Forum Posts Feed
SheetPlanner website is live
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Pages: ‹ First < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Posted by Franz Grieser
Jul 22, 2018 at 03:34 PM
SheetPlanner wrote:
>The planned release cadence is 1.0, 1.1, 1,2, Pro version followed by
>iOS standard and Pro versions.
>It will take about a year before we start work on iOS versions however
>about 50% of the the code will be portable…..
>Thanks,
>Peter
Sounds like a realistic roadmap. Though I’d prefer a Windows version over the iOS app :-D
Are you prepared to reveal what vs. 1.1, 1.2 and the Pro edition will bring with regard to features?
Posted by NickG
Jul 22, 2018 at 04:03 PM
I don’t think we should underestimate the drag on developer resources that comes from Apple’s annual OS update cycle. Every year, some part of the resource pool has to be devoted to analysing the changes and ensuring compatibility. It’s probably more of an issue for older apps, that might still have old code doing useful things, but it’s a cost to all devs really.
That said, Sheetplanner won’t suffer from the effects of age, but I think Peter is right to focus first on a successful Mac implementation before considering other platforms. As a well-fed Mac user, I am, of course, being completely objective about this :-)
Paul Korm wrote:
That’s a very good point. On the other hand, although I have no
>special depth of understanding of iOS development, I’ve observed that
>making an app work effectively on both macOS and iOS has completely
>changed the dynamic for several developers. It appears from outside
>that once DEVONthink to Go was released, it sucked the focus development
>company away from the desktop product—which pretty much ceased to
>evolve other than minor updates. When Agenda came out of iOS, new
>features stopped arriving for the desktop app. Even OmniGroup, which
>supposedly has a deeper bench than most, is unable to co-deliver on two
>platforms without a 6-12 month gap between. It took TheBrain almost 18
>months after the desktop beta began to even offer an initially-week test
>of their iOS app.
>
>So, though I would like to see SheetPlanner introduced everywhere
>quickly, I think Peter is making a reasonable decision in line with
>(unfortunate but real) best practices.
>
>Luhmann wrote:
>I’m happy to hear it, but my experience with apps that didn’t start with
>>iOS from the beginning has been very disappointing. I don’t understand
>>the technical issues but most apps have delayed planned release for
>>years, had to bring on additional developers, etc. So while I hope that
>>things go smoothly for you, my experience has taught me not to use an
>>app unless there is already a half-decent iOS app that syncs properly.
Posted by Luhmann
Jul 23, 2018 at 06:24 AM
Several people suggested that the desktop-first development strategy is realistic. I suppose a lot depends on whether the developer is doing this to make a living or just as a labor of love. If the latter, I wish them the best of luck. If it is a business, however, I’m not sure I understand. There are a couple of problems. First is that it is a heavily saturated market in which competitors already support multiple platforms. Why would anyone who already has a decent product that supports all their devices switch to something that didn’t? I suppose it is OK if you have enough users who spend all day and night in front of a desktop computer, but from the stats I see on websites I manage I know that most people are now visiting from mobile devices. What are these users supposed to do when they want to add some task away from their computer? Wait till they get home or to the office? Use another device? OK, so maybe it makes sense as a long-term plan. In two or three years there will be support for multiple devices and then the business will really take off because of all that time working on making sure that you have a really solid foundation on the desktop. Maybe, but (unless I’m wrong about this) you would have to manage with a really limited user base during that time, and by the time you are ready the competitors will already be releasing the next generation upgrades of their products. Even though I don’t use Things 3, I admit that it was a pretty amazing update from Things 2. What will Things 4 look like? The developer of 2Do (who supports 3 platforms on his own) is in the process of buying BusyCal, what will it look like when he’s finished integrating the two apps? So, to repeat what I said at the beginning. As a labor of love, and a playground to experiment with some really interesting ideas I think this is fantastic, but I really don’t see anything taking off without mobile from the very beginning…
Posted by Hugh
Jul 23, 2018 at 09:26 AM
OT:
Luhmann wrote:
>The
>developer of 2Do (who supports 3 platforms on his own) is in the process
>of buying BusyCal, what will it look like when he’s finished integrating
>the two apps?
I didn’t know that. Having recently switched to BusyCal and finding it better for my purposes than its competitors, I hope that it doesn’t get relegated to the back of the queue for development.
Posted by tightbeam
Jul 23, 2018 at 11:51 AM
Some good points here, though I’d substitute “Windows” for each instance of “mobile” or “iOS”. Last I looked, the iOS market was but a speck of the Windows market.
And I take exception to part of this:
> First is that it [the merry world of Mac] is a heavily saturated market in which competitors already support multiple platforms.
Most of the really good Mac outliner software does *not* support Windows. Why indeed develop yet more software (which does basically the same thing) for a “heavily saturated market” when the bone-dry, by comparison, Windows market looks pleadingly up from its supine position, arid tongue desperate for the merest drop of Ulysses or DevonThink or ...
Luhmann wrote:
Several people suggested that the desktop-first development strategy is
>realistic. I suppose a lot depends on whether the developer is doing
>this to make a living or just as a labor of love. If the latter, I wish
>them the best of luck. If it is a business, however, I’m not sure I
>understand. There are a couple of problems. First is that it is a
>heavily saturated market in which competitors already support multiple
>platforms. Why would anyone who already has a decent product that
>supports all their devices switch to something that didn’t? I suppose it
>is OK if you have enough users who spend all day and night in front of a
>desktop computer, but from the stats I see on websites I manage I know
>that most people are now visiting from mobile devices. What are these
>users supposed to do when they want to add some task away from their
>computer? Wait till they get home or to the office? Use another device?
>OK, so maybe it makes sense as a long-term plan. In two or three years
>there will be support for multiple devices and then the business will
>really take off because of all that time working on making sure that you
>have a really solid foundation on the desktop. Maybe, but (unless I’m
>wrong about this) you would have to manage with a really limited user
>base during that time, and by the time you are ready the competitors
>will already be releasing the next generation upgrades of their
>products. Even though I don’t use Things 3, I admit that it was a pretty
>amazing update from Things 2. What will Things 4 look like? The
>developer of 2Do (who supports 3 platforms on his own) is in the process
>of buying BusyCal, what will it look like when he’s finished integrating
>the two apps? So, to repeat what I said at the beginning. As a labor of
>love, and a playground to experiment with some really interesting ideas
>I think this is fantastic, but I really don’t see anything taking off
>without mobile from the very beginning…