The curious properties of software

Been thinking a lot lately about the need to focus, simplify, and devise useful and future-friendly efficiencies for the web.

A certain level of simplification (and certainly focus) makes good sense in all areas of product development. I recall bumping into an Apple poster a while back advertising their new OS with “…over 300 new features”. As a user, being faced with a number of this size made me nervous rather than happy.

Focussing is however far easier said than done…especially when faced with business imperatives, stockholder pressures, and the want/need to innovate (and do so before the other guy).

On that topic, I ran into this lovely passage (from a long-lost Scientific American article) which goes a good long way in explaining what’s going on:

“The software industry frustrates long-term investments by producing ever larger, slower programs that require ever larger, faster machines. At the March conference, Nathan Myhrvold [Microsoft's then vice president of applications and content] modestly proposed Nathan’s First Law: “Software is a gas,” he said. “It expands to fill its container.” In fact, that is more of a policy than a necessity. “After all,” he observed later with a laugh, “if we hadn’t brought your processor to its knees, why else would you get a new one?”

Why else indeed.

Myhrvold also goes on to say that: “In demos, the new technologies are inarguably coolCool is a powerful reason to spend money.”

Fifteen years later (the article is dated July 1997), little of this appears to have changed. Make of that what you will :-)

One thought on “The curious properties of software

  1. Ryan Swarts

    So perfect! This is why the spec arms race was always so silly. You’d go from 256mb of memory to 512mb to 1gb and never notice a difference. The same with the latest-and-greatest Intel chips. The end performance never really got better because software was always using 100% of the power that was available. I love how the mobile phone has forced our hand. Both on a performance and a visual front, we have no choice but to cut back.

    Side Example: When my HTC Evo came out, the company was boasting that the phone now had seven panels instead of three. You could fill seven whole screens with shortcuts and widgets. I thought at the time what a great idea this was. After using the phone for a month, I ended up leaving 4/7 of them blank. They just ate up battery life and taxed my mind. More isn’t always better.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>