Point 11 can be difficult because that is precisely what many are and did do but what Evernote and Surfulator (my apologies I know you hate that spelling but I gave my explanation in the previous thread for why) market and position as something you do not require in doing.
The question is not why not but whether Neville will see profit in doing this when Pocket is a more well known service than Thinkery.me
These do not have desktop equivalents so I hope you do not see this as a direct overall comparison to Surfulator but more as a way for you to realize that what you are talking about has happened and it has not only failed but Neville's current development, as most current software development process, simply do not work on a genie mentality nor even an agile mentality but on a tracker mentality.
Quick links:https://getpocket.com/http://thinkery.me/(As you can see above, thinkery.me is even superior at providing a free no registration demo but Pocket is highly advertised even outside of the blogging community.)
Beyond these, you can also check out these two Firefox add-ons:
https://addons.mozil...ddon/scrapbook-plus/https://addons.mozil...x/addon/grabmybooks/They exist. They are praised by people who try them.
The problem is what product developers end up failing to realize: You need marketers for people to
care more for your products
against the competition and in favor of both the customers and the devs themselves regardless whether they realize it or not.In the heyday of free software this simply meant "you need to share more to the public for them to them realize that the capability exists and they want that capability hence they want not only that software but they want to be receivers in feeling they own a piece of one of a kind software that only a few others know and benefit from".
Unfortunately that's how the software providing industry has been trapped since then.
While Evercrap as you say is smart at marketing and partnering with others, every other software developers try to ride on the coat tails on the desktop...then later the cloud...then later the tablet market.
Even those who do marketing, ride on the coat tails first of blog...then on fad blog words...then on scam site blog concepts like product launches...then on...nothing. Just more Facebooks, just more tweets, just more content marketing, just more inferior stuff to Evercrap while Evercrap improves by partnering and being able to ride on the coat tails of moleskine, Samsung Galaxy Notes, printers, bloggers, etc.
It may seem like I'm jumping off-topic but this has been the great dilemma marketers have in delivering marketing. It's simply easier to trick customers and clients than it is to tell customers...what you have is in this name and not in that name.
It's also easier to tell a dev, I want this feature rather than for the dev to say...I want to hire a system or a person that will open up this feedback and not just present this as a list of features or be the person that makes my decision for me but I want something who can transform and make me not only want to do this..but make the customer feel as if I've offered something that is not only exactly what they want but even better than they want.
That's the first part of the overall reason why it's not done this way but the second part is that most individual skilled devs with their own businesses simply do not realize how much spec writing management works
for the sequel of the software including software updates but also how much they can boost their customer base if they price and sell and cliche-market tactic their pitch not at the product but at the SCRUM-based spec development stage of their pitch.
Quick link:http://programmers.s...ing-management#40538I do want to add an important disclaimer though: I am not a marketer nor am I a coder nor am I passing down expert knowledge.
I am not saying I can do better than developers, I am simply saying developers tend to not want to do better than Evercrap developers when they can be far superior. Developers are developers often because they simply want to develop and treat everything else as second class citizens especially when they can already profit well from a software and especially when they already can satisfy their needs from the default software and are simply improving the model as an upgrade.
The truth is, they simply do not care for the concept except if you can prove to them that you are a gazillionaire who would pay them this amount of money if you prioritize this feature while they let all the other stuff like sales, website design, etc. flow towards someone else who's a better sales person than the dev.
This creates two negative blockade for following through with your point:
1) That people are raised to believe the fluffiest part of marketing and so they create a self-fulfilling magnifying lens on not only giving more due respect to the fluffy trend competitor but in cases where they slow down and claim to do the right and slow aspect of marketing: they simply connect the finished product's features with the accounting aspect of marketing which is it's weakest part and something that accountants or even number crunchers can do so long as a product is great and functioning already which of course, in the hands of a great developer, guarantees that the customer will want the product and all the marketing aspect has to do is to do the sale aspect and then the sale numbers self-fulfill the direction the dev want in the form of the customers that have come forth which as it goes on over time, will be the sounds the dev hears most rather than the wider unheard of opportunities being provided by the free software that also gain some ramblings but due to a missing part or a lack of speed in updating could not yet gain a much larger piece of the pie to be a notable competitor.
2) The second blockade is that even with a constantly replying dev like Neville, you create a negative customer base who upon being slighted by other products view Neville's transparent attitude as a godsend and not a base requirement.
