Some software should be like a powertool, not a butler. It really depends on who you're developing for, I guess, but I can think of lots of software (e.g. Linux CLI tools, IDEs, CAD, etc) that should not treat the user like a pampered idiot.
I'm sometimes annoyed by programs who won't terminate when I ask them to. When I ask a program to quit, I mean it. I don't care if work is unsaved, I don't care what it is doing on my behalf, I want it dead.
The worst is when I reboot to install system updates. Then every program I have open feels perfectly entitled to whine that I don't want to browse web pages anymore or something and cancel my restart command.
It's fine to have a range of personalities for different software types, including power tools. Flickr comes across as a cheerleader in a language class - excited about meeting people from all over - and it works great for something fun like photos, as opposed to an accounting app.
That is a totally tangential idea. The point is to not get in the way of what your user wants to do. TFA says nothing about simplifying the feature set.
Also, do you really think all those who use butlers/maids/servants are idiots?
I try to take this approach as well. The minute you start thinking of "minor inconveniences" for the user, you already don't care about them. Your tip will be small.
This analogy has been explored in "The Inmates Are Running the Asylum" book by Alan Cooper. It's a good book, despite some deserved criticism ( http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1285436217.html ) it raised.
This makes me think of personal assistants. Has anyone tried Timothy Ferris' "life outsourcing" with a virtual personal assistant? Is it all it's cracked up to be?
