Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

9 years of Apple text editor solo dev

papereditor.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 405 posts

Re: 9 years of Apple text editor solo dev

#361

Post by rubymamis »

brailsafe wrote: post #360
rubymamis wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mention it since I'm yet to implement it. I think I'll release Plume's beta in around two months, so I've got plenty of time to work on those. And yes, the Kanban is work in progress, but I'm nearly done[1]. [1] https://imgur.com/NIgDLOU

Hmm, maybe that does look kind of interesting, thanks for the pic. Have you thought of any alternative ways to represent the todo checkbox in those Kanban tiles? Maybe aligning to the top instead of vertical center?

I haven't thought about that. In the regular editor, the checkbox is aligned to the top of the text. I'll experiment and see how it goes. Thanks for the suggestion.

Re: 9 years of Apple text editor solo dev

#362

Post by coldtea »

sph wrote: post #21
coldtea wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And $10/month subscription? What should something like Photoshop with 10000x the features and development costs then charge? $1000/month? I understand "keeping it simple" but not "keeping it simple AND charging a crazy price for it" (there are essential, complex apps, that charge much less than that). I guess, if you can get away with it...

Why should the author care whether their price scales to Photoshop level? Price should scale with demand . A company like Adobe might want to maximise revenue, so they price it optimally to make the most money out of their product. A single developer might not want to support half a billion users at $5. If selling at $60 means a lower number of users and a manageable number of support requests per month, it is a much…

>Why should the author care whether their price scales to Photoshop level?

The author shouldn't. Buyers should care what they're charged.

>Pricing is hard, because it is not intuitive. And more importantly, the value of something is often subjective. People tend to forget that.

And subjectivity often leads to stupid personal buying decisions. People tend to forget that.

Re: 9 years of Apple text editor solo dev

#363

Post by coldtea »

kibwen wrote: post #28
coldtea wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And $10/month subscription? What should something like Photoshop with 10000x the features and development costs then charge? $1000/month? I understand "keeping it simple" but not "keeping it simple AND charging a crazy price for it" (there are essential, complex apps, that charge much less than that). I guess, if you can get away with it...

Historical note: Photoshop cost $895 in 1990, which is more than $2,100 today. Original MacWorld magazine review: https://archive.org/details/MacWorld_9006_June_1990/page/n20...

>Historical note: Photoshop cost $895 in 1990, which is more than $2,100 today.

I know. I've used it for decades.

But $2100 for Photoshop - a professional working tool - even today, is way more justified than $100 for a "minimalist text editor" (or $120/year subscription for same). Not to mention you can get Photoshop+Lightroom+1TB storage for the same exact yearly subscription price.

If it wasn't a piece of software but something like a barebones plastic spatula sold for $100, people would just laugh it off. But because it's software and intangible we can mystify the end product and pretend like there aren't some much more realistic prices one would expect it to be sold at, and it's "all about demand". In other words, we bring in some of the mystification from the fashion industry, where the same t-shirt (materials, labour, design, etc wise) costs $10 in some outlet and $200 in another because it has a different brand name attached to it.

Re: 9 years of Apple text editor solo dev

#364

Post by coldtea »

metafunctor wrote: post #37
coldtea wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if the "minimalist editor" niche isn't already served with 1000 other apps? It's not exactly a niche the author uniquely identified and served. It's one of the most crowded markets when it comes to offerings.

It's a crowded market, but it IS a market. In fact, crowded markets are the ones that work the best. If people find their app, like what they see, and are willing to pay the price, what is your objection exactly?

>If people find their app, like what they see, and are willing to pay the price, what is your objection exactly?

My more general objection to your question is that I don't consider individual preference, or individual choice, or individual action beyond criticism, just because the individual is "fine with it".

People can "find a product, like what they see, and be willing to pay the price", and the purchase could still be stupid and deserved to be called as such, and the price could still be highway robbery and be deserved to be called as such, and the product could still be subpar/average/bad and be deserved to be called as such.

Re: 9 years of Apple text editor solo dev

#365

Post by coldtea »

alpaca128 wrote: post #156
coldtea wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if the "minimalist editor" niche isn't already served with 1000 other apps? It's not exactly a niche the author uniquely identified and served. It's one of the most crowded markets when it comes to offerings.

Why don't you let the actual target audience decide whether the niche is served or not? Everyone has a different definition of "minimalist" and niche markets may have more specific requirements, so if someone can sell their specialized tool then what's the problem with that? Nothing of what you wrote is a reason against the existence of more choices.

>Why don't you let the actual target audience decide whether the niche is served or not?

I do. Do you see me passing any laws or enforcing something to prevent it?

Am I allowed to criticize their decision though, or is that to much to ask?

>Nothing of what you wrote is a reason against the existence of more choices.

That's because writing against "the existence of more choices" wasn't my point. It was about criticizing stupid choices.

