Simplicity is the wrong abstraction

Why building a “simpler” product is simply a bad idea

A common pitch for new products is “it’s like X but simpler.” This pitch usually includes an explanation of the many ways X has become overly complicated and bloated and how their solution gets back to the “core” experience. Just build a simpler product and watch the dollars roll in.¹

This is a bad idea, and simplicity is a bad goal. Products that seemingly succeed because of simplicity are hiding their real advantage. Keeping this advantage hidden is in their interest; it creates a false model to follow and fewer real competitors.

Google: simple on the surface, but its real advantage comes from a hugely complex effort behind it.

Understanding the problem with “X but simpler” and avoiding it as a tarpit will help a product find ways to build more sustainable value.

The problem with “X but simpler”

There are plenty of truisms about simplicity, but taking too many lessons from them is risky. Stealing a phrase from Sandi Metz, simplicity is the wrong abstraction. Here’s why:

1. Simple products are cheap

LLMs have made it easier than ever to develop a simpler version of every product. Anyone can vibe code their way to a working prototype in a weekend.²

This means any moat a simple product will have will quickly evaporate. There are plenty of copycats out there ready to eat your lunch by competing with you and charging less.

You see it in the indiehacker world all the time. Someone achieves success with a simple piece of software and multiple copycats pop up.

Which came first?

This also means big companies (where the $$$ is) can build a simple version of a product themselves too.

2. It’s a short term strategy

“X but simpler” is not a long term strategy, it’s a dead end.

Once you build out the simple use case, what are you supposed to do? Just leave it?

Even the simplest of products with users will get feature requests. If you don’t develop those features and the users mature, they will just go to the more mature “complicated” product. You have basically done all the hard work of attracting a user, getting them familiar with the product’s concept, but not capturing the lifetime value. Sowing without reaping.

The “complex” products you are basing yours on were once simple too. The complexity was added to address a variety of use cases, and eventually requirements like security, regulation, functionality. A good product often becomes what its customers want it to be, and when they have many customers, that means a lot of features.

3. It’s a worse business

Often what people are saying when they say “X but simpler” is actually “X but a worse business.”

One thing startups (or individuals) can do that big companies can’t is have no business model. They have the excuse that they need to get the product working before charging for it. They also don’t need to pay anyone if it’s something they are working on themselves.

This means a lot of work can go into a product before validating that it works as a business. When it comes to testing this, simple products are often in a tough spot:

1. They can’t charge more money for them than more expensive products. They’d need to be a better, differentiated product for that.

2. They can’t capture the larger customers. The advanced features larger, more valuable customers want might not exist in your product.

I feel like indiehackers and “business thought leaders” are largely to blame for this. These people might be known for the products they build, but actually make money from consulting, courses, or templates. For example, Marc Lou makes ~3% of this revenue from the products he’s built and 97% from a course and template.

4. Simple does not solve distribution

Simplicity is a hook, not a long-term distribution plan.

When you focus on simplicity, you are permanently anchoring yourself to the product you are a simpler version of. Your market becomes a small portion of their market. Eventually, you will run out of people who are simply interested in a simpler version of the existing product. You have not solved for distribution yourself.

This means you’ll always be competing with them. They will have:

• More margin and resources to use in their battle against you.

• More capacity to improve their product (including making certain parts, like onboarding, simpler).

Simple apps also have a harder time with retention. It might be easy to activate someone, but because you provide less value, it is trickier to keep them around. For example, there have been a massive number of Twitter clones relying on “simpler” to attract users, but the users they do attract haven’t stuck around. The simple hook is not enough to create the network effect needed.

What should you do instead?

As Sandi Metz says in The Wrong Abstraction, the “fastest way forward is back.” You need to reconsider why you chose simplicity in the first place, deeper thinking may reveal a better path.

I don’t have the secret method to “build a successful product,” but common alternatives include:

X but targeted

Stripe is payments for engineers. Canva is Photoshop but for social media peeps and casual designers rather than hardcore editors. Pitch is PowerPoint for startups. Substack is Mailchimp for writers. Signal is like Whatsapp with better security, same with ProtonMail vs Gmail.

At some point, all of these could be considered simpler versions of the companies they are competing with, but their main frame is as an alternative that targets a specific subset of users.

X but with a different business model

Often this means cheaper. When so many companies put pricing behind a “quick call,” being transparent with pricing is a breath of fresh air. When so many tools are built exclusively for enterprises, building for small businesses can gain a lot of traction.

PostHog, Supabase, Coolify, Netdata. Cal.com, and Hubspot are all examples of this. Products that already exist but with a completely different business model backing them.

X but opinionated

These products might be simpler, but the source of that simplicity comes from a careful understanding of the structure and purpose of a product.

Linear might be a “simpler” version of Jira but that’s built out of a deep understanding of user needs along with strong opinions on how to address those needs. It focuses on the functionality and corner cases high-performance product teams want.

Fey, Superhuman, Basecamp, and Hey are all examples of this. It might be better to think of them as “more elegant” products rather than simpler ones.

Simple is a false

None of these are as easy as simple, but this is my point. Bragging about the simplicity of a product often reveals that the creators don’t understand what makes it unique or different. Eventually, this leads to demands for complexity, poor business results, waning retention, and a lack of structure to deal with it.

Just like any other industry, the get rich quick scheme of building a simpler product isn’t as real as it seems.

---

1. “X but with AI” is sort of the same thing. Just adding AI does not mean your product will win. Everyone can and will “add AI” to their product. It needs to enable something new.

2. Although simplicity is bad in products, it’s good in software. Grug is right. Complexity in code is the enemy.