Good point, Google’s products were not at all a good example. Rethinking it now, I’m not sure why it sounded right at the time of writing.
As for your example of Signal’s strategy amendment, aside from my personal opinion on the subject[1] (which I’d prefer not to focus on), I’m not sure that’s relevant to the general discussion here. I’m not advocating that every product made follow this path, I even state that it doesn’t fit everything. Even for those that fit, there will always be exceptions. If a rewrite is deemed necessary, why would that not be prioritized under my model?
Frankly, it seems to me you’re not focusing on the general idea.
I fully realize I’m in the vast minority here, but not only am I all for client federalization, but especially considering Signal clients’ quality, I really wish they took the former path and offloaded client work to whoever chooses. Linux Signal UI has been broken for me for years: I left a group and still get its messages every once in a while, typing indicators are erratic and appear when no typing happens. I know there are many proponents of Signal, but I simply am not due to its many erratic bugs I’ve encountered, aside from the two I’ve listed.
It’s no rewrite it’s just adding a feature to the protocol in a way that’s not backwards compatible with the federalized
Linux Signal UI has been broken for me for years:
Given that you don’t have mobile phone numbers in Linux, you likely wouldn’t have gotten it to be useful in Linux in the initial setup.
Frankly, it seems to me you’re not focusing on the general idea.
You seem to claim that there are people who can predict in advance for “really innovative” products what features they need. That’s not how it works as the lean startup movement makes clear.
Later in this thread you suggest that the job can be done by a government burocrat that does central planning. That seems even more innovation destroying.
Good point, Google’s products were not at all a good example. Rethinking it now, I’m not sure why it sounded right at the time of writing.
As for your example of Signal’s strategy amendment, aside from my personal opinion on the subject[1] (which I’d prefer not to focus on), I’m not sure that’s relevant to the general discussion here. I’m not advocating that every product made follow this path, I even state that it doesn’t fit everything. Even for those that fit, there will always be exceptions. If a rewrite is deemed necessary, why would that not be prioritized under my model?
Frankly, it seems to me you’re not focusing on the general idea.
I fully realize I’m in the vast minority here, but not only am I all for client federalization, but especially considering Signal clients’ quality, I really wish they took the former path and offloaded client work to whoever chooses. Linux Signal UI has been broken for me for years: I left a group and still get its messages every once in a while, typing indicators are erratic and appear when no typing happens. I know there are many proponents of Signal, but I simply am not due to its many erratic bugs I’ve encountered, aside from the two I’ve listed.
It’s no rewrite it’s just adding a feature to the protocol in a way that’s not backwards compatible with the federalized
Given that you don’t have mobile phone numbers in Linux, you likely wouldn’t have gotten it to be useful in Linux in the initial setup.
You seem to claim that there are people who can predict in advance for “really innovative” products what features they need. That’s not how it works as the lean startup movement makes clear.
Later in this thread you suggest that the job can be done by a government burocrat that does central planning. That seems even more innovation destroying.