Re: 9 years of Apple text editor solo dev

#366

Post by coldtea »

quantumdot42 wrote: post #189
coldtea wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And $10/month subscription? What should something like Photoshop with 10000x the features and development costs then charge? $1000/month? I understand "keeping it simple" but not "keeping it simple AND charging a crazy price for it" (there are essential, complex apps, that charge much less than that). I guess, if you can get away with it...

I created an account on this site (after years of lurking) just to upvote you here. Just because other people are willing to spend this kind of money on a text editor doesn't mean we can't think they are ridiculous for doing so. I definitely judge people who spend $10 on a text editor.

Thanks! It's like people confuse criticizing an action with doing some dictator like thing against it happening.

I'm not passing some law preventing people buying a barebones text editor $100 (or $10/month). Just criticizing the wisdom of that decision.

Re: 9 years of Apple text editor solo dev

#367

Post by throwaway2037 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #147
monkeynotes wrote: post #45

All the "fringes" stuff is where the magic is. The author suggests that no one notices some of the refinements, well this may be true on day one, but people discover these touches as they grow more familiar. Those subtle thoughtful additions are what makes the difference between an app I like using, and one I love using. They help me feel a couple of things: 1) A connection; I feel like I noticed something just for t…

Not to steal your thunder about a MacOS-specific text editor, I would say that many Windows devs would say the same about Notepad++ and Sublime Text. While I am not a Windows fanboi, when I am forced to use that platform, I am always searching the Start Menu to run those text editors! I agree: The "TLC" (tender, loving, care) is well transmitted to users over the long run. The endless number of "hacker-friendly" feat…

I am confused. Why was this downvoted with no child comments?

Re: 9 years of Apple text editor solo dev

#368

Post by germandiago »

jwells89 wrote: post #254
Analemma_ wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does happen though - Qt tries very hard to do that. I don't know about literally everything, but the majority of platform-specific features/optimizations can be exposed through Qt with enough work. And what is the result? Everyone complains that Qt is too hard to use, and so it has utterly lost the cross-platform war to Electron, and meanwhile the devs who want the platform-native functionality (like the OP of the…

Qt is probably closest among cross platform frameworks, but comes with some thorns that can be difficult to ignore and contribute to that “hard to use” sentiment. The way Qt Widgets is for practical purposes usable only with C++ or Python is one such thorn, as is its use of custom types like QString. Both increase friction significantly as many devs aren’t able to use their preferred language and can’t use the langua…

You talk as if Qt was really bad. Do you know of any toolkit that is better? I mean: Electron is a memory hog by default, Flutter or React I do not see they are available in those many languages you demand from Qt.

Which is that platonic toolkit I do not know of that is easy to distribute, productive, fast and available in any language?

Re: 9 years of Apple text editor solo dev

#369

Post by jwells89 »

germandiago wrote: post #368
jwells89 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qt is probably closest among cross platform frameworks, but comes with some thorns that can be difficult to ignore and contribute to that “hard to use” sentiment. The way Qt Widgets is for practical purposes usable only with C++ or Python is one such thorn, as is its use of custom types like QString. Both increase friction significantly as many devs aren’t able to use their preferred language and can’t use the langua…

You talk as if Qt was really bad. Do you know of any toolkit that is better? I mean: Electron is a memory hog by default, Flutter or React I do not see they are available in those many languages you demand from Qt. Which is that platonic toolkit I do not know of that is easy to distribute, productive, fast and available in any language?

For cross platform, from a technical standpoint Qt is one of best and that’s the problem. The best isn’t good enough, not for the masses that instead chose Electron and certainly not for the sorts of devs making polished Apple platform apps.

Developer experience is extremely important but it’s consistently something that’s swept under the rug with Qt, much to its detriment. Devs at large would rather be limited to a single platform or make huge tradeoffs in efficiency than live with bad DX.

Re: 9 years of Apple text editor solo dev

#370

Post by rubymamis »

jwells89 wrote: post #369
germandiago wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You talk as if Qt was really bad. Do you know of any toolkit that is better? I mean: Electron is a memory hog by default, Flutter or React I do not see they are available in those many languages you demand from Qt. Which is that platonic toolkit I do not know of that is easy to distribute, productive, fast and available in any language?

For cross platform, from a technical standpoint Qt is one of best and that’s the problem. The best isn’t good enough, not for the masses that instead chose Electron and certainly not for the sorts of devs making polished Apple platform apps. Developer experience is extremely important but it’s consistently something that’s swept under the rug with Qt, much to its detriment. Devs at large would rather be limited to a…

The Telegram Desktop app is written with Qt, and I think they've done a pretty good job. I think there's a certain bias here. Most of the popular Qt apps are either open source or Enterprise software, both don't care much about UX and aesthetics. What I'm trying to get at, is that with some effort Qt apps can be on the same level (or very close) to native apps. That's what I aspire with my Qt apps as well.
Post reply on HN