A few months ago, I started producing music on my MacBook. I’m using Logic Pro from Apple for this. This it what it looks like:

I’m not sure how you feel when looking at this screenshot, but when I first opened it, I felt kinda overwhelmed. There are so many buttons and options that it’s hard to find your way around, let alone actually create something.

If you have a song or melody in your head, you feel blocked from bringing it to life. I imagine this is what it must be like being a toddler who knows exactly what it wants but doesn’t yet have the skills to make it happen on their own. The toddler, however, has an advantage: they just have to scream long enough until someone helps them.

When it comes to using software to solve a problem or turn a vision into reality though, screaming usually isn’t very effective. Instead, we have a few options:

• Give up: This is probably what a large portion of users do: they panic, close the program, and never come back. A shame, really.

• Find answers yourself: You could dig through long help articles, watch tutorial videos, or ask ChatGPT to learn the basics. But that takes time, and the constant interruptions can kill your flow, causing you to lose sight of your original goal and draining your inspiration.

• Use alternative software: You could start with a simpler program that's easier to understand. In my case, that would be GarageBand (Logic Pro’s little sibling) – with a much simpler UI, a clearer structure, and fewer features. That way, you can dive right in and actually turn your ideas into reality.

Of all these options, the third is probably the most efficient in most cases. But it comes with its own trade-offs: While it’s totally fine to start with a simpler tool (and often even good for creativity), sometimes you need certain features that the simpler program just doesn’t offer. So you end up making compromises and accepting that the final result might not be exactly what you envisioned. Not great. Also, I’d prefer to learn one program properly and stick with it. Switching later is harder once you’re already invested. So ideally, I’d rather start with the "right" program from the beginning.

This leaves us stuck in a dilemma: Do you choose a tool that’s powerful but overwhelming (and risk not reaching your goal)? Or a tool that’s easy to use but limited (and risk not reaching your goal)?

From this dilemma, two questions came to mind and stuck:

1. Do software companies recognize this problem, and how do they address it?

2. What would an ideal solution look like?

how companies currently solve it (and why thats not really solving it)

We already know that Apple has recognized the problem of complex software, which is why they offer simpler versions of their products (Logic Pro → GarageBand; Final Cut Pro → iMovie).

But what about SaaS companies? This problem doesn’t just exist with Apple software – it’s especially common with other (non-Apple) software too.

The answer is: yes, companies do recognize the problem. And they try to solve it. But their solutions aren’t ideal, as they are mainly relying on what current user onboarding tools are offering them: product tours and help articles.

To explain why this approach isn’t optimal, imagine a desk in front of you. On this desk are all sorts of documents and materials. A few are relevant to you right now, but most are not (yet).

While you're just starting to look around, trying to get a feel for where everything is, someone suddenly rushes into your office, uninvited. They start sticking Post-it notes onto various items, briefly explaining what each item is for, peeling the Post-it off again, and then moving onto the next item – and then they leave.

No matter what your goal was, this approach doesn’t really help you move forward.

Scenario 1
You have a specific task you want to accomplish (you came to the desk with a purpose). You’re focused, in your flow, and suddenly you’re interrupted by someone bombarding you with information you didn’t ask for, completely pulling you out of your workflow.

Scenario 2
You don’t have a specific task yet; you're just trying to familiarize yourself with the workspace. You’re sifting through the documents, trying to figure out what’s important and what isn’t, while at the same time giving your best to remember where everything is. And just when you're already overwhelmed, you're bombarded with even more information that you’re now expected to quickly absorb and also remember. Instead of helping, it just adds to your confusion.

In both cases, it’s not unlikely that you’d just get up and leave.

In a weird way, the whole Post-it note scenario is pretty similar to how product tours work. And yet, so many companies keep relying on them. (I have a few theories as to why, but that’s a topic for another blog post.)

what a good solution should look like (aka what I have in mind)

Now to the second question: What would a better kind of user onboarding actually look like?

Let’s put ourselves back in the seat of the person sitting at the desk. This time, instead of having all possible documents and materials scattered across the desk, both relevant and irrelevant, you only see the documents and materials that are essential to help you get the basic (=most) work done.

The other documents aren’t gone – they’re simply kept out of sight until they become relevant.

As we’ve seen, Apple already does this right in a way: For beginners, they offer simplified versions of their professional software where the non-essential features are removed from the workspace. (The downside here is that you can’t ever access advanced features. You’re stuck with what's provided in the simplified version.)

But at its core, this approach points to the central philosophy for what a good solution should look like:

Simplifying helps users focus on what matters, without unnecessary distractions. People often think they need to add more to make a product better. But true clarity comes from reducing, not adding.

To achieve this, I tried to make the first version of my solution (which you can try here) do a few things:

• Offer reliable data: The tool should give you the data to confidently make the distinction between which features are essential and which are not, so that only the non-essential elements are hidden at first.

• Remove clutter: The tool should allow non-essential features to be hidden at first (without removing them from the software altogether). This keeps things clean and simple for new users, without forcing anyone to give up functionality in the long run.

• Be usable by non-techies: Product managers, growth managers, and customer support teams should be able to define and manage features, without needing to involve developers for every little change. The tool should act as a central feature management system, with a visual interface where features are modular, easy to define, and simple to control.

• Personalize: Different users need different features. The tool should be able to display relevant features based on individual user behavior and/or user roles.

• Offer a fallback: Users should always know that they have full access to all features if they want. Even if the initial interface is clean and simple, the richness of the full feature set should be made clear from the start.

Ideally, this system should work across desktop, web, and mobile apps. However, I decided to focus the first version specifically on web-based SaaS applications – with plans to expand this later.

the opportunity (why I think this is worth doing)

Beyond the obvious reason that I would love to see software become more intuitive, I believe there’s also a fairly large untapped business opportunity here:

SaaS companies deploy tons of money and brain power to getting new users to sign up. These users usually have a problem or a goal they want to achieve. So they sign up in the hope that this software, more than some other software, will get them there.

And yet, a large percentage of these user try it once and never return. (The median activation rate for SaaS products is reported to be ~30%, obviously depending on the product type.)

If you compare the parts of the funnel that come before and after the signup, it’s generally the part after the sign-up that is under-optimized – and that's where the opportunity lies.

Imagine a company increasing its activation rate from 15% to 30%. I’d argue that’s doable. But now look at the business impact. This change would mean that twice as many people will be using the product long-term. And twice as many long-term users means twice as much revenue.

Even if your company already has a decent activation rate, small improvements can have a massive positive impact on revenue.

It’s hard to think of any other single action that can so directly increase revenue, while at the same time being low-risk and low-effort. (Besides raising prices, maybe…)