CntrldChaos t1_jbuuwq6 wrote on March 11, 2023 at 10:10 PM

Reply to comment by AmalgamDragon in Microsoft is bringing back classic Taskbar features on Windows 11 — but not because it screwed up by AliTVBG

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 on March 12, 2023 at 4:13 AM

My downvote is for you completely misrepresenting what the other guy said.

CntrldChaos t1_jbxgslr wrote on March 12, 2023 at 2:03 PM

>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.