4 ms·

It seems that you could take any old-school internet tech, add some flashy GUI, slap "for enterprise" label and you get a great and popular solution that solves

by mr__y 7y ago

It seems that you could take any old-school internet tech, add some flashy GUI, slap "for enterprise" label and you get a great and popular solution that solves the problem noone ever could solve. Maybe it's time for gopher for enterprise

freehunter 7y ago
That's really what it comes down to. Email existed forever, but no one really liked it until Gmail made it flashy. Smartphones existed forever but no one really liked them until Apple/Google made them flashy. Search existed forever but no one really liked it until Google made it flashy. Hackers like to pretend that presentation doesn't matter, but in the end presentation is the only thing that matters.
- rocky1138 7y ago
  Sorry, you are wrong. This is pure revisionism. Blackberry was absolutely massive before the iPhone, email has always been the largest use of the internet (until media became possible), and Google search became successful because it actually worked, unlike everything available at the time. I do agree with your sentiment, though. To the user, the UI is the product.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    I owned several Windows Mobile phones, one Blackberry, and one Palm device before iPhone and Android came out. I know the history. They were not popular devices. Even just looking at Blackberry sales by themselves, sales of these devices pre-iPhone were absolutely insignificant [1]. Same thing with email. Hotmail/Yahoo/AOL pre-dated Gmail by quite a long time, but Gmail now owns something like 80% of all webmail traffic. I think your confusion might be where I said "these things existed but no one really liked them" maybe you read "these things didn't exist before"? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266240/global-revenue-of-rim-since-2004/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266240/global-revenue-of...
awj 7y ago
So, what you're saying is there's tons of technologies lying around that are a solid UI and some extra features away from being valuable to normal people. But somehow doing those things and making lots of money is bad?
- mr__y 7y ago
  No, of course not. Neither adding some minor extra features (that make a huge difference for the end-user) nor profiting from it is bad. My concern was that there is so much good tech that is not being utilized just because it lacks enterprisey look and marketing attention. Take slack as an example: ircd with logging enabled + elastic search/sphinx/lucene + web frontend (use any existing web irc client and integrate that with elastic search results). MVP really seems as a one guy one weekend project. And that was lying underutilized for decades. While my original comment was just a snarky remark, I really think that there are other areas where such a (relatively) simple MVP could allow huge productivity boost to many businesses and allow them to use an existing tool that right now is just too hard/too complicated to use by a wide audience. And of course the market will reward those that will find the right solution and come up with a great UX improvement to that tech. The hard part is creating the GUI that is both efficient and easy-enough , and the hardest part is of course finding the right tool and the right problem to solve. (edit: formatting)
  - awj 7y ago
    > ircd with logging enabled + elastic search/sphinx/lucene + web frontend Slack is way more than that, though. My recollection is that even the initial version of Slack was more than that. At this point, it's enough that "let's extend ircd" isn't exactly a practical answer. Either they maintain their own incompatible fork of ircd or they try to force their business desires into the irc protocol. There's plenty of things that are "just X plus some paint" if you don't look at them deeply. That usually does an extreme disservice to the difficulty of the "plus some paint" part, and often represents a failure to understand the features involved.
    - mr__y 7y ago
farisjarrah 7y ago
Lots of old technology is really good but has a bad user interface. There is something to be said for packaging up something in a nice, good looking, easy to use way. I mean, look at how many companies use Sumologic and hosted ElasticSearch for log ingestion. Theoretically speaking, with grep, regex and python you could make all the graphs and charts yourself, there is no real reason to purchase these (pretty expensive) services if you are willing to put in the work. The problem is the amount of work required to do what you say successfully is massive.
- filoleg 7y ago
  Agreed. Easy to use UX is what sells tech and gets it used en masse. Pretty tangential, but I observed that exact phenomenon recently after looking at the recent VR headsets: Oculus Rift and HTC Vive existed for at least a few years. Tried them, was pretty fun, but tangling with wires, having to have a powerful PC on hand, that 1-2min set up every time before you want to use it, it was all killing the usability for me. Then Oculus Quest comes out earlier this year. Pretty much similar tech (a few differences, no need for PC, but can be used with one through easy sideloading), but no wires and no need for a PC connection. Every time I want to use it, I don't need to fiddle with my PC. I put the headset on, it wakes up in a few seconds at the exact spot I left it last time. I put it down, it goes to sleep in 15 seconds. I ended up spending an hour or two almost every day for the past two months playing with it, as opposed to the previous headsets (most of which were left on the shelf a few weeks after the initial purchase). The only major advantage that Quest has over previous gen is easy and frictionless UX. It got to the point where every single friend of mine who tried it at my place ended up purchasing their own headset the day after. And those people were some of the biggest VR skeptics, after their experiences with original Vive and Rift.

