Should Companies Delay Products for More Features? 136
conq writes "BusinessWeek has a piece looking at if it makes sense for companies such as Sony to delay the release of products to ensure that when they do come out they are absolutely top of the line. From the article: 'In the tech world, where consumer trends can rise and fall and product cycles are short, that's more often the exception than the rule. The penalty for a delay can be severe -- even catastrophic. One of the biggest risks in postponing a product launch is being out-hustled to market by rivals.'"
Is it soup yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies should release products when they are *done*. This means that they define a set of parameters they want to meet and then complete them. Putting a product out in a date driven fashion is a sure fire way to release crap that you end up beta testing on your customers while trying to add in new features/technology results in version creep. Want to please your customers and get them to come back for your other products? Release a product when it is done and if you want to introduce new features, that is an incremental release.
*Disclaimer: This only works if you do not have a monopoly...
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Come up with a list of features to implement, estimate those features (and those features only), design, implement, test, release with re-assessments (and iterations) happening throughout the entire life-cycle of the project, adjusting estimates as necessary.
At some point the companies need to publish a release date to the public. That should be somewhere near the end of the project, assuming the re-assessments warrant it.
Do NOT allow new features. Period.
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand his point to be that a goal with a reasonably projected timeframe needs to be set, then met. Forcing a deadline will only result in half-finish crud going out the door.
To use the aforementioned DNF reference, Id Software releases games when they are Done(TM). Yet they still manage to release them while 3D Realms has gone over a decade without a release. Why the difference?
The answer is in sett
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:2)
On the ot
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
From a customer's point of view, your comments hold water. From a shareholder's point of view they don't. Guess which group of people companies care more about?
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:2)
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:2)
From the indispensable A Shareware Life [asharewarelife.com] blog.
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:2)
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:1)
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:1)
Failing to understand the market means that they haven't really worked out who their user community is and it could therefore be questioned as to whether or not the product they are selli
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:1)
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:1)
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:2)
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:2)
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:1)
Re:Is it soup yet? (Score:2)
Like every thing else in life (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Like every thing else in life (Score:1)
Re:Like every thing else in life (Score:2)
You just have to find the right balance.
So true.
I get into these "debates" where people want to know "the answer", the best answer is, "it depends".
So, if I want to become a new car manufacturer, what do I do? Make cheap disposable cars, like say the Scion, or make cars like Rolls Royce or Bentley that are of such quality that they are willed to people after their death?
Well, both models exist, and have for some time.
Should I make cheap handtools for residential use that are on
Re:Like every thing else in life (Score:2)
"It depends" almost guarantees the follow up question, "Depends on what?"
Re:Like every thing else in life (Score:2)
Seriously, though, that's exactly what makes "depends" the better answer: It drives the questioner's thoughts in the direction of actually figuring out the details.
Who is kidding who? (Score:5, Informative)
"The main holdups were a copyright protection mechanism for the PS3's high-definition DVD player."
Yeah, right, top of the line cool features are delaying shipment. By the way, I have a bridge I want to sell you; and Vista is shipping this month!!
Re:Who is kidding who? (Score:2)
The PS3 on the other hand is so
Re:Who is kidding who? (Score:3, Interesting)
"The main holdups were a desire for absolute control over all the bits that will ever pass through a PS3's DVD player"
or: "the main holdup is greed".
Remember kids: copy protection is the symptom, not the disease.
PS3 Far From Ready (Score:2)
They need to show numbers (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course they should delay it for more features (Score:1)
Isn't my Frogger mouse just the coolest thing ever? See how it matches the green case?
No (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies deal with the bugs that will affect a lot of users and ignore the bugs that will affect only 12 people. But the trick is telling between the two.
How coincidental! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How coincidental! (Score:1)
So... (Score:4, Funny)
It's a fine line (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a fine line (Score:1)
Yeah, like the Xbox 360. (OOOH BURRN!)
NOTE TO THOSE LACKING A SENSE OF HUMOR: THIS POST IS A JOKE.
also known as (Score:1, Redundant)
Good Example (Score:5, Informative)
The company rarely gives any public information about timelines, they simple say "It will be released when it is done". Which often includes many long delays, but when the product finally is released you can always count on getting your money's worth.
Re:Good Example (Score:2)
"Money's worth"? I got one word for you: Horsearmor.
