Be small, but not cheap

I evaluated few applications today, specifically e-signature applications that allow you to sign documents digitally. Out of 4 applications, I found two were well-established payers, and the other was new enterers hoping to capture a share of the market. They started their product journey in the well-contested market with better UX and fewer features and sharper focus, but one of them was slow and had visible lag moving between pages. I liked the application as it was well crafted, had only essential features required to do the job with cleaner UI — but it was making me wait to move between pages and it was evident that in terms of infrastructure, the application wasn’t placed well. The much I liked its niftiness, the much I disliked its sluggish server, leaving it out of my short list.

You can be small, but not cheap.

If you were a singer who is stepping into the music industry for the very first time, you can begin your journey by singing a small song, or with few verses with ok music — but what you cannot reduce is the quality of your medium. You cannot afford to use a cheaper mic, or cheaper recording mechanism and still be successful. You can be successful being small, but you cannot be successful being cheap.

Now If you are a startup, it’s OK to be small at the feature set, its OK to build only what is minimally necessary and you can be successful still — but you cannot be successful by producing a full-stack of features but through the medium which is second in line.

If you are short of cash, or time and want to save money somewhere, let it be on your features and not infrastructure. Your message may be small, but your medium of the message got to meet expectations.