Forum Posts Feed
Meta trends - what have we learned?
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Dec 25, 2013 at 08:18 PM
Just over 5 years ago I wrote a brief ‘wishlist’ of features for my information management tools: http://www.outlinersoftware.com/messages/viewm/4514
Quite surprisingly (for me), the debate continues, even though I believe that the points I then identified are now confirmed trends.
There’s more of course: interoperability has shifted to the web domain, with ecosystems of applications now growing around Evernote and Google Apps just as they once grew around Outlook. Computer use is still expanding and, as a result, programmes are becoming more ‘intuitive’, often at the expense of capability; I consider the trend towards mobile apps in this context, simply because I consider smartphones and tablets computers. Everything is becoming ‘social’, everything should be ‘shareable’, at the same time that privacy concerns are growing.
Last but not least, a growing number of users—be it age- or culture-related, or both—expect their tools to be offered for free. I wrote elsewhere about this so I will not elaborate further here. But is it any wonder that most independent developers are not prepared to take major risks, by investing in innovative, powerful and—consecutively—complex applications?
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Dec 25, 2013 at 10:44 PM
This is the first thing that occurred to me, too. Can you imagine a programer undertaking the development of an application like Tinderbox today? Tbx is a multi-dimensional tool that runs on one platform. The trend is to make focused (i.e. limited) apps that run on multiple platforms.
Steve Z.
Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
>Last but not least, a growing number of users—be it age- or
>culture-related, or both—expect their tools to be offered for free. I
>wrote elsewhere about this so I will not elaborate further here. But is
>it any wonder that most independent developers are not prepared to take
>major risks, by investing in innovative, powerful
>and—consecutively—complex applications?
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Dec 26, 2013 at 08:30 AM
jimspoon wrote:
>So it seems like there’s a been shift from
>developing of programs for desktop os, to development of webapps and
>apps for mobile os. As Dr. Andus indicated this shift has involved some
>dumbing down. I suppose as mobile and web platforms become more
>powerful and sophisticated, we can expect to see more sophisticated
>outliner / pim / notetaking apps for these platforms.
I don’t think that the lack of sophistication of software has to do with the lack of power in platforms, at least in respect to the web. One can do anything on the web; at the end of the day, they are client-server applications, with server platforms being much more powerful and sophisticated than their desktop counterparts.
I really think that the issue here is the business model. Privately developed applications are becoming more ‘dumbed down’ because their owners/developers can’t afford the risk of making them more sophisticated, whereas those who have the means invest in what they believe can become mainstream.
Steve Z. provided the excellent example of Tinderbox. I would add Zoot: consider its sophistication (it’s actually many applications in one), greatly due to the connectivity expected in the contemporary context; I can only sympathise with Tom Davis.
Posted by jimspoon
Dec 26, 2013 at 07:09 PM
good points Alexander.
I’d like to formulate some good thoughts about it right now but the brain isn’t cooperating.
But I will throw in one thing that interest me - look at the prices of mobile apps. $0.99, $1.99, $2.99, $4.99 etc. I guess simplictiy of the apps = low development costs, and with high volume the development of such apps can still be profitable.
I guess for complex desktop programs, the volume is relatively low, and the development can only be profitable if a much higher price is charged. Still, it does make me wonder if developers of complex desktop programs would actually maximize their profits by offering them at much lower prices that would stimulate greater demand.
Posted by Franz Grieser
Dec 26, 2013 at 10:35 PM
jimspoon wrote:
>...
>I guess for complex desktop programs, the volume is relatively low, and
>the development can only be profitable if a much higher price is
>charged. Still, it does make me wonder if developers of complex desktop
>programs would actually maximize their profits by offering them at much
>lower prices that would stimulate greater demand.
Hm. I’d say the tools we discuss here are niche products. Though almost all of the readers of one of my newsletters (covering Microsoft Outlook) have a licence for OneNote, only a small percentage actually uses the software; they do not even use the notes feature in Outlook. A number of journalists and writers I know use Evernote for collecting notes - it’s free and multiplatform, and all they know. But beyond these information workers: the big void.
There simply is not a mass market you could address by offering complex applications at a cheaper price.