Optimise. Improve.
This is why I was so upset at Sparrow throwing in the towel - they concentrated on one thing, email, and did it better than I'd seen it done before. By specialising they were able to spend the time to get it right.
Look at the iPhone 5 discussions taking place. The most common topic you'll see is: it doesn't have enough new features. That kind of thinking is one of the reasons that refinement doesn't take place as often as you and I would like.
I think from one perspective advertising refinement is perceived as perpetual incompetence with respect to your capability to deliver a quality product. Horrible inversion of logic.
It would actually be a list of things that were wrong with the previous product - so what's wrong with that?
From a literal perspective, not much, but in terms of perception and marketing I'd estimate a whole lot. Each product is still representing your brand and a potential option for buyers. You want to encourage someone to be excited about moving to your new product or platform without presenting the case that the old one is inferior or somehow deficient.
Consider if they iPhone was released with a strong focus on the improvements and bugfixes on the existing features without many new additions. Personally this is amazing, I'd be excited about that, but for many (average joe consumer) people I'd estimate it raises some key questions - why was there so much wrong? What will be wrong with the new one? Why do these products have so many issues?
Consider if iPhone was listing fixes and corrections and phone x was advertising all of their new features and updates with no mention of any rectification - personally, I'd be tempted just to pursue the one that was "best". Especially in a flooded market where it's hard to make a legitimate choice, it's much easier if one thing looks broken and one thing looks wonderful.
Most companies are really just going through the process of iterative refinement but I think you need the feature icing to sell them to people, or really: to take the focus off of the fact the product needed rework, and on to the fact there's super super shiny new things! You quickly forget to engage your critical thinking when being dazzled with this kind of thing.
To be hyperbolic with the example - consider cars. When a manufacturer releases a new model and advertises the safety and performance enhancements, it may be likely that they were addressing issues with the previous model, but presenting them as new functionality. This is much more appropriate for a brand than saying "we've addressed the issue with our brake and suspension package that was contributing to people losing control of the car" or "we've redesigned the porting of the heads on the engine so it's not running as inefficiency". If you have the choice between the perceived perfection of one brand versus the other admitting a few people wound up wrapped around trees and they needed to iterate their design (even if both companies are following exactly the same process), it becomes a pretty easy choice, right or wrong.
Having said that, I'll point out that Sparrow (like every other non-webmail client I've used) seems to fall over when dealing with massive volumes of email. I'll get into the office with 500 new emails, skim and archive 490 of them over five or ten minutes or so, and then a few minutes later half of them will just show back up. Overall still a very solid product, so I too was disappointed to see it eaten up and killed off by Google.
Companies like Nokia made some great phone products that did the one thing (well, two if you include SMS) remarkably well in small packages, that had fantastic battery life.
But then the iPhone, and Android, came out and virtually no-one was interested in the old, reliable phones anymore. They wanted the latest, shiniest gadget that they could get their hands on, regardless of how good/poor it was at doing the basic job of making calls.
And I'm a little unclear why you feel like playing "gotcha" with me here anyway...
My point isn't an attempt at a gotcha - it's a comment that if this is how you really feel, then the only way that companies are going to take any notice is by putting your money where your mouth is and buying the more robust and optimised versions of those things that do the basics well rather than buying the models with the advanced features.
And it's not an attack on you specifically - it's something I see time and time again. My parents complain that the new TV they've bought, which is internet-ready, has apps etc, is too compicated for them to use. Meanwhile the old TV that did nothing more than show TV programs got thrown out a couple of years ago, despite still working fine, because they wanted the new model. They complain that the new version of Office that they use is too complex, but they've still got the Word 95 discs sat around somewhere (and they've rarely got any need to share documents with anyone else). And they are far from an isolated example.
Some people want the shiny new stuff - I know I do - but I accept that if I'm going to be on the bleeding edge of tech, I'm probably going to have bits of it that simply don't work properly. And as long as both you and I are out buying these things, rather than the boring but stable stuff, then this is what the market is going to build for.
Every company is different, every product is different, every user is different. Attempting to speak in absolutes like you are simply doesn't work.
As for your suggestion I forgoe a decade of advance in phones... uhh no. A moderately buggy phone from 2012 is still a thousand times better than your puritan "calls and texts only" ideal phone.
The thing is, it could be much better with a little attention to detail.
If that's not what you meant, and instead you were trying to say "I've been thinking for some years now, that a little bit more time was spent on fixing existing features rather than always focusing on new features", then I'd probably agree. Although I would say that most companies are, in reality, already doing this and their doing it to the level that they believe the market is really prepared to pay for.
> A moderately buggy phone from 2012 is still a thousand times better than your puritan "calls and texts only" ideal phone.
Indeed it is - but that is far from the message you seemed to be saying in your first comment.
Despite me pointing out that I was simply replying to your black and white statement ("I wish everyone would stop implementing features and perfect the ones that are already there"), and pointing out that I would agree with a far more nuanced position, you're continuing to pretend that that I'm the one who was trying to make it black and white.
I'm guessing from this that you're not actually massively interested in having an adult discussion on the fact that despite continual complaints from consumers about too much complexity, not enough focus on quality etc, the actual purchasing behaviour of those same consumers is driving companies to focus far more on new features than on perfecting their existing ones.
You don't need to abandon a decade's worth of advances to ask that, for example, the Google IME team all get on the same page (Chinese, English, Korean and Japanese IMEs all work slightly differently and appear different) before implementing say... face unlock.
I'm a big fan of single-purpose tools, but if you tried to have EVERYTHING in your life a single purpose tool, you'd need a shopping trolly to carry it all around with you.
Do you think that the average punter is more likely to buy their next phone based on new feature like face unlock or because they've fixed an occasional bug in mail sync?
I know "make something small but better" is a nice motto, but will it work for Apple, Microsoft? Heck, even for a proven startup's product, is it a good long term strategy, or a long term gamble?
There aren't much examples of 37Signal's model of "don't implement features but keep polishing" approach.