I don’t understand how Android is the dominant phone platform.
- Thread starter Exordium01
- Start date
Yeah, this is a really stupid claim. There are more than 259 useful and unique types of programs in existence, let alone actual programs.
I'm really glad the claim was made, it sets the tone for all their arguments.
The days of Android being a 'toxic hellstew' according to Tim Apple are long over. Android is f-en great with the variety of distributions and launchers and hardware. I can't wait to get rid of my last Apple device soon.
This is hilarious, like the prior comments, it's more telling about there person posting it than they realize.
/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///
md5crypto, you're going to greatly improve your posting quality or you will be removed. Please note that this is not phrased in the form of a request.
There are billions of computers. And they all run the same handful of useful apps.
This is really a ridiculous topic.
Sure, most of us run the basics, mail, browser, calendar, etc.
But the idea there are only really a couple hundred apps is truly a level of ignorance that doesn't belong here. How do you think you are the arbiter of other peoples needs at all? I mean sure, we can start by assuming everyone wants exactly the same functionality out of their apps as you do, then we can decide they can't have hobbies unless you do, and therefor limit their apps to only those things you approve of.
I have several apps related to photography alone.
Ignoring for the moment the obvious hyperbole inherent in my initial statement.
Useful and unique is already inclusive of "type" since unique implies it.
To refine my statement, I'd argue that nobody should be proud of the 259 apps they have on their phone, they should be annoyed.
An example of the specific nature of my claim is there may be 100 word processors you can choose from, but they all boil down to one useful and unique program. You may install Microsoft Office and Libreoffice, but they are the same set of programs. They are not unique in a meaningful way. very few will intentionally install and continue to use both of them. Or, if they do, it will be to circumvent a restriction that is in and of itself stupid.
I would prefer to never use google's office suite. I have MS Office and I find it superior across the board, but sometimes, I am forced to use Google office against my preference. Therefore google office does not count as unique or useful. It is a burden. Someone else feels the opposite, but in either case, Office suite is 1 unique and useful program.
Wordpad still comes pre-installed on every windows PC. If you install word, you shouldn't count that as 2 Useful and Unique programs. just because you can't uninstall wordpad.
There are a ton of enterprise software that reinvents what some other company already did. All that individual effort can be collapsed into a mere handful of "Useful and Unique" programs. This is how SFDC and Workday make money. They realize that the world only really needs one (or 2-3 for competition) of these apps, not every company rolling their own. each represents 1 useful and unique thing.
We can also exclude any firmware or embedded programming as this was a discussion about phone/computer apps, not the avionics system on an F-22 as an example.
I have 113 apps installed on my phone right now. I started to try and count which ones are actually Useful and unique, but quickly got angry, because even the apps I like have something I hate about them. All the Verizon shit, google stuff that's pre-installed that you can't remove. Some app I installed to get a discount at a restaurant that I haven't been back to since, but if I go again I want to get the discount again.
90% of the apps I have are garbage foisted on me, because that's the way some company wants to track me.
None of this is Unique and Useful.
And you shouldn't. you should have 1 that suits all your needs. and if I have different needs, I should have an app that suits those needs and they may be different, but they are still the same thing, a useful and unique photography app.
You don't install several, because that's the best way to handle it, you do so, because nobody has met your need yet.
That's why I specified Useful and Unique. There are plenty of useful apps out there that are not unique.
I interpreted the person I was commenting on to be implying that 259 apps installed on a phone was some sort of typical and also desirable thing. I don't think it is. I think it's a bunch of marginally useful and not at all unique apps.
I excluded games, because the very nature of entertainment. you want a variety of not entirely unique options.
On the other hand, Netflix, hulu, Disney+, paramount, HBO....those are all useful, but not Unique. I'm not happy to have all those services/apps. I'm forced into it.
Last edited:
I think you'd find that the "unique" part of your position would not hold up well to firm scrutiny. I have 8 music apps that are in frequent rotation. They all serve different unique purposes for me (I have another ~dozen as legacy ones that I could delete, but since I have plenty of storage space I keep them around in case I want to poke at them again).
To your example of VOD services (or another I would add of ride share / transport rental), irrespective of "uniqueness" I still need to have them around. Is that scooter a Lime, or Bird, or Uber, or or or? Doesn't matter, Spotlight for the appropriate app and get going. I don't want to have of the icons on home pages, and I don't even particularly want them in a single folder I have to page through. App Library and Spotlight neatly obviate the issue, just need to bite the bullet and go through and relegate them all to there and out of the "Misc" folder they currently live in.
