4 ms·

What's the appeal of a closed source, Windows only application if the audience is of open source, federated websites?

robin_reala 4y ago
The same as Ivory[1] (a closed-source, iOS only application): there’s a bunch of people who value things like platform-consistency and a high focus on UX over source availability and the ability to run it wherever they want. (Note: no specific comment on Ellie’s UX here, I haven’t used it.) [1] https://tapbots.com/ivory/ https://tapbots.com/ivory/
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  How does closed source improve UX?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - illiarian 4y ago
    How does open source improve UI? People will pay for convenience. Whether it's closed source or open source is usually priority number 110 000 for them, waaaaaaay after all other priorities
    - aloisdg 4y ago
      How does open source improve UI? well if you dislike something you can see how it works and look to improve it.
      - illiarian 4y ago
        > well if you dislike something you can see how it works and look to improve it. Strange that so much of open-source is actually really bad UI-wise then.
        aloisdg 4y ago
        After talking with a bunch of designer around me, it is mostly because about the lacks of open source awareness in their community. Beside awareness is a common topic of designers from https://opensourcedesign.net/ https://opensourcedesign.net/ (I met some of them at a FOSDEM).
        LeoNatan25 4y ago
        Big reason for this is that most “FOSS” teams are hard-core keyboard navigation nerds (no offense intended, we know who we are), and so, their preferences are completely different from what normal computer users want, so even with access to source and unlimited free time, there is a high probability that a pull request would be shut down because the maintainers don’t want or don’t understand why spacing between elements is 8pt (“2px is just as functional as I want it”) and why keyboard autocorrect should be off for that text field (“what is autocorrect? Never heard of it”).
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - kitsunesoba 4y ago
        As someone who is a proponent of FOSS, in many cases improving the UI of FOSS projects isn’t practical simply because the maintainers won’t accept UI patches and are sometimes even hostile to suggestions. In those situations your only choice is to fork, and keeping a fork up to date with the parent for a non-trivial project takes more time and effort than many can offer.
  - BaculumMeumEst 4y ago
    it doesn't. those are completely orthogonal. if ellie is better than a janky FOSS alternative, than some people are going to prefer it.
  - robin_reala 4y ago
    It doesn’t: there are plenty of OSS projects with great UX (Musescore for one) as well as plenty with atrocious UX (GIMP if we’re naming and shaming). But UX is something that a lot more people care about than whether the source is open. So when they’re evaluating which product to use, that’ll be first on their mind.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    In my experience open source projects rarely get designers in their teams, and when they do, they're already pretty large projects. If a developers follows the conventions of the platform they're developing for (iOS, Android) then it's easy to get a usable application, but many open source apps seem to have been made because the developer wanted a solution to their specific problem and design was only a low priority feature. Closed source applications often have the business incentive to gain new users at the cost of the competition, which means they need to be attractive rather than just solve a problem in a particular way. That usually translates to more (unique) styling, for better or for worse. Being proprietary doesn't improve your UX, it just helps incentivize good UX which is why many closed source applications have better UX than their open source counterparts.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
palata 4y ago
I believe it is compatible: some really want GPL, some are fine with permissive licenses, and some are fine with proprietary. At the end of the day, a proprietary client to an open API still prevents lock-in. Maybe at some point the UX of the proprietary is so good that some people are happy paying for it, while others will maybe use a lightweight OSS CLI client that fits their need better. It's all good for me if I am not forced to use the Electron client because the API is not open (e.g. Slack, Discord).

The same as Ivory[1] (a closed-source, iOS only application): there’s a bunch of people who value things like platform-consistency and a high focus on UX over source availability and the ability to run it wherever they want. (Note: no specific comment on Ellie’s UX here, I haven’t used it.) [1] https://tapbots.com/ivory/ https://tapbots.com/ivory/

DoctorOW 4y ago
How does closed source improve UX?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- illiarian 4y ago
  How does open source improve UI? People will pay for convenience. Whether it's closed source or open source is usually priority number 110 000 for them, waaaaaaay after all other priorities
  - aloisdg 4y ago
    How does open source improve UI? well if you dislike something you can see how it works and look to improve it.
    - illiarian 4y ago
      > well if you dislike something you can see how it works and look to improve it. Strange that so much of open-source is actually really bad UI-wise then.
      - aloisdg 4y ago
        After talking with a bunch of designer around me, it is mostly because about the lacks of open source awareness in their community. Beside awareness is a common topic of designers from https://opensourcedesign.net/ https://opensourcedesign.net/ (I met some of them at a FOSDEM).
      - LeoNatan25 4y ago
        Big reason for this is that most “FOSS” teams are hard-core keyboard navigation nerds (no offense intended, we know who we are), and so, their preferences are completely different from what normal computer users want, so even with access to source and unlimited free time, there is a high probability that a pull request would be shut down because the maintainers don’t want or don’t understand why spacing between elements is 8pt (“2px is just as functional as I want it”) and why keyboard autocorrect should be off for that text field (“what is autocorrect? Never heard of it”).
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - kitsunesoba 4y ago
      As someone who is a proponent of FOSS, in many cases improving the UI of FOSS projects isn’t practical simply because the maintainers won’t accept UI patches and are sometimes even hostile to suggestions. In those situations your only choice is to fork, and keeping a fork up to date with the parent for a non-trivial project takes more time and effort than many can offer.
- BaculumMeumEst 4y ago
  it doesn't. those are completely orthogonal. if ellie is better than a janky FOSS alternative, than some people are going to prefer it.
- robin_reala 4y ago
  It doesn’t: there are plenty of OSS projects with great UX (Musescore for one) as well as plenty with atrocious UX (GIMP if we’re naming and shaming). But UX is something that a lot more people care about than whether the source is open. So when they’re evaluating which product to use, that’ll be first on their mind.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  In my experience open source projects rarely get designers in their teams, and when they do, they're already pretty large projects. If a developers follows the conventions of the platform they're developing for (iOS, Android) then it's easy to get a usable application, but many open source apps seem to have been made because the developer wanted a solution to their specific problem and design was only a low priority feature. Closed source applications often have the business incentive to gain new users at the cost of the competition, which means they need to be attractive rather than just solve a problem in a particular way. That usually translates to more (unique) styling, for better or for worse. Being proprietary doesn't improve your UX, it just helps incentivize good UX which is why many closed source applications have better UX than their open source counterparts.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

palata 4y ago

I believe it is compatible: some really want GPL, some are fine with permissive licenses, and some are fine with proprietary. At the end of the day, a proprietary client to an open API still prevents lock-in. Maybe at some point the UX of the proprietary is so good that some people are happy paying for it, while others will maybe use a lightweight OSS CLI client that fits their need better. It's all good for me if I am not forced to use the Electron client because the API is not open (e.g. Slack, Discord).