(Flamebait aside, I mostly agree with you although a better example would be Nintendo, specifically their Zelda series).
Re:Good Example (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good Example (Score:3, Informative)
The Bethesda products that I have purchased have all had major bugs that should have been caught long ago. However, I'll agree with the fact that when they are developing code to fix the bugs that they make sure those fixes are bulletproof. Of course, you can't prove any problems with bugfixes that are never released. Bethesda does/did have some nice concepts, but they are not, repeat, not a company that releases quality code. I did like the concept of their games originall
Re:Good Example (Score:1)
I agree that Valve makes excellent games. I do think that they are going the right way with Steam though. It's much easier to ship a product to people using only bandwidth and not a truck. Not only that, without the publisher being in the way, they cut out the mi
Re:Good Example (Score:2)
Re:Good Example (Score:4, Interesting)
My character was being used as bait for someone to ambush... the ambush springs, my backup leaps into action... At this point, two Imperial Guards come around the corner and start mashing my attacker as well. This makes me happy. Finally, they defeat my attacker, and start pureeing my backup. Eek, glad I didn't need them for anything important!
Beyond that; game balance is poor, and clearly intended that you play a combat-primary character. Playing a stealth-orientated character is a painful joke - sure, I can do 3x/6x more damage on my first hit, but I'm still being slaughtered by single opponents while travelling. This is particularly frustrating when I've just fought my way through HELL, got back, recovered, walk outside town and am torn to pieces by a passing WOLF!!! Other times I've become so bored of combat against a single, random encounter opponent, that I've just given up entirely on the game and done something else.
Oh, talking of balance: http://acidforblood.net/2006/04/09/the-debate-abo
In several places missions don't provide options that should be fairly obvious , or doors are plot-locked (*cough* Dark Brotherhood haven *cough*) because they couldn't be bothered dealing with a good stealth character breaking into them.
Did I mention that the entire stealth system seems to depend on your footware more than anything else? Not to mention, many places don't provide enough cover to creep around, or you are expected to deal with dodging guards that go in and out of zone breaks (as in, doors which do not open, but instead NPCs simply materialise infront of).
Oh, and you can't kill the plot NPCs, they're merely rendered unconscious, which makes the escort missions a joke. Although the fact that you can fast-travel while escorting someone doesn't really help that either.
Then there's the points where the game engine holds your character in place so you can't interfere while a character is killed (the start being the obvious example, but there are others).
Hmmm... found some weird stuff too... broke into the Imperial Palace, pulled a key off a guard, walked down to the entrance to the main chamber, and unlocked the door infront of the guard. Okay, I can accept he didn't stop me there, just about. So I pull my bow out, and try assassinating the head guy whose name escapes me now. You know what happened?
The arrow goes straight through his head, and sticks in the chair. He continues to ignore me. I empty a few more arrows into the chair, before finally realising that whatever I do, the game won't let me hit someone sitting down.
Personally, I'd consider Oblivion "barely acceptable" in terms of polish. If Bethesda didn't produce such incredible freeform, diverse games I'd have given up on them years ago. As it is, I'm mostly incredibly frustrated by the wasted potential.
Competition? (Score:3, Insightful)
In an industry where there is no originality, only evolution, having your competitor's product out before yours doesn't mean much. People will buy yours if it's better or has features they want. If you're making another XBox 360 but calling it Joe 180, it's your own fault. I for one wouldn't mind things slowing down some, more in software than hardware. Pay programmers not for the final product (or the nth iteration of the product), but for their work on it. Windows' backward compatibility and long next-version-time-to-market is probably the best thing going. Better than having to try to make your product for a particular version of Linux and then right 20 pages of documentation detailing how to get it to work with another version.
FUD! (Score:2)
This is FUD! You don't need to read the instructions to install programs - just 'emerge firefox', done! Could not be easier. Never had any problems, and everything works just fff#""!#%!"#%
Tech's New Headache: Feature Creep (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the marketing zombies that keep trying to one-up each other adding features and screwing up us programmers. There must be a limit placed on the madness. Get the thing working NOW, then worry about what you *can* do with it later.
Re:Tech's New Headache: Feature Creep (Score:2)
Then, at some point, they release a combined feature set, with all the bugfixes, at a reduced price.
Re:Tech's New Headache: Feature Creep (Score:1)
Now that's feature creep.
featurecide is easy! (Score:5, Funny)
This rule is recursive.
