5 ms·
I'd say he got the broader point right. Prior to DropBox, no one did care about file synchronization, because the solutions presented thus far were largely "ar
by ryanbrunner 13y ago
I'd say he got the broader point right.
Prior to DropBox, no one did care about file synchronization, because the solutions presented thus far were largely "architecture astronaut" solutions. Rather than providing a simple, straightforward way to synchronize files (such as what DropBox provided), technologies like Hailstorm always focused on way too broad a feature set - it wasn't about "your files are always available", it was about pervasive cloud architectures that revolutionized the way you use your computer.
It wasn't until DropBox simplified the problem to "put files in this folder, and then they're synched" that file synchronization tools took off in any significant way.
Joel isn't complaining about file synchronization per se, he's arguing that the Microsoft approach of attempting to revolutionize computing every year with yet another failed omnipresent platform.
- spicavigo 13y agoTotally agree with you. I take exception with the statement "Nobody cared then and nobody cares now, because synchronizing files is just not a killer application."
- hobs 13y agoWould you call "the killer app" something that everybody needs/uses? Because file sync is a GREAT feature, but many people have 1 computer, and wouldnt understand syncing with a smart phone via an app anyway. Also, I would say while the sync is awesome, some of the other dropbox features are actually why I use the product instead of other more private options. (instantly link to anyone anything in the folders you have? very nice. +constant free space via different referral games.)
- smurph 13y agoMany of the attempts that had been made, especially at Microsoft, were also just new versions of existing apps with some kind of syncing built in and a higher price. Office Groove is an example. Office doesn't need to have a DropBox built into it, it just needs to be Office. But if you've got an architecture astronaut in charge of the project, then they are going to want to use the position to build a reputation for being an innovator rather than just getting things done.
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoSo is architecture astronaut a perojative that we can just fling at people who come up with innovative features when really we want office 2013 to be the same as office 2011 and so on? What's the point of revving office if there is no innovation allowed?
- chris_wot 13y agoThat's not the point. Office is not a file syncing app.
- jerf 13y agoI believe the key sentence was "Office doesn't need to have a DropBox built into it, it just needs to be Office." Embeddeing a featureless chunk of DropBox in Office that only works in Office that only works on Office files is the opposite of innovation, where you have a great idea but can only see it through the lens of your existing interests. Pulling features that don't belong in Office into Office isn't innovation, it's just poor product management.
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoIt's still there in skydrive pro. Sometimes the idea is ok, the realization just takes awhile. Sharing documents in office is something that the enterprise users want to do even if we don't get it.
- smurph 13y agoI'm not saying that trying to innovate on a successful product team is bad. I am saying that when someone's motivation for innovating is to further their own career and not to solve the customer's problems, then their ideas are going to be bad most of the time. That's when they're an architecture astronaut. They care more about getting their ideas implemented so that they can so "look at that smart thing I did". Meanwhile other engineers are doing things like fixing bugs and implementing features that actual users have asked for.
- 13y ago
- haddr 13y agoI would say that this kind of explanation could be used to justify every wrong statement. In the end if someone claims something it is usually true until someone proves it wrong. I think that in this case Dropbox popularity has proven Joel's statement wrong. And this is also why Drobox is successful. It hid the complexity and provided some simple and intuitive mechanism for file synchronisation. Joel's argument was simply based on the previous unsuccessful attempts...
- scott_s 13y agoI don't think Joel got it right in a way that matters. What he said, with emphasis added: "Nobody cared then and nobody cares now, because synchronizing files is just not a killer application." The first part of the sentence is about the fact that no one cares about such architecture astronaut solutions. He may have gotten that statement right, but it's not the interesting part. The second part is the mistake: he's assuming it's because no one cares about file synchronization. But it's clear from Dropbox and even Apple's cloud solutions that people do care.
- TheCraiggers 13y agoI remember back in Windows 95, Microsoft had the "Briefcase" icon on the desktop, which could easily sync files across non-networked computers via a floppy disk. I never used it because back then I was too young to have more than one (still very expensive) computer, but it sounded nifty. Not sure why they killed it off.
- mcintyre1994 13y agoThey still do! Right click desktop, new > briefcase. When you delete it, its description is "synchronizes files when you use two computers". No idea how it works now, but it's there. EDIT: Windows 7, not sure about 8.
- Shorel 13y agoReality check: Prior to DropBox, I had used LiveDrive, which was featured in HN, for about six months, but I don't really remember for how long. It was a beta, and the free plan was over once the beta was over. But it was a great and fully functional implementation of the concept. For the first months of DropBox, it was known as 'a LiveDrive alternative'. The only real innovation of DropBox over LiveDrive was the free plan. Which I'm still using for free.