4 ms·

One point on which this article missed on entirely is that 2024 isn't 1995, and things that worked in 1995 just don't make sense in 2024. Consider how a true l

One point on which this article missed on entirely is that 2024 isn't 1995, and things that worked in 1995 just don't make sense in 2024. Consider how a true lifetime license (for a consumer product) would work these days. There couldn't be any servers because if there were, the company could go out of business and then the license wouldn't be not truly lifetime. That means no synchronization between devices, and most people don't just use a single device any more. There's no realtime collaboration, we're back to 2023_q4_report_v2_final_v3_after_legal_review_fixes_from_jane.xlsx and it's 48 other copies in your inbox that you have to manually do conflict resolution on. There's no sharing by sending a link[1], you have to send a copy, and that copy is quickly going to get out of date, and that again means you're going to have dozens of slightly different versions floating around. There are no backups that just work, if you forget to manage backups yourself (and most people realistically will), your data will get lost. There are no integrations with external online services, because those services change and the product doesn't. There are no security updates, not so much of a problem if you're opening trusted documents from trusted coworkers in WordStar, definitely a problem if you're opening email attachments. Server-side activation is out of the question too, so half of your users will turn to piracy instead of buying your app. A lot of people have bouts of nostalgia for buying Office disks off the shelf, but that approach just can't realistically work any more, even if we completely ignore the business aspects of it. [1] People seriously underestimate how groundbreaking an invention the hyperlink is. It's not just about sharing content, but sharing content over text messaging instead of files, and in a way that anybody can access in seconds, regardless of what device they're on and without installing a viewer.

seec 3y ago
More and more people are realizing that what you are talking about as lacking are actually useful features. Because they are easy to reason about, because they leave a trail, because everyone can work on their own stuff without impacting everyone at once. The collaboration "features" are mostly gimmick that very few people really use since realistically work is divided into easily separated parts before that. If one is building a document in real-time, there is a good chance that it is better done with one operator taking input from others instead of a free for all. Sharing current work in progress was something trivial to do with a server 20 years ago, none of the cloud software really improved on that, they mostly changed the ownership/responsibility and added an OS sync layer. They seem convenient until you get into problems either at the input or output and then they really look less ideal. When you add costs, they make little sense for most people actually. Storage is cheap and doesn't need electricity all the time, if you carry it with you, its transfer speed is infinitely better than any good internet connection. For most parts backup are foolish arguments for the vast majority of people, business needs it to edge against risk (in order to avoid losing too much money) or for legal reasons. But people mostly don't; and most don't really care, rightfully. The vast majority of people do not have anything of actual value in their computers, just sentimental stuff. Before, when you sent photos for development you were not putting backups into a vault, even though they might age poorly, get lost in a move or burn in a house fire. People don't do that because while the risk exists, it would just be a sad but inconsequential loss, it is exactly the same for computer stuff, no matter what some geeks seem to think. It's all right to spend a bit of money every 10 years or so to make a copy of what is relevant on external storage but beyond that most backups would be waste of time and money for most people. And it's hilarious that you talk about hyperlink when link rot is one of the biggest problems ever. Beyond a year it's anyone guess the value of a link; you might get lucky or not. In contrast, a file in storage will be there unless deleted and it doesn't matter if it's not the ultra-latest version or whatever, at least you have something and not just a thing that points to nowhere.

seec 3y ago

More and more people are realizing that what you are talking about as lacking are actually useful features. Because they are easy to reason about, because they leave a trail, because everyone can work on their own stuff without impacting everyone at once. The collaboration "features" are mostly gimmick that very few people really use since realistically work is divided into easily separated parts before that. If one is building a document in real-time, there is a good chance that it is better done with one operator taking input from others instead of a free for all. Sharing current work in progress was something trivial to do with a server 20 years ago, none of the cloud software really improved on that, they mostly changed the ownership/responsibility and added an OS sync layer. They seem convenient until you get into problems either at the input or output and then they really look less ideal. When you add costs, they make little sense for most people actually. Storage is cheap and doesn't need electricity all the time, if you carry it with you, its transfer speed is infinitely better than any good internet connection. For most parts backup are foolish arguments for the vast majority of people, business needs it to edge against risk (in order to avoid losing too much money) or for legal reasons. But people mostly don't; and most don't really care, rightfully. The vast majority of people do not have anything of actual value in their computers, just sentimental stuff. Before, when you sent photos for development you were not putting backups into a vault, even though they might age poorly, get lost in a move or burn in a house fire. People don't do that because while the risk exists, it would just be a sad but inconsequential loss, it is exactly the same for computer stuff, no matter what some geeks seem to think. It's all right to spend a bit of money every 10 years or so to make a copy of what is relevant on external storage but beyond that most backups would be waste of time and money for most people. And it's hilarious that you talk about hyperlink when link rot is one of the biggest problems ever. Beyond a year it's anyone guess the value of a link; you might get lucky or not. In contrast, a file in storage will be there unless deleted and it doesn't matter if it's not the ultra-latest version or whatever, at least you have something and not just a thing that points to nowhere.