Re:featurecide is easy! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:featurecide is easy! (Score:2)
Re:featurecide is easy! (Score:2)
vi comes in a distant second.
MS Word ranks ahead of the OpenOffice text editor, but that's about it.
Of course this is all just personal opinion.
YMMV. HTH. HAND. ETC. ETC. ETC.
Re:featurecide is easy! (Score:2)
Re:featurecide is easy! (Score:1)
Too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it a freeze or is it a slush? (Score:2)
Of course you can tag it 'Beta' and release it, ala http://.google.com/ [google.com] projects!
No, crank it out asafp please! (Score:3, Insightful)
Really.
You can get obsolete stuff (anything more than a year old now) for rock bottom prices and often you can pick it up off of trash piles for free.
I grabbed a really nice mf printer/scanner/copier off a trash pile the other day that works great, they even put the manuals inside. It was clean and in perfect working order. I guess they had to have the bleeding edge product of the week.
Works for me..
You can't imagine how much cool stuff I get out of trash piles and how much money I save. I wasn't born with the "trendy gene"..
Re:No, crank it out asafp please! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, crank it out asafp please! (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, 5 years ago, I was driving a car from 1986. It was in great shape, ran well, etc. A buddy of mine sugguested, "Hey, let's go test drive some new cars! Just for the heck of it. It'll be fun!" And I said.... no, thanks. I know there are cars out there that blow mine away, but I'm *happy* with what I have, and I don't want to make myself unhappy by sampling t
Re:No, crank it out asafp please! (Score:2)
And I think you're sexy.
However, I think that you should get out of your junker and buy my car [autotrader.com]. That way I can follow in your footsteps and live within my means.
Re:No, crank it out asafp please! (Score:1)
Amen! (Score:2)
Re:No, crank it out asafp please! (Score:2)
I don't just starting ripping open random trash bags.
I don't open trash bags at all, ever.
I just look on the side of the road when I'm out and about.
If I can see something sitting on a pile I stop and pick it up.
I haven't bought anything new in years. People throw away some really good stuff. It's insane but hey, it works for me...
Why would they? (Score:1)
The trick is to make it just good enough, so that people will want and buy it in the first place, but just incomplete enough as to make the expansion packs really worth getting to the point of being essential for complete fulfilment.
Best case in point that I can think of off the top of my head is Rollercoaster Tycoon. Good game (if y
Decisions, decisions... (Score:1)
Ah, capitalism...
What they really need to do... (Score:2)
Re:What they really need to do... (Score:1)
Sony has learned a lot from politicians. If you hype something enough, people will gladly bend over to receive it, no matter the ACTUAL quality. They've also been doing this for years. I think claims were made that the PS2 would be able to render Toy Story in real time, and games-on-demand would explode when the hard drive and network adapter were released. Yeah right.
Elder Scrolls 4 (Score:2)
It's not about the money - NOT (Score:2)
If it will make money like it is, ship it.
If the problems will cost more than they make, delay.
If it was promised to the market, ship it (limited release).
Managers make these calls, not geeks, and there is a reason for that.
How About A Product That *Works*? (Score:5, Insightful)
The short answer to the query is "absolutely not."
Adding "features" is the last thing a successful company does. Added "features" are what delineates a Creative Zen or a Dell DJ from an Apple iPod. The former two concentrated on adding a bunch of superfluous "features" designed to placate a narrow audience, while Apple just built the best damn music player they could before starting to add things.
"Features" are the enemy of a shipping product in the same way the perfect is the enemy of the good. How do you know what "features" are really useful and what "features" are wastes of time and energy. You don't - at least not if you're honest with yourself.
Successful technologies like the iPod are based on simplicity. Bad products, like Windows Vista or Office, are based on trying to jam a bunch of features down the throats of their users. The iPod isn't a success because it has the most features of any digital music player, it's the king of the hill because it does what it does damn well. Hell, the iPod shuffle is about as simple as it is possible for a music player to get, and that simplicity is why it was the success that it was.
Good design isn't about adding features. It's about ensuring that every feature is essential . If you're delaying ship dates to add features you think are worthwhile rather than features which really are essential (and those are rarely overlapping sets), then you're doing something wrong.