This is good for the product both short and mid term and even long term provided the profits keep coming in but for the long term, it does not build a slope towards the concept but builds a concept towards the sale. When things build up towards that paradigm, feedback go through a natural process of being more about customer service and dev listening rather than concept manufacturing.
What happens then become a case of eating one's own tail where the exemptions who get this point excel and through their success stories, the idea then becomes some form of elite marketing rather than regular marketing. With this comes the changed baseline that accomodates not only the inferior marketing but the inferior success of the inferior products. (or the superior but more heartless products)
When you add that certain people just do not get the concept of the internet much less the structure behind webpages to begin with, something like "why does Dropbox succeed over their competitor" which can be obvious to both a dev and a non-dev becomes this sort of secret recipe to both groups as opposed to being a clear observation of how they simply focused on delivering a concept rather than delivering a feature and that concept is what keeps them ahead in not just delivering and marketing the same features but also what keeps them ahead in pricing their services the way they do due to exclusivity.
It's not even a concept that started with marketing. It's a concept that goes back to why competition is good for improving things. When a person is way ahead in the race, they can slow down and even score a few extra naps or in this case bucks. When a race is close, the temptation differs from sales to getting ahead.
The only difference with software development is that, first, devs do not like to compete in concept development. Their race is found in delivering the most unique features or the most useful features rather than building the Porsche of programs.
Add the complexity of software development along with the base tutorial necessity for getting a software off as a beginner (the whole start small or abuse plugins and don't reinvent the wheel thing) then even those who work on a Porsche and finish it don't focus on a Porsche. They tend to focus on the theme of the software which is why it leads to an EverCrap.
Since the line has been moved to accompany this lesser expectations and since the line for successful reception has been raised due to the rapid rise of technology, it's no surprise why software ends up getting ahead but why software ends up getting ahead through the formation of EverCrap rather than the formation of delivering more "truer to the heart" concepts.
This is even further compounded by the fact that for software, simplicity is good. If simplicity is good then what incentive does a developer have of working towards usability if good usability can simply be offering their customers the latest in technological fads such as tags, GTD specializing needs, web clipping with buttons for sharing, clones of common cloud style interface toolbars. Even devs who want to buck the trend don't fully realize their own irrationality on these concepts such as first hating on the Ribbon and then later not just liking but advertising the Ribbon through word of mouth while, thinking inside, they're just sharing their view point.
It's so easy so
why would they care about the concept at all esp. if it's not their concept but your concept?.
Again, it's not just why would they care that they would lose a buyer but rather why would they care if you buy the software that you are offering concepts on anyway?
People hated Vista, a name and skin change later with some predictable maintence: Even smart techies don't just do not hate Vista anymore but
they love Windows 7. You're a dinosaur for sticking to WinXP.
This is not to say all devs think like a huge corporation like Microsoft but all devs have this in the back of their mind whenever their upgrading features on a software and whenever they are marketing their software. It's just too easy to fall into.
You're not a developer or not a good enough developer to prove their profitable idea wrong so to you the concept seems why not, to them the concept seems like a huge time sink when what they are selling is a web clipper.
...and mind you: I, myself or you, yourself won't view these concepts as why not once you have to actually implement the feature. It's easy for you to type PIM and even if we say it's easy for them to vomit a PIM at a thought's notice, what interface do you like? What do you yourself actually want to have and are willing to waste years of life of your own time to create?
Again, this is not pity the developer. This is experience the pain of the developer.
When you can experience it,
point 12 is not only not as applicable from a manufacturer's mindset but it weighs on you hour after hour until it no longer becomes notable. You're no longer thinking AHK macro, you're thinking how do these dumps
interpret itself into the concept and as you grow more tired, you stop thinking of it anymore and the feature becomes more of a simple plug-in dump. You say it's so easy to do with AHK, AHK it.
Problem is this is where the heart of the developer is more important than the heart of the remarker. This is the meta of why customers tend to be wrong and are not meant to be listened to.
Nowadays popular web articles just like to excuse that customers who become complainers are poor metrics because the ones who like the product tend to be silent until a problem rises up but in truth it does not matter.
The problem is that even those devs who can empathize with the actual dev tend to throw remarks and with the ease of online communication, remarks can seem more profound than they truly are.
