With the tough economy and the subsequent end of development for several PIMs, I was reflecting a bit on what kind of business model would be needed for a sustainable ongoing-development tool. A couple of thoughts came to mind:

1) Most people on this forum are knowledgeable users of electronic tools to gather and manage information bits. The result of this is we invest time and money in getting our information into these tools, and over an extended period of use, the value of the information we store becomes considerable (at least to the information gatherer). So the end of the road for a tool we depend on can be a significant event in our lives.

2) Even though a tool may still function after development and support has ceased, we are conscious of the fact that continued use of the tool may lead to struggles to "save" the information later. The situation is somewhat akin to continuing to deposit money in a bank that is no longer in business.

3) Some tools provide capability to export data and can help address some of #2 above. But due to differences in schema and implementation, things such as relationships between elements rarely comes across cleanly, so we risk losing some of the context associated with our information.

4) In light of the above three points, I have personally come to feel that if I find a tool that meets a significant number of my needs (none are perfect), then it is in my best interest for there to be financial incentive for the developer to continue development and support.

5) Because of #4, I am personally willing to pay a reasonable amount to ensure ONGOING development and support of the tools I find useful.

6) With #5 in mind, is the typical "buy it and then own it" model for PIM software a viable business model? It seems to me that one of the problems inherent in this model is that it brings an upfront infusion of capital to invest in the product development, but as the number of units sold drops over time, does this not lead to a risk of there being insufficient incoming capital to sustain the developer's motivation to continue development? (see InfoSelect, and many others)

7) Charging for major upgrades at a discount seems to be a potential solution, as it provides incentive for the developer to continue work so that they may see another round of capital. But the risk here is that the developer may become disinterested in continuing development due to boredom, need for new challenges, etc (see ADM).

8) Software subscription models also seem to be an option, as they provide a comparatively steady revenue stream, and incentivize the developer to continue to make improvements or risk losing subscriptions. EverNote seems to be the best example of a subscription model that is working (for premium edition of EverNote). I also think EverNote offering a free more limited model is a nice way to be able to use the service and then determine if you want to be able to step up to higher usage.

9) What are the risks of small vs. large development teams? PPL is currently the poster child for how a small development effort can be nimble, responsive, and creative all at the same time. But those of us InfoQube fans are clearly placing our trust that he continues to maintain his level of effort and interest (not to mention our daily hope for his ongoing health!). By PPL doing the work himself, he insures low overhead and avoids layers of bureaucracy that could limit his creativity. I look at larger "PIMs" such as Outlook and am struck how significant limitations continue to exist in the product (e.g. why can't I create a folder in my inbox containing tasks AND emails???) despite their being legions of staff involved in the development effort.

10) In consideration of the above items, I reflect that I used to highly value PIM software that was "free", as I felt I was getting value for no cost. What I've since come to realize is that the value (to me) of the information I choose to keep and organize is significantly more than the relative cost of the tool I use (not news to any of the users of this forum). But I have also come to realize that the presence of a business model that ensures to stability of my data, revenue for the developer, and ongoing development/fixes is nearly as important to me as my data itself. A "free" PIM is (IMHO) an invitation for later disappointment when development and interested inevitably wanes. Anyone holding their breath for Chandler v4?

Both of my all-time favorite PIMs, Ecco Pro and Omea Pro are free, yet neither one has an active business model behind it today. I reflect now that I would be more than happy to pay all over again for either tool if I knew it would revive and sustain their development......

PIMfan

8) Software subscription models also seem
to be an option, as they provide a comparatively steady revenue stream, and
incentivize the developer to continue to make improvements

The possible downside with trying to get the developer to keep making improvements is that they may keep doing so. And you may end up with Microsoft Word.

What's a model that encourages getting the tool right (elegant and streamlined, so it doesn't get in the way of YOUR task)?

David Dunham wrote:

The possible downside with trying to get the developer to keep
making improvements is that they may keep doing so. And you may end up with Microsoft
Word.

And we've seen it happen all to many times. One new program I'm keeping a close eye on is CintaNotes (http://cintanotes.com/ a light-weight, plain-text notes manager that seems to be going in the right direction. It's still in beta, but I'm hopeful. One of the reasons is that the developer is being very careful about the features he adds, and encourages conversation in the user community when any new features are considered.

The developer has also taken the trouble to set out his design philosophy, which adds to my optimism, because it's full of common sense. I've taken the liberty of copying it from the CintaNotes forum and here it is:

"features should be organic, effective, discoverable and convenient".

"Organic" means that the feature shouldn't stick out of the program like an alien body. A non-organic feature IMO is the one that while coming in handy sometimes, still isn't really connected with the product's main goal and functionality. (Example of non-organic features: HTML authoring in MS Word, wave editing in Nero Burning ROM)

"Effective" means - should be lightweight and not hurt performance and memory footprint, or be optional to use.

"Discoverable" means - a new user should be able to discover that this feature exists without reading help.

"Convenient" means that a feature is easy to use correctly and hard to misuse, and that a significant number of users will use this feature on a regular basis."
--Alex, CintaNotes Developer

JohnK wrote:

And we've seen it happen all to many times.

