> Software may have been better back in the day, but that was mainly because it was much simpler. ... The bar for “user experience” has kept rising, but everything has become increasingly fragile.

It was simpler, better, more stable, _and_ had better UX.

Complexity does not equal quality. In fact, it usually points to poor design. Programs used to be seen as utilities, which enabled the same kind of mentality you have to any specialised machinery: "Here's a thing that can make your life easier. Learn how to use it". Now programs try to be all-singing-all-dancing-all-the-time-changing.

▲

pier25 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> It was simpler, better, more stable, _and_ had better UX.

It had less features too.

Now, I do agree doing more doesn't mean that something is necessarily better... but I think the UX difficulty increases exponentially as more features are added.

	▲	ghusto 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Absolutely, and in my opinion it's a mistake to keep adding features. My word processor in the 90s did one thing, and it was fine. In fact, there's a niche crowd trying to re-create that experience right now (distraction-free "writerdecks"). All software used to be like that, and I for one was a lot happier with the situation.