Not long after Google went goofy last Monday (although the issue, somewhat surprisingly, continued through the week), reader Shou'Shou brought my attention to the fact that Google has in fact made a recent move toward simplifying systems once again, removing the "Search the Web" feature from Gmail, to great hue and cry.

I use Gmail frequently myself but I have to admit I didn't even notice that the option was missing until it was pointed out to me. Perhaps Google needs to invest in better antivirus software! It's been suggested that the removal is related to several other new features which were implemented around the same time, so I suppose it's not really simplification of the sort I was referring to, but just one of those odd and inexplicable shufflings of features which happen frequently in Google-land.

But Shou'Shou also pointed out this incident to me, and it smacks of the same sort of disease of complication: one more thing to go wrong, in this case, a repetition of Google's SMS search returns which ran up the bills of users with pay-as-you-go texting plans. It develops that in both incidents the problem was not with core Google technology, but with reliance on third-party services the company uses. While some would point to this as an exculpation of Google's responsibility in the matter, to me, it helps prove my point: keeping simple systems, over which one has complete control, provides a more predictable, more valuable end-user experience. This isn't to excoriate companies which outsource certain functions, which I continue to believe can be a valuable and efficient way to do business, but simply to point out that it inevitably provides opportunities for things to go amiss which would not otherwise exist.

I doubt anyone at Google reads this blog, but I have to think there are those there who are introspective enough to consider this quandry, which is not unique to them but is something that every successful company which starts small and grows big will run into eventually. Sooner or later, someone (if not the founders) will start to suggest that continuing success rests in providing more, and more complex, features. There are certainly companies which have succeeded in doing this (Microsoft is the most obvious example) but I would submit that it is usually other factors which drive that success, not the addition of more cruft. The most obvious counter-example is probably 37Signals, but of course they are no Google.

So, anyway, I won't call it a rule, but I think it's generally good advice: keep it simple, concentrate on what you deliver that has the most value for your customers, and resist all calls to just "Add this one cool little thing, people will love it!" even if the people themselves demand it. "Search Web" button: good riddance!