with simpler needs
would be left out in the cold or have to wade through all the new modes and
settings they didn't have to worry about before. The old users would be _less_
satisfied. And the pledged new users would likely still be unsatisfied because
they're expects and eventually push the limits of whatever software they
choose to use.

And don't you think 37signals would have to raise their price if they started
making their software more "advanced"?

It's like complaining that an apartment complex should radically improve their
apartments with tiled kitchen areas, more bedrooms, and individual laundry
rooms – because that's what _you_ want. But that apartment complex may just be
trying to serve people looking for moderately priced places to live.

------
hschenker
Hi, is this the line for bitching about all stuff related to 37signals?

If so, my complaint goes back a couple of years - when someone on my team
suggested using Basecamp for managing our web site projects.

Without too much thought, we signed up and began to use it. To pay for it, I
used my personal credit card. Of course, that meant I had to expense it.

To give you some perspective, the expense system at our 5,000-plus person
enterprise heavily weights ass-covering over ease of use, meaning that it
takes about 30 minutes, 85 clicks, two printouts, an in-person signature from
a superior, and a short jog up the stairs to deposit a hard copy in a finance
department inbox, regardless of whether you have one receipt or ten.

I didn't think much of it the first or second month I paid, but by month
three, I was thinking, boy, there must be a better way. At least let me prepay
for a year of service, I thought - and I looked around the site for just such
an option.

Not finding one, I sent an email to the site admin to ask if I could prepay
for a year, or preferably even longer.

The reply I got was: "We only bill monthly, sorry."

Thinking that perhaps they hadn't considered the reason I might be asking, I
replied and explained just how arduous the expense process was at my
organization, and suggested that offering a prepayment option might make it
more likely for large enterprises to start using their product.

The following was the reply I got:

"I understand your position, but we are a month-to-month service. Some of the
largest companies in the world use Basecamp and gladly pay month-to-month. And
the smallest companies in the world love it too."

~~~
nonrecursive
I wonder what the "the smallest companies in the world" would be... Ship in a
Bottle Distributor? Traveling Flea Circus?

~~~
joshwa
easy: nanotech!

------
jbrun
Is steve jobs not arrogant? It is a fine line between arrogance and confidence
in one-self. I do not know where 37signals stands on that line, but their
products are very much like Apple's - simple, elegant and not for everyone.

~~~
daniel-cussen
You know, I'm starting to think there's no intrinsic difference between self-
confidence and arrogance. Both arrogance and self-confidence amount to having
balls and the willingness to piss people off because you don't care what they
think. Whether you were self-confident or arrogant comes down to whether you
used good means to achieve a good end. This replaces the self-
confident/arrogant dichotomy with the more familiar good/bad dichotomy.

Then, a lot of people are selfish. If you are doing something they don't like,
they'll say you're bad, and if you help them out, they'll say you're good.

My (probably inaccurate) conclusion is the people you piss off will say you're
arrogant, and the people that you helped out will say you're self-confident.

Nota bene: this is all pretty tentative. My guesses don't represent my
opinions, or those of any startups I start in the future.

~~~
sabat
"I'm starting to think there's no intrinsic difference between self-confidence
and arrogance"

IMHO, the difference is in attitude. Self-confidence says "I'm OK, I'm pretty
good." Arrogance says that, plus "oh, and other people suck."

~~~
daniel-cussen
There's that, to a degree. But <argument from authority> PG says smart people
don't think they're smart, they just can't understand how dumb everyone else
is</ argument from authority>. This doesn't mean they go around telling people
they suck, but that's generally the attitude at Hacker News. You often hear
about criteria being about whether something sucks or doesn't suck.

Also, being pretty good implies being better than others. Whether you praise
yourself or dis others, you're still saying you're at a high percentile. Being
good or sucky is relative.

~~~
sabat
PG and I are saying the same thing, essentially.

------
pingswept
So far as I can tell, the fellows at 37signals have a highly enviable setup,
and they seem happy to be arrogant. For those 10 programmers, what would
constitute greater success?

They only work 3 days per week? Rails becomes _more_ popular? They become the
media darlings of Mars and Venus?