To your example of VOD services (or another I would add of ride share / transport rental), irrespective of "uniqueness" I still need to have them around. Is that scooter a Lime, or Bird, or Uber, or or or? Doesn't matter, Spotlight for the appropriate app and get going. I don't want to have of the icons on home pages, and I don't even particularly want them in a single folder I have to page through. App Library and Spotlight neatly obviate the issue, just need to bite the bullet and go through and relegate them all to there and out of the "Misc" folder they currently live in.
I've just done a rough look-over on my Mac. There are over 70 apps that I use regularly or keep as occasional tools. And I can guarantee that two thirds of those have ZERO overlap with somebody working in a different industry.
We can get into the thickets of tallying special-interest or specific apps on our various phones and devices, but I firmly believe that you know that your argument is facetious at best.
I never said that people don't USE multiple apps that might be in the same category, only that those apps are likely not unique. You have 8 music apps that are useful to you. And you have unique use cases for those apps, but do all 8 of them ONLY EVER solve unique purposes or is there overlap? I'm guessing there is at least some overlap and if someone made a program that actually did those specific workflows you use, you'd ditch them all for the one app.
All that means is that nobody has made an app that meets all your specific needs, but those apps are (Likely, I don't know the apps) not truly unique from each other.
I actually considered using ride share as an example as well. Again, those apps all exist and for those that are multimodal like that, you're going to need to download them all.
That's the reality of the world we live in, but I at least would not look at that stack of applications that all do the same thing for different vendors and marvel at how many useful apps I have. I get angry that I have to install this bullshit just to handle my regular commuting needs. That I now have to navigate through those apps, regardless of the tools the phone OS makes available.
Maybe I just have a little too much Marie Kondo in me, but I HATE HATE HATE having to install 1 program or app to do one stupid thing, because another program that I prefer for most of the use model just isn't good enough. That is infuriating.
I remember some years ago ripping DVDs having to use Handbrake to do the RIP and then another program for format conversion, because Handbrake wasn't as good at that part. I HATED IT!
Thankfully, Handbrake became good enough that it just handled everything, but back in the day when it was a 2 app process, it drove me nuts.
This discussion topic isn't important enough to be able to make a facetious arguement. I'm treating it with as much seriousness as most battlefront discussions get.
Hyperbole and a touch of sarcasm on the other hand is a perfectly valid use of language and my use of it worked well, I stand by my point.
I don't know that I remember what industry that you're in, but I can't even fathom using 70 apps even including random tools.
I guess maybe if you count everything in my job that used to be an app (or more likely a phone call to a person) that is now a webpage, then maybe. Even then though, that breaks down to Confluence, Jira, Sharepoint(less so than previously) Workday and SFDC.
but I honestly do 90% of my job in Chrome, Teams/Slack, Putty, RDP, Acrobat, excel, 7zip and notepad++.
There are spurts of Word and Powerpoint, but no regular use. Maybe the web based travel booking tool.
I know people in other industries that use media creation tools and other apps like that, but even then their tool chain is fairly small.
I agree that going over a tally of special interest apps would not be profitable....because it would miss the point.
My point is that apps proliferate well beyond their usefulness and that our need for tools to manage them such as finder is not a technologically good thing.
I mean hell, that's saying that an app (Finder) is required so you can find all your blasted apps.
That should just make you frustrated saying it.
Last edited:
I don't really have a ball in this game, but...
By that logic, you should only need 1 app on your phone. 1 app that can do it all. 1 app to rule them all...
Well, that's the logic of the original iPhone which was expected to use the web browser is it not?
But obviously, that's taking the hyperbole to the absurdist conclusion. That doesn't mean that the opposite, that all apps are unique flowers that should be collected and cherished is also correct.
Even the iPhone 1. The nature of things like the actual phone functionality demanded that it be a separate app.
I don't deny that there are app categories that justify being unique. Like there's little value in having an email program that also juliennes fries (I'm not sure I spelled that right and I'm not sure enough of the Battlefront is old enough to get that reference)
Philosophically, I guess I'd make the case that I see a lot of people that collect apps like they're beanie babies. And most of said apps are about as useful as a beanie baby.
There's a different point I could make that is probably much easier to defend.
I propose there's a Dunbar's number for apps on a computing device and that number is relatively low. Certainly below 200. Again, ignoring games(which also probably has a Dunbar's number). Apps of similar functionality such as ride share or media apps count as one app.
If you have the app to accommodate a brand rather than a functionality, then it cannot be unique. If you have the Chase app for your personal finances and the Citi app for your corporate card, they are 1 app for Dunbar's number.
But obviously, that's taking the hyperbole to the absurdist conclusion. That doesn't mean that the opposite, that all apps are unique flowers that should be collected and cherished is also correct.
Even the iPhone 1. The nature of things like the actual phone functionality demanded that it be a separate app.
