Paul Buckheit is the creator of Gmail and FriendFeed and a partner at Y Combinator.
Note from 2010
Many are already tired of talking about the iPad, although negative reviews about it are so wrong that it would be a sin to miss this opportunity. Moreover, we can look back at the history of the iPod 2001 - all the same mistakes can be seen in it. However, it's not the iPad or iPod - it's the design.
The most famous iPod review was posted on Slashdot. It read: “No wireless connection, it's smaller than the Nomad. Nonsense". Reviews on the iPad are similar in that they also focus on "missing" features. These missing features are usually available in unsuccessful products from competitors, leading to the misconception that a successful product must have even more features!
I think the misjudgment is based on logic like “more features = better”, and this same logic is the reason that many smart people are not good at product design (this can be seen in most open source projects). If the MacBook with OSX and no keyboard were a success, Microsoft would have done well with its tablet computers years ago. Copying the mistakes of a failed product is not the best formula for success.
What should be the correct approach to a new product? Pick three of its key attributes or functions, perfect them and forget about the rest. These three attributes define the essence and value of the product, the rest is noise. For example, the original iPod: 1) was small enough to fit in your pocket; 2) had enough memory to store a lot of music; 3) Easily syncs with your Mac (most hardware companies have software development issues, so I bet a lot of people got it wrong). That's it - no wireless connection, no way to edit playlists on the device, no Ogg support - nothing but great core functionality.
We used a similar approach when we launched Gmail. The service was fast, stored all your mail (4 megabytes was the norm back then) and had an innovative conversation and search interface. Secondary or tertiary functions were absent or insignificant. There was no editor for composing rich text. The initial contact list was implemented in two days and did almost nothing (the engineer who worked on it wanted to spend five days on this task, but I persuaded him to two - because I almost never use this feature). Of course, other features can be added or refined later (and Gmail has certainly gotten better since launch), but if the product itself isn't convincing, no additional features will save it.
By focusing on the core features in the first version of your product, you are forced to understand its true nature and value. If your product needs "everything" to be good, then it probably isn't very innovative (although it may well complement another existing product). In other words, if your product is Great, it doesn't have to be Good.
So what about an iPad that lacks process managers, files, windows, and other "missing" junk? I'm not sure, but one thing I noticed is that I am more likely to browse the web from my iPhone rather than my laptop. Not sure why exactly, but part of it is simplicity. My iPhone is ready to use in less than half a second, while my laptop takes a few seconds to wake up and then something is sure to distract me. The iPhone is a simple device that I use without thinking, while my laptop looks like a complex machine - it's worth stopping and thinking if I want to use it right now. The downside of the iPhone is that it is small and slow (although being small is also a plus). This is already enough for me to buy myself an iPhone so that it lies next to my sofa,but I'm a bit of an atypical user.
Finally, the real value of the product lies in the new things people can do with a fast, easy, and affordable Internet connection. At home, we can lazily surf the net, show pictures (to guests) and play board games (Bret's idea is very interesting). Perhaps in the office we will finally have an easy way to communicate with people remotely while discussing a presentation or documents (for example, a voice conference in iChat with a shared display). Of course, all this is possible with laptops, but it is so difficult and awkward that no one even tries to do it (or we give up after the first try).
However, making the iPad successful is Apple's problem, not you. If you're creating a new product, what are the three (or fewer) key features that will make it so great that you can cut the rest in half? Are you focusing at least 80% of your efforts on these three features?
Note: This text is likely only applicable to consumer products (those in which the customer is also a user - a kind of business product). When it comes to markets where there are purchasing processes with long lists of functional requirements, you should probably work on as many features as possible and not waste time on simplicity or usability.
If you want to help with translations of useful materials from the YC library, write in a personal, @jethacker cart or mail alexey.stacenko@gmail.com
Follow the YC Startup Library news in Russian in the telegram channel or on Facebook .