Creating a stripped down version of a product is a big red flag to me (e.g. "easy/light mode").
It means the main product is too complicated; it handles too many things. Instead, shift the focus back to the core of the product by removing features.

In the our day-to-day it is completely normal to stumble upon things that used to work but now have been changed: they have been deprecated.

Deprecating and removing features should be added to any product iteration. Thus being "normal" and a common occurrence in any changelog; just like features and bug fixes.

This gives non-tech product owners "permission" to remove bloat. Devs stop whining about "the big rewrite". And end-users don't suddenly have to learn yet another tool with "basic" features missing.

I think the best example is google (https://killedbygoogle.com/) and the worst is the amazon shopping website (what a mess!).

  • 1
    Even though I miss goggle inbox (and I still want google wave to happen!), it makes sense from a business perspective.
  • 2
    Are you the same person who writes those spam messages all over devrant? Your writing style is very similar.

    I'm thinking Google actually makes mistakes when they integrate projects to the big name ones. It feels like they're adding bloat just to make bean counters happy. It's better to kill something outright than to forcefully integrate it somewhere where it doesn't make sense. Sometimes they make good choices, though, like integrating Word Lens to Google Translate.

    It must feel great to be a dev who has worked on multiple projects at Google, all of which have since been cancelled.
  • 0
    Hey, this is my only account on this platform. My post is OC if that answers your question? Also English is my second language. I care deeply about software development and so far, I enjoy the devrant community and have no intentions of trolling.

    About your last statement: that would suck tbh. But on the other hand, we create tools. If these tools are not successful, why bother keeping them running? I think the problem here is google defining a "successful" product by having at least 200 million users (I read that number in some article about stadia a while back). "Their metric, their rules" I guess.
Add Comment