That's "all too many times".

This must be the only forum in the webosphere where you can't edit your post after posting.

@ PIMfan: I agree with most of what you say; I am more than willing to pay for software as a service (which it is, if support and development continue) and I'm not refering to the webware model. Nowadays I am most reluctant to place my data in 'completely free' products and services, even ad-sponsored ones, Google being the sole exception, but even that only as backup. I am enamored with Evernote's business model, as well as its multidimensional approach (multiplatform, web client, autosync) and hope that others will adopt it.

@ David Dunham
I think that software usually shows early on whether it's going to become bloatware, if one can get some info on the developer's vision (see my comment to JohnK below). That said, development is inevitable, simpy because the IT environment constantly changes. Can you still use a DOS program, even if it's perfect? Especially for PIMs, one expects that they'll be able to grab (or preferably link to) content from an ever expanding range of sources. Yesterday it was documents and e-mails. Today it's web and RSS. Tomorrow it will be Google Waves and goodness knows what else.

@ JohnK
Thanks for the heads up on CintaNotes; I appreciate it very much when a developer shares their vision with the user community -and when they have a vision in the first place. Here's Neville Frank's, which attracted me to Surfulater a few years ago, and I'm very glad it did: http://blog.surfulater.com/2005/11/21/surfulater-under-the-hood-and-down-the-road/

Alexander

Very interesting topic. Thanks for bringing it up. Here are a few thoughts:

1. I think you're looking for stability in an environment that is simply inherently unstable. No business model ensures stability, as far as I can see, other than open source with a huge, devoted user base, perhaps. Take GrandView, the terrific DOS outliner that was owned by Symantec, a huge company. When Windows bowled over DOS applications, Symantec never committed to moving GV to Windows. ECCOPro was purchased by a stable company, NetManage, then promptly shut down. Countless small operations with strong applications have come and gone -- from ADM to HyperClip. As we all know, I could go on for a long time listing the ways in which all of us, in one way or another, have been burned by developers... which is not to say that in all cases the developers were unethical. Nothing can guarantee the continued development of an application that no longer has the support of its developer. Period.

2. The subscription model may seem promising, but to me that's even worse, because I do not trust that ANY developer will guarantee further development and support. Therefore, a subscription model puts you at greater risk, because once the developer shuts down, your subscription will expire and you're out of luck. I would NEVER buy into a subscription model, because that very danger lurks continually around the corner. I don't mind, and am even happy, to pay a reasonable fee when there is a significant upgrade or update.

3. For those reasons, I think the best approach is to pick that application you most enjoy working in, and which best suits your needs -- as long as the following are true:

a. You can get your data out reasonably (although, as you say, it will never be perfectly); and
b. You have at least a reasonable expectation that this isn't a fly-by-night operation.

4. As for paying for support, I'm sort of ambivalent. I can see why a developer of an application that costs $30 would not want to continually field support requests. On the other hand, a product that generates a significant stream of support requests may not have been well designed in the first place. These days, it seems to me, many if not most developers rely upon the user-base to provide support in their online forums. That seems a reasonable alternative to me, especially for small or one-man outfits.

The bottom line, for me, is that I fully expect to be moving data from one application to another. It's just the nature of the beast, especially when the hardware and the operating systems are not static, either. And, in a way, that fits into my need for CRIMPing.

Steve Z.

JohnK wrote:

And we've seen it happen all to many times. One new program I'm
keeping a close eye on is CintaNotes (http://cintanotes.com/ a light-weight,
plain-text notes manager that seems to be going in the right direction. It's still in
beta, but I'm hopeful. One of the reasons is that the developer is being very careful
about the features he adds, and encourages conversation in the user community when
any new features are considered.

I agree that Cinta Notes is worth watching. I first read about it last week on Manfred's blog, and have been using it at work. I've found that it behaves just as the developer claims it will in his roadmap. It feels like some sort of a hybrid of Zoot, Personal Knowbase, and Evernote... basically a stripped down clipper and note taker. Fast and efficient, so far, with only a minimal amount of data.

Steve Z.

This is a great thread. Personally, I'm not comfortable paying annually for software because it reduces the incentive for the developer to improve it. (I think Word is a false example... the problem I have with Word is that it stagnated for so long, without any real new features, just surface changes. e.g. We have to wait until 2010 to get ligatures? Seriously, it took nearly two decades of development to finally add that? I have the same beef with OneNote. Could be a solid product with a little fundamental work, but it's just not moving forward in areas that matter, and the 2010 beta is no better. As another poster mentioned, Outlook is another classic example.)

Tools that work with open file formats are the safest way to go, IMHO.

-- Chris

Chris Thompson wrote:

Tools
that work with open file formats are the safest way to go, IMHO.

That may well be true for, say, a word processor. But for PIMs, it is unavoidable that developers will have to use some form of database engine (certainly for any PIM that claims to be scalable to any serious degree).

As I understand it, if a PIM uses a common database engine (say SQL), then you would be able to use a variety of database readers to examine/extract your data. So in theory, your data would never be trapped in the database, even if you no longer possessed the PIM, or the PIM had no export options.

