The failure of these products is not solely the designer's fault. Designer only takes one seat at the table, not all of them.
A successful product requires great work from all aspects, insightful business person, great engineer, great design, great marketing and operations. Good products are so rare because all the them have to work out together. Good design can help gain more users, but it alone is not sufficient for the product to be sufficient. If a well-designed app failed, it could be caused by any of the aspects. And maybe because well-designed apps gain so much attention within the designers' community, it is far more noticeable than other types of failures. A product with perfect engineering solution, or with a perfect marketing plan, will possibly fail as well if the design is bad, but the designer community probably don't talk about that.
Although nowadays product designers are expected to take care of more aspects than just the visual design, the overall work is not one man's job. Path's failure is not because the design is bad, but rather something else. Maybe how the marketing people marketed it. Maybe how the business people directed the product. It's nothing wrong to perfect the design details, but it still cannot guarantee a success.
That being said, I think this is a good article and while I'm reading it I'm already rethinking the approaches I'm taking to products.
A successful product requires great work from all aspects, insightful business person, great engineer, great design, great marketing and operations. Good products are so rare because all the them have to work out together. Good design can help gain more users, but it alone is not sufficient for the product to be sufficient. If a well-designed app failed, it could be caused by any of the aspects. And maybe because well-designed apps gain so much attention within the designers' community, it is far more noticeable than other types of failures. A product with perfect engineering solution, or with a perfect marketing plan, will possibly fail as well if the design is bad, but the designer community probably don't talk about that.
Although nowadays product designers are expected to take care of more aspects than just the visual design, the overall work is not one man's job. Path's failure is not because the design is bad, but rather something else. Maybe how the marketing people marketed it. Maybe how the business people directed the product. It's nothing wrong to perfect the design details, but it still cannot guarantee a success.
That being said, I think this is a good article and while I'm reading it I'm already rethinking the approaches I'm taking to products.