In the first bridge, you might not be listened to because the developer might view your suggestion as a remark rather than a suggestion however in the second stage, it is more often the one suggesting i.e. your AHK example that is least interested in improving the concept and more interested in remarking on a feature cause you just want it released where as the devs don't want it to be this way or else they would have simply allowed a plugin to do this.
This is the paradox of point 13 and it's often why over time internal and online feedback tend to fall apart.
You started with wanting to improve the concept, you ended up with resetting the concept.
It's not so bad now because it's just a post but days and weeks and stress passes by and you won't even have much want for delivering the concept. You just want to deliver some feature, and then if that fails, reset the feature to an inferior form and then when that fails point 13 is not even concerned about chapter I.
It does not matter if you didn't even intend for them to be connected but rather the issue is that there's only one software but you want this one software to have 3-4 different stories and yet you want it to stay consistent to all those stories. If you have to actually develop these 3-4 different stories, that's when point 13 starts to connect to chapter I and hurt both because the inconsistency of point 13 to chapter I's goals ends up morphing point 13 into a virus against chapter I even if they are not meant to deal with the same subjects. Again, because there's only one software.
As you are not yet being broken down by the demands of the hourly development stage, it's easy to make
point 14 seem like a reasonable conclusion when now you are essentially sending the message that Surfulator's task is not even supposed to build upon Surfulator's previous mechanic but instead let's just randomly add all these different dynamics without specifying them.
By specifying them, I meant narrowing them in a site and a certain direct feature so that the developer no longer has to think about what you mean and he can compare this with what others want because right now, even as a code ignorant person, I understand where you're getting at but I'm also reading "screw my needs, just follow your needs".
It's not wrong in that everyone thinks like that, it just does not scale to the concept. You are essentially writing a long post where you think you are saying you are concerned for the concept but when it's time to develop the concept, it all reads...you want people to follow only your feature.
This is not to say you are being rude but for a person who knows how to code and understands AHK, you are offering a dev ignorant suggestion with some merit when from the tone and effort of your post, what you wanted is to offer a suggestion full of merit through your own knowledge of development.
This is also not to say Neville won't consider your suggestion but the question is, will he consider the dilemma of others who hold the same suggestion as you do but do not want the process to be the same as you do?This also does not mean Neville can provide exactly what would convince you to acquire and support the product for eternity even as it increased in price simply because you're offering a mock-up problem without a mock-up so even the button and the hotkey is essentially guesswork unless you happen to also be working in Neville's business or you had sex with him and he wants to solely develop your needs without considering the needs of others...including what specific color you want Surfulator to look by default.
Point 15 is the same as point 14 only you are essentially saying Surfulator is a bad product and users who think Surfulator is a good product should not be convinced that Surfulator is a good product cause the products belong only in a specific workflow when in fact it's the opposite.
Other clippers like Evernote belong in a specific workflow because I just can't be sure it clips the web well but it still creates some copy that is essentially a bastardized save as mhtml plus auto-Dropbox.
Surfulator just clips. You'll be surprised how many people secretly just want that including you.
Unfortunately these programs don't quite just clip so we have these gamut of concepts being thrown.
This is not so much a problem as it is a non-sequitur and a sadly timed one as no one wants to read your post only to get this near the end.
IMO you're better off deleting it.
Data storage is data storage and cloud is the cloud and the thread title is "
On (not off) applications going cloud and
on (not off) data storage going cloud.
I don't mean this in any antagonist way despite the way it sounds. Simply that you can't be anti-the concept if you are for the concept. It would actually keep you from presenting your concept.
As a horrible communicator, believe me it can be tough to know the difference.
It's like offering everything you think you can to a reader and the thing that the readers can see is that it has no pictures and it's too long before they go jumping jack on what you say.
It's tough not only because you have a hard time knowing it but sometimes even if you know and did provide the difference, you find out that by adding images, not only do people sometimes feel you have to add something else now besides that but you recreate your message into something that's less than what you intended to write.
In this case the problem is that it's holding you back from presenting your case.
Point 15 has substance and it's substance is built from the previous points but by being weighed down by who's an academic and who's not an academic and which entity is which and which entity want which, you fixed your own concept from growing.
People who have read your post at this point don't want to read of course. If it's of course to you then it's of course to them at this point. They want your opinion
on data storage and applications going cloud. Save point 15-point 20 for a thread or a section called The Dark Side of Desktop Web Clippers going Cloud. The reader still have not gotten at the center of your previous points nor your entire thread. Give them that. Unleash the content if you are going to write this much.
Show Posts
: