Comments on: “Vaporware” an unneccesary insult http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware Wordslinger, dissident, webwright Wed, 08 Jun 2011 21:35:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Raj http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware/comment-page-1#comment-3133 Raj Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:45:54 +0000 http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware#comment-3133 <p>of course, i meant "hurts his credibility..." guess I tripped over my own fingers on that one.</p> of course, i meant “hurts his credibility…” guess I tripped over my own fingers on that one.

]]> By: Raj http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware/comment-page-1#comment-3132 Raj Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:45:02 +0000 http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware#comment-3132 <p>this is ridiculous. what, everything we have foreknowledge of is vaporware until we can hold it in our hands? the only difference is in degree??? that's preposterous (and yet it seems that's exactly the stance gruber has taken). we all know what we "mean" when we call something vaporware, and to pretend anything else is disingenuous. i might give gruber a little more credence, but he decided to throw in the last-second jab of potentially comparing it to omniplan, which in his first missive was a "TURD" but then he quietly changed it to a "MONSTER." good thing i have a good memory about such things, and it certainly hurst his credibility in an debate such as this.</p> <p>plus, it didn't help that, if it wasn't meant to be taken so "seriously," he still decided to leave his defense as the main headline all weekend long. I love daringfireball, but in this case, he was a dick. Period.</p> this is ridiculous. what, everything we have foreknowledge of is vaporware until we can hold it in our hands? the only difference is in degree??? that’s preposterous (and yet it seems that’s exactly the stance gruber has taken). we all know what we “mean” when we call something vaporware, and to pretend anything else is disingenuous. i might give gruber a little more credence, but he decided to throw in the last-second jab of potentially comparing it to omniplan, which in his first missive was a “TURD” but then he quietly changed it to a “MONSTER.” good thing i have a good memory about such things, and it certainly hurst his credibility in an debate such as this.

plus, it didn’t help that, if it wasn’t meant to be taken so “seriously,” he still decided to leave his defense as the main headline all weekend long. I love daringfireball, but in this case, he was a dick. Period.

]]> By: The Book of Ryan http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware/comment-page-1#comment-3111 The Book of Ryan Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:10:27 +0000 http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware#comment-3111 <p><strong>Vaporware insults, part 2...</strong></p> <p>Wow–I’m really taking a beating on this one.</p> <p>Without a doubt, the decision to pre-announce software may not be a good one. I still think, however, that my commenters discount the Omni cult following. There are many people who want to be in...</p> Vaporware insults, part 2…

Wow–I’m really taking a beating on this one.

Without a doubt, the decision to pre-announce software may not be a good one.
I still think, however, that my commenters discount the Omni cult following. There
are many people who want to be in…

]]> By: Chris http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware/comment-page-1#comment-3098 Chris Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:03:51 +0000 http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware#comment-3098 <p>I will third the vaporware label: the Omni Group blew it on this one. They keep talking about OmniFocus, but deliver nothing. They need to put some code where their mouths are, or shut up about it.</p> I will third the vaporware label: the Omni Group blew it on this one. They keep talking about OmniFocus, but deliver nothing. They need to put some code where their mouths are, or shut up about it.

]]> By: Dan Ridley http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware/comment-page-1#comment-3080 Dan Ridley Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:18:23 +0000 http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware#comment-3080 <p>Oh, come on! It's classic vaporware: big dog pre-announces software to discourage people from going to an alternative before they can get product out the door. Yes, the product will ship, but do you really think it would've been pre-announced if the other Mac GTD product weren't starting to shape up?</p> <p>It's working, of course (take me for example -- there's no way I'll start using Midnight Inbox until OmniFocus has shipped or been extensively previewed, because I know Omni has a history of wonderful software). I don't even have a problem with Omni making a vaporware announcement; in the best cases, vaporware is an important tool for both the company and the consumer.</p> <p>But it's disingenuous to say it's not vaporware because we like Omni. Vaporware is very widely applied to products that do, indeed, ship (the most famous vaporware product, of course, is Windows -- pick a version, from 1.0 [two years late] on up).</p> <p>By pre-announcing, a software company with sufficient clout can discourage consumers from using an alternative product and discourage developers with less clout from even trying to enter a market. That's the vaporware technique, and make no mistake, that's the reason Omni pre-announced.</p> Oh, come on! It’s classic vaporware: big dog pre-announces software to discourage people from going to an alternative before they can get product out the door. Yes, the product will ship, but do you really think it would’ve been pre-announced if the other Mac GTD product weren’t starting to shape up?

It’s working, of course (take me for example — there’s no way I’ll start using Midnight Inbox until OmniFocus has shipped or been extensively previewed, because I know Omni has a history of wonderful software). I don’t even have a problem with Omni making a vaporware announcement; in the best cases, vaporware is an important tool for both the company and the consumer.

But it’s disingenuous to say it’s not vaporware because we like Omni. Vaporware is very widely applied to products that do, indeed, ship (the most famous vaporware product, of course, is Windows — pick a version, from 1.0 [two years late] on up).

By pre-announcing, a software company with sufficient clout can discourage consumers from using an alternative product and discourage developers with less clout from even trying to enter a market. That’s the vaporware technique, and make no mistake, that’s the reason Omni pre-announced.

]]> By: Steve http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware/comment-page-1#comment-3050 Steve Sun, 03 Dec 2006 07:58:06 +0000 http://ryancannon.com/2006/12/02/vaporware#comment-3050 <p>"“Vaporware” in every circle I’ve ran in, connotes a product promised, hyped, and in bad faith left undelivered. By calling OmniFocus vaporware, Gruber is calling the Omni Group liars."</p> <p>It seems to me that the product has been promised, hyped and hasn't yet been delivered. Gruber is simply pointing out the facts. Even if one accepts your suggestion of "bad faith" it doesn't mean lying. John doesn't say that and neither does he imply that. I think we can all assume that if Omni post about something like this that they can be believed. The question is when? Even they admit to only having two developers working on the project at the moment because they are trying to get a final release of OmniPlan out of the door.</p> ““Vaporware” in every circle I’ve ran in, connotes a product promised, hyped, and in bad faith left undelivered. By calling OmniFocus vaporware, Gruber is calling the Omni Group liars.”

It seems to me that the product has been promised, hyped and hasn’t yet been delivered. Gruber is simply pointing out the facts. Even if one accepts your suggestion of “bad faith” it doesn’t mean lying. John doesn’t say that and neither does he imply that. I think we can all assume that if Omni post about something like this that they can be believed. The question is when? Even they admit to only having two developers working on the project at the moment because they are trying to get a final release of OmniPlan out of the door.

]]>