------
ghiotion
I don't get this article. The author compares 37signals to Southwest in their
refusal to grant seating assignments, baggage transfer and in-flight meals.
However, he makes a good argument that Southwest knew better than their
customers what they wanted. They want amenities, but not at the expense of
cheap airfare and on-time flights. Doesn't this prove that Southwest does, in
fact, know what their customers want better than the customers know what they
want? Can't you make the same claim about 37signals? It's like the old cliché:
don't give the customer what they ask for, give them what they need.

~~~
hernan7
Yes, I suspect the author and 37signals are in violent agreement.

------
jsmcgd
Designing for yourself doesn't show contempt for the customers but quite the
opposite. They design for themselves as they are representative of their
customers. This is true because this is what they've always done.

If you design for someone else it is harder to know if building the right
thing. Also you are less likely to be enthusiastic about the product and
therefore quality will probably suffer.

This attitude doesn't show contempt but courage. The courage to be able to say
no and disappoint a few to protect the quality of the product that serves many
very well.

~~~
abhi
+1

------
electric
Interesting... I have never found any of their (37signals) products useful
either.

~~~
curi
why is NSX2's comment (sibling of this comment) dead? does anyone else see
anything wrong with it? (i'm not saying i agree with it, just i don't see any
reason it should be killed)

~~~
pg
NSX2 is the latest of several accounts created by a long-time News.YC troll. I
don't know why he's obsessed with this site, but he just keeps coming back.

~~~
dfranke
Meh. He was a deliberate troll? Now I feel like a doofus for arguing with him
in like three different threads.

~~~
curi
some of his comments seem serious, imo

------
mixmax
The backlash has begun.

~~~
tptacek
At least 8 other YC readers appear to believe that Don Norman is the first
person to gripe about 37Signals.

------
mrtron
37signals successfully became the company I spoke with a few friends about
starting quite a few years ago. Make good products leveraging new technologies
aimed at small business. Work smarter, not harder. Make a strong, useful core
set of features and provide simple interfaces.

We decided against doing it because we estimated it would be too difficult to
market our products, regardless if they are superior to their competitors,
because of the target market. Although our plan was selling actual software,
in a pre-web technologies world. How 37signals has been successful in doing
that is quite impressive. That gives them the right to be arrogant in my
opinion.

Now whether or not it is going to help or hurt their sales is an issue that
needs to be addressed. Just because they CAN be arrogant doesn't mean they
should. But if they are trying to start some 'beef' to get some PR going and
its working, then kudos.

------
simplegeek
I think both 37signal and Don Norman are being arrogant (where arrogant in
this case should be defined as state of mind that doesn't allow your mind to
churn out sensible ideas). Please note that I've enormous respect for both of
them, as I've read most of the Norman's and 37signals's work. Believe it or
not, I still am at a loss to figure out the _philosophy_ of their design. Even
pg once said that he tried using Highrise and even took the trouble to email
Jason but then again he was being arrogant. But what worries me is that people
are still paying money for it. That said, best thing they have done is Rails,
all other products are well hmmmmm (technically I somewhat like Campfire :-)
)....

------
pius
_The disdain for customers shown by Hansson of 37signals is an arrogance bound
to fail. As long as 37signals is a hobby, where programmers code for
themselves, it may very well succeed as a small enterprise with its current
size of 10 employees. I'm happy for them, and for the numerous small
developers and small companies that find their products useful. But their
attitude is a symbol: a symbol of eventual failure. Too bad. A little less
arrogance and a lot more empathy would turn these brilliant programmers into a
brilliant company, a brilliant success._

Don Norman with the zinger!

~~~
run4yourlives
Might be a better zinger if he wasn't calling a profitable company a failure.

~~~
pius
hehe, indeed.

------
davidw
Well... ok, but there's also an argument to be made along these lines: they're
not "ignoring their customers", they're using their own needs, wants and
tastes as the truest guide to what their customers want, because they don't
want everyone as their customers, just those who self select because they have
basically the same tastes as 37 signals.

Perhaps the perceived arrogance is that this model probably doesn't work for
all industries, and the 37 signals guys are sure... well, loud, about how
great their model is.

------
optimal
If you want to know a person's flaws, learn what they most despise.

------
ericb
Opinions like Don's sometimes come from envy and a sense that successful
people should be humble and not affront one's sensibilities by disagreeing,
and especially not disagreeing AND succeeding. To summarize: Successful people
should be humble and know their place, and not threaten my inflated ego by
flaunting their success.

If the actual results of 37 signals' philosophies are bad, the market is the
judge, and so far, the market seems to be saying "nice work."

~~~
alexfarran
Strategically speaking, since you know that people are predisposed to envy, it
might be a good idea to at least appear humble on the outside. You make more
friends and allies that way.

~~~
ericb
I tend to take that approach personally, but on the flip side, you get a lot
more attention being brash. Attention for a startup can be life or death.
Attention is a huge advantage YC delivers and another reason I'll be applying.

------
ebuchholz
Yes, in general, simplicity in design is good, but I agree that 37signals
takes it a step too far by deciding what their customers need or don't need.

Attitudes aside, it's great that they are successful.I understand the concept
of forced scarcity through limited features and staffing, but I don't agree
with their attitude with their customers.

Sure, 92% of their customers are happy with them, they provide a month to
month service, the unhappy ones left long ago.

------
manny
If the coders for 37signals are arrogant then they are automatically on my
good-list. For better or for worse, I have come to see that it is these
arrogant, idealistic, committed people who are usually the visionaries.

That said, the best of luck to them.

------
tlrobinson
_"Arrogant is usually something you hurl at somebody as an insult," Hansson
said. "But when I actually looked it up — having an aggravated sense of one's
own importance or abilities' — I thought, sure."_

Is he _trying_ to be ironic here?

------
prakash
unlike most of the rants/flames, this one is a well balanced interesting
article.

------
ruslan
Hmm.. don't you guys think that whatever they (37signals) say is being said
for PR purposes only and has very distant corelation with the real truth ? Or
am I over-paranoid ? :-)

------
tptacek
The premise of this article is that, because the author doesn't like Basecamp,
and 37Signals doesn't respond by catering to him, they're an "arrogant hobby"
business.

Vote accordingly.

------
jgrahamc
Because they can get away with it.

------
sayrer
Looks like a misguided reaction to their rhetoric, and the related design
strategy of not attempting to please everyone.

------
sabat
I love Don Norman, and have since the '80s.

But, he's contradicting himself here.

"But I would prefer someone who designed software for other people. If you
want a hobby, fine, indulge yourself."

...

"Use Southwest Airlines as the model ... It is not because they ignore their
customers. On the contrary, it is because they understood that their customers
had a much more critical need."

...

That's exactly it. 37signals isn't trying to ignore their customers. They're
keeping apps simple because feature bloat is to web applications what reserved
seating is to Southwest Airlines.

I am at a loss to explain why Don doesn't see this.

~~~
ghiotion
Thank you. That was exactly what I was trying to get across, but you did it
much more eloquently.

------
mroman
I like how he writes that they "deserve to fail" . . . hmmmm . . . as if Mr.
Norman's sensitivities were the measure by which software companies succeed or
fail . . . laughable, absolutely laughable.

As if ROR were not "a brilliant success."

------
bonsaitree
Arrogance?! Kettle, pot, black Mr. Norman?

------
mynameishere
_Yes, they are arrogant -- and proud of it: "Arrogant is usually something you
hurl at somebody as an insult," Hansson said. "But when I actually looked it
up — having an aggravated sense of one's own importance or abilities' — I
thought, sure."_

He looked "arrogant" up in the dictionary? I mean, he said something like,
"What duh heck is dat dey keep calling me...arrogamunt...arogint", and then
reached for his well-worn copy of _Webster's Dictionary of Words I Should
Already Know as a Functioning Adult_...

(???)

This helps explain the calorie-free content of his blog.

~~~
sabat
No, man. DHH looked it up. Don was just quoting DHH. Neither Don nor DHH are
calorie-free, BTW.

~~~
mynameishere
DHH looked it up.

Well, that's who I'm referring to.

~~~
maximilian
What the hell is wrong with looking up a word in a dictionary to be sure you
understand the meaning or the nuances of its meaning. If you are going to the
trouble of writing a blog post specifically criticizing someone, you had
better use words correctly and spell them right too.

For example, the word "irony" has a more nuanced definition than you might
think. It can be either: saying something but meaning the opposite, something
happening when you thought/expected something else would happen, or its use in
theatre when things are clear to an audience but not clear to the characters.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, but looking up a word and
thinking carefully about its meaning is just good writing.

Its also an easy way to start an article. High schoolers do that a lot at
valedictorian speeches. ;P

~~~
mynameishere
When people accuse you of something..."You're arrogant"...it doesn't matter if
the word has a nuanced definition. "The people" don't use nuance. Now, if an
intellectual makes a detailed philippic against you, it might be worth
explicating carefully. Even then, probably not...especially if you're trying
to sleuth out some deeper compliment buried in an insult.

I don't care if he's arrogant, for what it's worth. My problem is that he is a
dispenser of humdrum truisms and humdrum falsehoods that mysteriously result
in adulation.

