VaelHeals t1_jbtftmf wrote
If a company ever has to "bring back" a feature that customers wanted and used, it screwed up. Period. Looking at you, Apple.
CntrldChaos t1_jbtj83h wrote
Seems like you are not a developer and have no idea how software works.
shiftyasluck t1_jbtjm66 wrote
Seems like you don’t care about how end users work.
esperind t1_jbtrgdd wrote
jokes on you, I dont work, I procrastinate.
CntrldChaos t1_jbtjrr3 wrote
Going to point to my comment above to again reiterate how clear it is you don’t work I software.
shiftyasluck t1_jbtkp38 wrote
You are correct. But “l” know how to type.
[deleted] t1_jbuqzoc wrote
[removed]
Crimbobimbobippitybo t1_jbtmcqs wrote
Your appeal to the authority of being a dev is not compelling, offer something more than that or jog off.
CntrldChaos t1_jbtmwkt wrote
I’d bet every product you have purchased has followed this flow and likely has some feature someone wanted they didn’t have right away. Most software is free and many people upgraded windows for free or with their new computer. Microsoft prioritizes the most important feature for a release then enhances it constantly. They even have a forum where the more noise you make the higher up the priority list it can go.
Loa_Sandal t1_jbtm7p2 wrote
Looks like you're confusing the customer for the developer. Who is actually buying and using the product?
CntrldChaos t1_jbtmf8y wrote
This person said screwed up. I offer an explanation for how and why it can happen without screwing up and aligns exactly to what the article said.
VaelHeals t1_jbtr63i wrote
The point that you're missing is where choosing to go in a direction that causes the loss of helpful features is a mistake to begin with.
CntrldChaos t1_jbtuf9d wrote
Oh shit you are right. You solved it. Start a company asap and hire a bunch of devs to easily take over the software world.
VaelHeals t1_jbu3lv7 wrote
They could have kept doing internal testing until the product's functionality was the same, but they chose to release it with missing features. That was a mistake. Was it a developer mistake? Probably not, but it WAS a mistake.
VaelHeals t1_jbtjyah wrote
A developer has an idea. They or a hired programmer write a series of conditional instructions for a computer to carry out that best matches the desired functionality of the "program," and the developer iterates on those instructions until the resultant program reflects the developer's (or the customer's) vision for it.
Is that the gist of it?
CntrldChaos t1_jbtk6bp wrote
How do software product lifecycles work exactly? How is it possible for a company to both build something new and not have a feature they used to have? That’s the question related to the article and a key part of how software development works.
VaelHeals t1_jbtlh12 wrote
I'd imagine there's a version in development at all times, for something as pervasive as windows.
It's possible that support for features may be dropped as technology changes, such as floppy disks going obsolete. It doesn't make sense, however, to drop a feature that is currently used and well-liked.
CntrldChaos t1_jbtm6rd wrote
You know, rather than assume you could just ask how it’s possible.
There are times you rebuild something from scratch and old versions of code in that case don’t make sense. In some cases you can copy it over but in many cases it just wouldn’t make sense with the new structure of the project. You basically are rebuilding your product from scratch and prioritizing the most important features to recreate first. You then have to make it worth it for the customer so you build new features too. On the backlog you keep a list of things you likely want to bring back but are less pressing.
asdaaaaaaaa t1_jbu5y7c wrote
You don't need to always work in an industry to see blatant mistakes and general trends. I can tell you that aircraft fires aren't good, and I don't need to be an engineer or pilot to say that. When a company makes a point to move away from something, then has to return to it after clearly having different plans it's safe to say they made a mistake. You don't bring stuff back from the dead because what you have currently is a better option.
CntrldChaos t1_jbus7nm wrote
Understanding why a company does not have a feature at release is completely understandable if you work in the industry. If you are doing it day in and day out you will see what it takes and where you have to make sacrifices. While one feature is super important to you, it may be one of the least requested features by the majority of your users. Being a developer you absolutely 100% know the sacrifice you will make to get software out. Some software works well and is beneficial to many people without features and you then build out what the majority want.
asdaaaaaaaa t1_jbwz1tk wrote
Not always buddy. Some people work or understand multiple industries, life isn't a cartoon where each person understands one thing.
-UltraAverageJoe- t1_jbu40d1 wrote
Do you? Developers rarely decide what features stay or go or come back again.