by mr__y 7y ago

freehunter 7y ago

That's really what it comes down to. Email existed forever, but no one really liked it until Gmail made it flashy. Smartphones existed forever but no one really liked them until Apple/Google made them flashy. Search existed forever but no one really liked it until Google made it flashy. Hackers like to pretend that presentation doesn't matter, but in the end presentation is the only thing that matters.

rocky1138 7y ago
Sorry, you are wrong. This is pure revisionism. Blackberry was absolutely massive before the iPhone, email has always been the largest use of the internet (until media became possible), and Google search became successful because it actually worked, unlike everything available at the time. I do agree with your sentiment, though. To the user, the UI is the product.
- freehunter 7y ago
  I owned several Windows Mobile phones, one Blackberry, and one Palm device before iPhone and Android came out. I know the history. They were not popular devices. Even just looking at Blackberry sales by themselves, sales of these devices pre-iPhone were absolutely insignificant [1]. Same thing with email. Hotmail/Yahoo/AOL pre-dated Gmail by quite a long time, but Gmail now owns something like 80% of all webmail traffic. I think your confusion might be where I said "these things existed but no one really liked them" maybe you read "these things didn't exist before"? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266240/global-revenue-of-rim-since-2004/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266240/global-revenue-of...

awj 7y ago

So, what you're saying is there's tons of technologies lying around that are a solid UI and some extra features away from being valuable to normal people. But somehow doing those things and making lots of money is bad?

mr__y 7y ago
No, of course not. Neither adding some minor extra features (that make a huge difference for the end-user) nor profiting from it is bad. My concern was that there is so much good tech that is not being utilized just because it lacks enterprisey look and marketing attention. Take slack as an example: ircd with logging enabled + elastic search/sphinx/lucene + web frontend (use any existing web irc client and integrate that with elastic search results). MVP really seems as a one guy one weekend project. And that was lying underutilized for decades. While my original comment was just a snarky remark, I really think that there are other areas where such a (relatively) simple MVP could allow huge productivity boost to many businesses and allow them to use an existing tool that right now is just too hard/too complicated to use by a wide audience. And of course the market will reward those that will find the right solution and come up with a great UX improvement to that tech. The hard part is creating the GUI that is both efficient and easy-enough , and the hardest part is of course finding the right tool and the right problem to solve. (edit: formatting)
- awj 7y ago
  > ircd with logging enabled + elastic search/sphinx/lucene + web frontend Slack is way more than that, though. My recollection is that even the initial version of Slack was more than that. At this point, it's enough that "let's extend ircd" isn't exactly a practical answer. Either they maintain their own incompatible fork of ircd or they try to force their business desires into the irc protocol. There's plenty of things that are "just X plus some paint" if you don't look at them deeply. That usually does an extreme disservice to the difficulty of the "plus some paint" part, and often represents a failure to understand the features involved.
  - mr__y 7y ago

farisjarrah 7y ago

Lots of old technology is really good but has a bad user interface. There is something to be said for packaging up something in a nice, good looking, easy to use way. I mean, look at how many companies use Sumologic and hosted ElasticSearch for log ingestion. Theoretically speaking, with grep, regex and python you could make all the graphs and charts yourself, there is no real reason to purchase these (pretty expensive) services if you are willing to put in the work. The problem is the amount of work required to do what you say successfully is massive.

filoleg 7y ago
Agreed. Easy to use UX is what sells tech and gets it used en masse. Pretty tangential, but I observed that exact phenomenon recently after looking at the recent VR headsets: Oculus Rift and HTC Vive existed for at least a few years. Tried them, was pretty fun, but tangling with wires, having to have a powerful PC on hand, that 1-2min set up every time before you want to use it, it was all killing the usability for me. Then Oculus Quest comes out earlier this year. Pretty much similar tech (a few differences, no need for PC, but can be used with one through easy sideloading), but no wires and no need for a PC connection. Every time I want to use it, I don't need to fiddle with my PC. I put the headset on, it wakes up in a few seconds at the exact spot I left it last time. I put it down, it goes to sleep in 15 seconds. I ended up spending an hour or two almost every day for the past two months playing with it, as opposed to the previous headsets (most of which were left on the shelf a few weeks after the initial purchase). The only major advantage that Quest has over previous gen is easy and frictionless UX. It got to the point where every single friend of mine who tried it at my place ended up purchasing their own headset the day after. And those people were some of the biggest VR skeptics, after their experiences with original Vive and Rift.