Removing stuff is never obvious yet often better
Removing features rather than adding more is framed as an underrated but powerful way to improve products, illustrated by a case where a complex pricing calculator on a SaaS site hurt conversions until it was removed. Commenters weigh the benefits of simplification against the risks of obscuring costs, arguing over opaque “contact us for pricing” models, dark patterns, and whether A/B tests that boost sign‑ups may still degrade long‑term trust and customer value. The broader theme is that teams are biased toward building and preserving complexity—partly for political and incentive reasons—even when evidence suggests that fewer options, clearer pricing, and a smaller feature set can serve users and businesses better.
Reaction to Removing the Pricing Calculator
- Many agree the core problem was users’ misunderstanding of metrics (QPS, vector counts), not the calculator UI itself. Small input errors could yield 10–1000× overestimates.
- Some argue removing the calculator plausibly improves signups but may simply hide sticker shock, pushing painful surprises to later bills.
- Others counter that incorrect self-estimates are worse than no estimate, and once users are onboarded they can see real usage-based billing and extrapolate more reliably.
- A few think the real fix should be a simpler pricing model, not deleting the tool.
Pricing Transparency and “Contact Us for Pricing”
- Strong dislike for “contact us for pricing” in B2B and especially consumer contexts; many say they will skip such vendors entirely.
- Concerns: price discrimination based on company size, sales “games,” sunk-cost pressure after lengthy sales calls, and difficulty piloting a tool when usage is initially unknown.
- Some defend non-public or negotiated pricing in narrow enterprise markets or bespoke solutions, but others insist there should at least be clear ballpark tiers.
A/B Testing, Metrics, and Dark Patterns
- Multiple comments criticize shallow A/B practices: optimizing for signups or clicks without tracking long-term outcomes (retention, complaints, churn).
- Removing information (like pricing details or snippet content) often increases short‑term engagement but may harm user trust or satisfaction.
- Some note this dynamic creates incentives for dark patterns and information asymmetry rather than genuine clarity.
Simplicity vs. Necessary Complexity
- Broad support for the “removal” mindset: YAGNI, “less is more,” and the idea that good design often comes from deleting features, not adding.
- Counterpoint: overzealous YAGNI can backfire; cheap, future‑useful structures removed early can be expensive to reintroduce later. The “right” deletion rate is debated.
- Several reference engineering cultures that deliberately encourage removing components, accepting that some must later be added back.
Organizational and Cultural Factors
- Long internal debates, polls, and Slack threads are seen as symptoms of over‑hiring, unclear ownership, and design‑by‑committee.
- Removing user‑visible features is politically hard; once something exists, some workflows inevitably depend on it, making deletion risky and unrewarded.