Re:How About A Product That *Works*? (Score:1)
Re:How About A Product That *Works*? (Score:3, Interesting)
Put the controller in front of a new user, and they will have no idea what to do with it. Even advanced users are getting confused all the time as to what each button does. I've met h
Theres a quote for all that... (Score:2)
-- Antoine De Saint-Exupery
Re:How About A Product That *Works*? (Score:1)
Because Steve Jobs tells me which ones are good...
top of the line technology, my ass. (Score:2)
Depends (Score:1)
I work at a semiconductor company doing chip layout. There's been times when we're close to finishing what we were given to do and marketing
To a point (Score:1)
Go with fewer features (Score:2)
Iteration is a good thing. The "this will be everything to everybody" model of product development is a tar baby.
Check out Getting Real [37signals.com] if you're interested in seeing how less can be more not just in theory, but in the real, rough and tumble world o' business.
What's more important is (Score:2)
The only thing worse than a product that is late to market, is a product that is early/on-time, but is buggy. You will only get a bad rep by selling hardware/software with broken or buggy features.
Long development schedules are hit or miss (Score:1)
Exhibit A: Blizzard and Nintendo. All of Blizzard's games are high-quality because the developers basically dictate their own schedule. Diablo II and obviously WoW have huge followings because they put so many things into the game to keep people coming back. Their releases are few and far between, but you can bet they'll all be worth your money--every time. The s
stampede of the rivals (Score:1)
Vista got delayed.... Caution stampeding rivals at the horizon!
Why? (Score:2)
Maybe... (Score:2)
Turn it around and you know the answer (Score:2)
Never (Score:1)
Make it *extremely* patchable.*
If new features are to be included during any time of the release, patch the same to it.
Even after the release, you release patches to make it jazzy and cutting-edge et al.
*This needs a VERY solid base design, though.
More Features - Not necessarily the better product (Score:2)
There is an old addage:-
KISS - "Keep It Simple Stupid"
Do your market research, put the features in the customer wants. If the customer wants more features, it can be used as a good excuse for an upgraded version of the software. Above all make sure your so
there are no delays if there's no hype (Score:2)
It depends (Score:1)
"done" means all the bad bugs are fixed. (Score:2)
Companies that do otherwise need to address perhaps a bigger problem. *points to management*
Communication between development and marketing is key.
delay... (Score:2)
Yes, Microsoft should delay Vista to put the features they touted long ago (that we all looked forward to, even if we'd never use Windows) that they since reneged on.
If that is what you were asking, you should have just asked it.
Follow the open source model (Score:1)
My company is following that philospohy with our latest product: http://www.turnwatcher.com/ [turnwatcher.com]. It's an Initiative Tracker for table-top RPG DMs. The idea is when you buy a copy, you get free, downloadable updates for one
The reason... (Score:1)
It depends on the length of the product lifecycle (Score:1)
<digression>
Imagine if the first Playstation 2 systems had a half as much RAM initially? It would have been crazy for the developers to be able to depend on the system specs when the update came out. That's why I think it's a great thing to have a standard hard drive for the playstation 3 and why it might be a mistake to not have i
Basic Logic (Score:2)
20 New top-of-the-line features are created
30 GoTo 10
40 Never End
Not more features... (Score:1)
No, delay it for usability testing! (Score:2)
It's all about balance (Score:4, Interesting)
That's just not feasible in the real world, though. While first to market does not necessarily provide an advantage, being las to market is a tough hole to climb out of. Additionally, there are always pressures to meet revenue expectations, especially in a public company. This is why I try, as much as possible, to define requirements early, to work with our engineering team early to get initial (and continually refined) estimates, and to know which features I can sacrifice when we get to crunch time and the product has to ship.
Having worked on both the software development side and the product management side, my impression is that most programmers and software engineers are not aware of the pressure to meet revenue targets. It is the reason (in a lot of cases) why the company exists. Waiting "until it's done," in many instances is just not feasible...at least if I want the company to stay in business.
They Say (Score:2)
You're never going to be top of the line (Score:1)
Now this is how it should be done (Score:1)
ii) Schedule a realistic release of the 'Core.' Design, develop and test your core to bits. Verify the product against the original spec. Meet the deadline and release a really robust application/device around the Core requirements.
iii) Now that we have a stable and released core, move onto the nice to have's and release a pricier, enhanced or updated version in the same fashion. Yes, some will be gutted. I was gutted when my GB Advanced