CntrldChaos t1_jbusl8z wrote
A product owner and company does. As a developer or any of those roles you will understand what it means to hit MVP where you then build out what your users want. Building out all features to 100% is actually the exact model that failed day in and day out before the MVP and priority based model. You’d know that if you delivered software for a living
AmalgamDragon t1_jbuu2e8 wrote
Microsoft/Windows isn't a startup. They don't need an MVP for their start menu. It's already been around for decades and been used by billions.
> Building out all features to 100% is actually the exact model that failed day in and day out before the MVP and priority based model. You’d know that if you delivered software for a living
I do. I also know you are dead wrong that there is a single best way to deliver software.
Enjoy all your well deserved downvotes.
CntrldChaos t1_jbuuwq6 wrote
This entire chain of messages stemmed from a dude saying all software added later to a product was a failure. His assessment is that it’s never ok to release a product missing a feature and add it back in a later release. It’s flat out wrong. Companies have limited cycles to do work and they release it when it makes sense. Sometimes features that exist shouldn’t exist right away because it’s limited benefit. I’m literally saying it’s not one size fits all. Downvotes are people feeling like big company bad and I know what’s best.
UrbanFlash t1_jbw3hei wrote
My downvote is for you completely misrepresenting what the other guy said.
CntrldChaos t1_jbxgslr wrote
>If a company ever has to "bring back" a feature that customers wanted and used, it screwed up. Period. Looking at you, Apple.
He said in no questionable terms that a company screwed up if they don’t release a feature that existed in a previous version of a product, and bring it back. I’m saying this happens for very good reasons. The team knows some users use it but they don’t feel it’s necessary for launch because the product they rebuilt is better than it was and is worth a “beta” launch as is. They throw the feature on the backlog and prioritize it accordingly. This happens on any project where you are rebuilding from the ground up.
Users of products don’t always equate to dollars. For that software to exist they need customers who spend money and will focus on features for those customers first. They will then launch when the features that will keep the customers who matter happy are done. Most people think of software as free overall and think of what they will do to said company, but in reality software from companies is built to make someone money in some manner. A user who pays nothing is entitled to nothing. Many companies bend over backwards for free loaders. That can work out but it can also drive your product down a road that prevents it from surviving as long as it should.
No one person can definitively say what is right or wrong for a team and what they are building. Even the people who ultimately make the calls are guessing a bit which path to take. I am pointing out very specifically that in some paths a team can build an existing feature later and it’s not a screw up of any kind. It was a well thought out choice of value to their overarching users and not the people who use the feature in a silo.
corut t1_jbv9b4u wrote
As a Product Owner, the concept of an MVP is a stupid. The only time it's of benefit is if there is no completion or existing product in the market. If there is, you're first release needs to at least match the features of the competition or the previous product.
Otherwise you have MVP, but it has no value.
-UltraAverageJoe- t1_jbvlgo7 wrote
I do deliver software for a living…
[deleted] t1_jbugw20 wrote
[deleted]
Sajun t1_jbwk8nh wrote
Seems like you are not a developer and have no idea how software works.
Extension-Stable-910 t1_jbtpq06 wrote
It's sad that you're being downvoted because you are absolutely correct. People don't generally have a concept of MVP (Minimum Viable Product).
My advice would be not to bother with these people, nothing you say will make any difference, they'd rather be mad at Microsoft.
This whole thread kind of reminds me of a scene in the Simpsons where they have principal Skinner tied to a post and about to light him on fire as he exclaims: "I'm telling you people! The Earth revolves around the sun!"
Also, downvoting me isn't going to make you any more right.
Crimbobimbobippitybo t1_jbtq22v wrote
> People don't generally have a concept of MVP (Minimum Viable Product).
Ever since the first season of 'Silicon Valley' pretty much every idiot knows exactly what that is.
-UltraAverageJoe- t1_jbu53wb wrote
What they’re saying is that, in the eyes of the user (which many here are), Microsoft did not deliver the MVP. Maybe the MVP minus the task bar but not the MVP. MVP needs to hit the right marks to be considered “viable”.
For reference, I’m a product manager and develop MVPs and iterate on them. When a bunch of users aren’t happy with the MVP, it means I missed something. Because Microsoft added the taskbar in pretty quickly after release of 11, it looks like they also realized they should have had it for launch.
Edit: spelling
CntrldChaos t1_jbttbo4 wrote
It’s a technology subreddit. Fascinating to be honest.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments