What an awful article. Expensive conclusions are drawn with no apparent consideration for their cost. The experience of a company which appears to have successfully balanced complicated tradeoffs in choosing features is discounted because there were bugs. And almost no examples or useful stories about any detail, or suggestions on how to do it better other than to go (much) slower and to spend (much) more or to not take rich customers money.I suspect good arguments could be made for these things, but they need to acknowledge and justify their cost.
michalbugno|5 years ago
It's tough to suggest detailed solutions to a problem which is in general very vague. Btw I hope the article shows my appreciation for what the company achieved.
One small insight from Uzi (CEO + founder) when I discussed this with him (after publishing article): Base should've focused on much less features but with greater detail. It somehow confirms my guess that we didn't work on existing features as much as we should, but we "spread too thin".