^ Totally agreed. I think people freaked out at the online bit, the interface, or one of the many changes, and didn't take the time to evaluate the product as an evolution rather than an incremental change so missed out.
Seems to me "the online bit" doesn't quite do it justice. I think it's one of the issues over which Holy War will be fought in computing, like vi vs emacs, perl vs everything else that begins with a 'p', or Total Commander vs Directory Opus
Quite seriously though, the more important a piece of data is, the less likely I am to put it online, at the mercy of a company that may disappear or be sold overnight. I don't care if it's Evernote or Google. Not to mention the time lag and the usual horrid interfaces (not that I have even seen the online edition of Evernote). I use Gmail and I like it, but I only use it for mailing lists and as a backup when traveling.
When a company is sold or goes into receivership, is the user data counted as an asset, and does it participate in setting the price/value of the business? I'm afraid the answer is yes it is and yes it does - but if so, than the data isn't really ours. It belongs to the company.
I don't have a particular gripe with Evernote - and if the primary storage is local, then all is dandy
. I'm saying this only for the benefit of any hypothetical developers that might stumble upon this thread, so that they would consider how many customers they are apt to lose if they choose this path. Perhaps the gains will be greater than the losses, but a fair warning: try to make me put my private parts and pieces online, and, in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert, you are Dead To Me.
(Okay, so I've been burned. Hotmail once erased three weeks' worth of email from / to my fiancee - and I had to use Hotmail because nothing else was allowed across the firewall at a company I was working for abroad. I should have sued BilG for emotional distress and deprivation.)