I recall using this methodology a number of times. The usual implementation is to file a feature request ticket in the issue tracking application, add a comment explaining why we aren't doing it, then close the issue as 'WONTFIX' or 'INVALID' depending on how things are set up.
I agree it's really powerful to have the list and to consciously and actively say "no" with the same ceremony that you consciously and actively say "yes" to features.
The clear edges of physical products make it much harder for feature creep to happen.
This might be true for simple products like water bottles, but does not hold true in all cases. Consider a car radio. I'd LOVE to have a car radio that had two knobs: volume, and tuning, which cover 99% of my use cases for a car radio. Try to buy one, though.
Or a cell phone that's just a plain phone, with nice buttons.
They do exist, just go to a cellphone shop sometime.
The problem is not that they don't exist but that everybody prefers to buy the touchscreen phones and then complain how slow and unpractical they are...
I like your blog and brecksblog. The interesting thing about (un)features is that it seems like they are things that often another tool can perform for you.
water bottle:
- towel to dry up spills
- funnel to funnel liquids into it
blog:
- diqus to add comments
- Just go to reddit to share this site (or use their tool bar).
The blog is powered by an unfeatures list - and is ugly and lacks the basic things that every wordpress blog has? Features are put in software because people pay money for them. If nobody added anything to software, or let software evolve at the pace 37signals software evolved at, we'd be using Windows 3.15 by now, maybe.
All those tens of thousands of companies making money by adding new features that people want to software are not idiots. It's not that they have failed to ever consider Jasons theory. They have, and it does not make them money. People want features. People will pay for features.
That "blog software" that powers your blog - I would not use it. It looks like it sucks. I'd use wordpress, because it has a great many features that I need, and that developed because people like me need them.
You want to believe that features are unimportant, simply because you don't have the time or resources to develop new edge features. People who actually sell software will tell you the exact opposite though - features and upgrades are what sell.
I agree it is ugly, my co-founder does design and hasn't gotten a change to improve it yet. (The project is a week old).
> lacks the basic things that every wordpress blog has
I love wordpress. I've used it on many sites. This software isn't meant to be wordpress, it's meant as an alternative.
> All those tens of thousands of companies making money by adding new features that people want to software are not idiots. It's not that they have failed to ever consider Jasons theory. They have, and it does not make them money. People want features. People will pay for features.
I agree. But I also think many failed companies that you don't hear about, added feature after feature and never got the core right. Once you have the core right, by all means add features when it means more $$$. But don't fall victim to feature creep early.
> You want to believe that features are unimportant, simply because you don't have the time or resources to develop new edge features. People who actually sell software will tell you the exact opposite though - features and upgrades are what sell.
I think really I just failed too communicate clearly enough. I don't mean never add features. I just mean think harder about it. Humans are wired to feel good when you get something done. This (un)features tactic is a hack to prevent you from adding things without enough thought.
I think you're being reductionist in your interpretation of his point. His point is not that features are unimportant, but that some un-implemented features are equally as important as implemented features.
People pay for features, but they also pay for un-features. It's called simplicity, and it helps sell many Apple products, including the iPod.
Customers are funny, though. People come to us all the time and say, "We love the simplicity of your software! It's just so easy to use! By the way, can you add (feature X) and (feature Y) and (feature Z)?" As a user, it's hard to recognize that the two ideas are actually at odds with each other. It's up to the product owner to keep the product well-maintained as it evolves.
Features that contribute to the core of the product, without interfering with the user experience, are the features you want to implement. In the water bottle example, the funnel and the paper towel interfere with the core offering (a convenient way to drink water), so they're rightly "unfeatures."
I agree it's really powerful to have the list and to consciously and actively say "no" with the same ceremony that you consciously and actively say "yes" to features.