In the real world, however, most users, including the fairly knowledgeable crowd gathered in this forum, are not going to go hunting down specialised tools to extract data from databases. I think Steve Z's practical approach is the only one to take -- to expect that, over time, you may have no alternative but to move data from program to program. As Steve points out, this means that one of the vital features in any PIM is the array of export options available. Thankfully, these days, many developers seem to appreciate that fact.

I also agree with Steve Zeoli that you will always have to think about how to move your stuff from the application you use now to the one you will be using in a few years. Even if your hope is that the application you are using now will be the one that you will use until you die, it's smart to keep your options open.

One of the principles I observe with regard to data and pim-like applications is: "easy in, easy out." And at the moment text (Including CVS) and HTML (possibly XML) seem to be the best bet at this time.

"More complicated" usually is worse.

Manfred

P.S.: I also find that the relationship with the developer(s) must be based on trust. I still remember how betrayed I felt when the people who developed ECCO just sold it to Netmanage, who promptly let it die. I still wonder what would have become of the program, if they had no sold out to be people who did not care about the product nor about the customers who bought it.

It's not that I don't understand that "the economy of a PIM" is important, it's just that, "if that's all there is, then let's keep dancing ...," i.e. move on. I hope this doesn't sound too naive.

A few others issues to ponder. Over the years it has become easier and cheaper for most anyone to dabble in writing software. Many developers produce a product with little to no forethought about how they will market and sell it. They think that all they need do is write it, set up a web site and the money will come rolling in. Add to this free open source software and you have so many products available that the companies who are serious professional development companies have an ever increasingly difficult time selling their products and thus sustaining a viable business.

Further the free open source software movement devalues the work we do and creates an expectation that all software should be free or is overpriced. And because software is just some bits of a data on disk it doesn't have a tangible value to many people, who are happy to pirate it. Most people have absolutely no idea long it takes to produce a "good" software product and the associated costs. To run a business these costs must be recovered.

It is very difficult to build a business selling $30 software unless it is mass market or you have a range of products to sell. One support request and their goes any profit.

An annual renewal or upgrade plan can be very effective. People will not renew unless new and useful versions are released, so it is clearly in the developers best interests to continue developing the product. But feature bloat and adding features just so new versions can be released does not server anyone well.

Our customers can assist us and help our businesses to prosper by acting us marketing agents for us. For example recommending products to friends, posting on blogs and forums and generally becoming our advocates,

PS. An earlier post here struck me re. the inability to edit posts. It is difficult to have any expectations of the site owner as he is providing a free service. And free has little value. If the forums users donated funds or payed an annual subscription then an off-the-shelf commercial forum package could be used.

Neville, I'm glad to see you join the discussion.

Your own product, Surfulater, has developed very well over the years. I am using it as my main web capture software because it does the most accurate job of page capture, as well as having additional metadata capabilities.

I have, in fact, many times mentioned Surfulater on Twitter. My hope is that some of that has turned into good business for you.

I have two major requests, which if granted, would made Surfulater perfect for me.

The first is whether it is possible to add a feature that allows more than one article to be open at the same. My purpose in clipping is primarily to support my writing - it helps to sometimes have two or more articles opened up, and to be writing in yet another window.

The second request is to develop the ability to connect with browsers other than IE and FF.

Ideally, it would be nice to have a universal capture mechanism that would work with all programs so that, say, I could clip as easily from a wp or presentation program as I do from FF.

In any event, thanks for first rate software. I do appreciate your work and generosity of spirit.

Daly

Daly de Gagne wrote:

Neville, I'm glad to see you join the discussion.

I have two
major requests, which if granted, would made Surfulater perfect for me.

The first
is whether it is possible to add a feature that allows more than one article to be open at
the same. My purpose in clipping is primarily to support my writing - it helps to
sometimes have two or more articles opened up, and to be writing in yet another
window.

You can view multiple articles in the same folder using Ctrl+Click to select them.Similarly Shift+Click or Shift+Down Arrow selects a group of articles. ie. Standard Windows UI. And of course selecting a folder displays all of its articles.

The second request is to develop the ability to connect with browsers other
than IE and FF.

Ideally, it would be nice to have a universal capture mechanism that
would work with all programs so that, say, I could clip as easily from a wp or
presentation program as I do from FF.

Surfulater's Clipboard Hotkeys let you capture content from any Windows Application. See the Help Topic: The Basics|Creating New Articles from the Clipboard for more information.

I feel that the best place for these discussions is on the Surfulater support forums: http://www.softasitgets.com/forums

In any event, thanks for first rate software. I
do appreciate your work and generosity of spirit.

Thanks.

1. Neville is correct: PIMs are dirt cheap now. They once cost $100s or more

2. He's also right about programming time. One thinks one has been at a keyboard for 20 minutes and finds it's been hours.

3. I'm glad to learn of the Surfulater advances. I tried it when it was first introduced, but decided to stick with myBase, partly because I had so much info already stored in it...1.21 GB now.

-c