I was just talking to another ex-Googler today, and he has a simple explanation for why products keep getting worse (especially Google's, but not just them):
PMs gotta get promoted
New PM inherits a successful product. They can't get promoted if all they do is keep it healthy and growing. No, they have to make a radical change, even if the product doesn't need it, and in fact their radical change makes it worse.
I could present examples of "fixing what isn't broken" but it would probably just be a dive into the deep end.
In any case, though, Mr. Staltz is wrong. Making a product usable is an art, and OSS projects very seldom have it. There is no one (a PM, oddly enough) to say "no, your new feature is stupid and doesn't fit with the rest of the product."
As other people have noted, this applies mainly to user-facing products. The developers do an 80% job and then split, and no one wants to do the shit work that comprises the other 20%.
This is not to defend stupid, greedy companies like Adobe, by the way. But yes, GIMP does suck, as many people have pointed out.
PMs gotta get promoted
New PM inherits a successful product. They can't get promoted if all they do is keep it healthy and growing. No, they have to make a radical change, even if the product doesn't need it, and in fact their radical change makes it worse.
I could present examples of "fixing what isn't broken" but it would probably just be a dive into the deep end.
In any case, though, Mr. Staltz is wrong. Making a product usable is an art, and OSS projects very seldom have it. There is no one (a PM, oddly enough) to say "no, your new feature is stupid and doesn't fit with the rest of the product."
As other people have noted, this applies mainly to user-facing products. The developers do an 80% job and then split, and no one wants to do the shit work that comprises the other 20%.
This is not to defend stupid, greedy companies like Adobe, by the way. But yes, GIMP does suck, as many people have pointed out.