1. 6
  1. 1

    I wonder what would happen if instead of having a budget to spend per feature-use, they could instead spend the money on performance? Like, if they don’t spend the money then they have to wait a couple of seconds before the feature activates. If people use a feature often, they might repeatedly buy a perf improvement on a particular feature.

    1. 1

      An interesting idea, but in each case the idea constructs a barrier to using the feature. This tells us (at least at sufficient scale) which features are more valuable to users than the cost imposed. It doesn’t really tells us anything about which features users would use if all features were unlimited use (usually the case for most enterprise or desktop software). This almost certainly doesn’t correlate with our cost of producing features and the trade offs to be made there.

      I wonder if it would make more sense to have a mode that shows “experimental” features including ones that are basically just mockups with a description and opportunity to vote a limited number of points per user.

      All of these approaches of course only engage current users. Current users are bought into the current paradigm of the software and won’t necessarily be able to tell you what would get other people to buy the software.