Joel Spolsky recently pseudo-attacked simplicity Soma online stores, . I say pseudo because he makes great points and is only really down on being totalitarian about simplification.
Expressing simplicity is not always simple. What some call the simplicity cult have attempted to boil down good strategies for making things easy. The problem is that this can lead to generalizations that are misunderstood.
37Signals is a company with simple, lean products, soma online stores. They preach "less software," but that doesn't mean they never add features, ordering cialis. As I've been noting in my Laws of Simplicity series, it's a balancing act. There is no perfect approach.
Spolsky continues:
What works for bootstrapping, I believe, Buy generic doxycycline, will not work as a good long term strategy, because there's very little to prevent the next two-person startup from cloning your simple app, and because eventually you can't fight human nature: “The people want the features,” says Norman. Soma online stores, Just because handheld video was perfect for Blair Witch, doesn't mean every Hollywood blockbuster will use it.
Again, I think this is just a misinterpretation of what it means to be simple. It also assumes that it's easy to do something simply. A lot of people try and fail to copy the success of simple products. It's hard to copy the balancing act, buy cheap viagra online. Having already achieved the difficult task is an advantage.
Similar posts: Zithromax cheap. Buy tramadol cheap. Purchase clomid. Diazepam cheap.
Trackbacks from: Soma online stores. Cheap xanax bars. Buy accutane without prescription. Ordering tramadol no rx.
December 10th, 2006 at 8:35 am
So, simplicity is complicated, you’re saying.
December 10th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Sometimes, sure. Everything can’t be black and white, right?
December 11th, 2006 at 8:59 am
i think the main issue is that Spolsky is ragging on “simplicity” when it just means “few features”. I don’t see that he has any real issue with elegance, clarity, un-complication, or efficiency. Or maybe i just read him the way i wanted. :)
December 11th, 2006 at 9:41 am
I think you read him right, Bubna. And my point, not clearly communicated (see Anonymous’ comment above), was that thinking of simplicity merely as “few features” misses the point. Maybe Joel and I had the same point?
December 11th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Maybe you did, or would if you could agree on the terms. I’d ask him about it, but i don’t care enough. :)
In any case, i think everyone likes it when complex things aren’t complicated. And that, i think, is what you’re chiefly advocating (and Joel does too when he goes off about OS shutdown options). ‘Cause who needs to argue for simplicity in things that are already simple (non-complex)?
Maybe you could change your blog to be called “Uncomplicated Complexity Rules” just to “clear” things up. ;-)