I don't deny that there are app categories that justify being unique. Like there's little value in having an email program that also juliennes fries (I'm not sure I spelled that right and I'm not sure enough of the Battlefront is old enough to get that reference)
Philosophically, I guess I'd make the case that I see a lot of people that collect apps like they're beanie babies. And most of said apps are about as useful as a beanie baby.
There's a different point I could make that is probably much easier to defend.
I propose there's a Dunbar's number for apps on a computing device and that number is relatively low. Certainly below 200. Again, ignoring games(which also probably has a Dunbar's number). Apps of similar functionality such as ride share or media apps count as one app.
If you have the app to accommodate a brand rather than a functionality, then it cannot be unique. If you have the Chase app for your personal finances and the Citi app for your corporate card, they are 1 app for Dunbar's number.
Are Walmart and Target (the stores, not the apps) unique and differentiated? Disney and HBO (again the companies, not the apps)? AMC and Alamo Drafthouse? Kroger and Albertson? Toyota and Lexus? Your argument seems to be that overlapping functionality makes two apps effectively interchangeable, which is true at only the most simplistic, utilitarian level. This way lies end-stage iTunes, and it’s not a pretty sight.
Last edited:
I really want him to keep the argument up, all the way to the end.
Nobody will ever take a single post he makes seriously again.
Nobody will ever take a single post he makes seriously again.
This is kind of a silly argument and your examples are actually a bit all over the place. I never said their shouldn't be different brands. I said that different brands of the same thing don't count as unique applications.
Most of those cases (Disney and HBO excepted) are targeting market segments.
The equivalent in the App space would be a free tier product and a paid for product. where both apps are they same type. You probably aren't going to keep using the limited functionality free version if you have the paid for version.
I already excluded Media up above in multiple posts very intentionally. The nature of performance and entertainment is such that they are not replaceable in the same way. So the Disney/HBO question is moot, answered it already.
Walmart and Target? Well, ignoring the fact that Walmart has been trying to move upscale and Target has been trending downscale over the past several years, this is a market segmentation play. Target is more boujee than Walmart. Walmart has a broader selection of stuff, but they're both big box retail locations. They are the same.
AMC and Alamo Drafthouse. Well, the correct comparison here is Studio Movie Grill, but in either case, again it is a market segmentation thing. You can go see any movie at SMG or Alamo and just not buy food. So differentiated, but not unique.
Kroger and Albertsons? Really? In what world are Kroger and Albertsons meaningfully different? Wouldn't the comparison here be Albertsons and Whole Foods or Aldi or Trader Joes? Or Sprouts?
And this is actually a great place where there is something unique and useful. Whole foods offers a lot of more expensive stuff, but they also offer product where even their inexpensive product has no added preservatives and other unneeded ingredients.
I shop there because of that. I buy things like canned beans/Vegetables, peanut butter, Sauces/dressings, frozen veggies at Whole foods, because the quality of their generic product is higher and price lower than any other store. I don't ONLY shop there, because Winco (west coast Aldi equivalent) and Sprouts offer a better value for produce.
Trader Joes offers a unique ability to buy packaged meals that are more "worldly" than what Albertsons might have at reasonable prices.
These things are enough to justify being called unique. But Albertsons vs. Kroger? Come one!
Toyota vs. Lexus is the worst comparison since it's the same car company. This is pure market segmentation. Lexus is for people who want a Toyota, but also want a status symbol. The idea that they are unique is laughable.
Dude, I still don't get what your deal is. In this thread and I think a few others you've been on me acting like I have some sort of agenda and I'm finally gonna be unmasked as a charlatan. I don't get it at all. I just post some opinions man. Sometimes I post something to get a rise out of people and we go down a rat hole of what constitutes a useful and unique app. It's the battlefront. Arguing about stuff is a sine qua non of this place.
I don't come in here with some kind of hidden agenda. I just argue about technology in a forum whose express purpose is to argue about technology.
I'm appalled at the notion that people were taking me seriously in the first place. I try to play by the rules and have fun here. That's my agenda.
Am I supposed to be seriously trying to make apple people realize their favorite products are junk? With the exception of iTunes and Apple's TCPIP stack going back to at least system 8, I don't really care to do that,
This hits uncomfortably close to home. When I first started with my current company (almost 20 years ago) we had 3 in house data plotting programs (plus Excel for some stuff), two in house data analysis tools (each with their own custom scripting language and again plus Excel sometimes), three in house data conversion programs (plus an Excel add-in for our own custom data formats), and then one in house combination all-in-one data analysis, plotting, and conversion package (that amazingly enough wasn't Excel or Excel based). Each did their own thing, had their own strengths and weaknesses, and were all used nearly daily depending on what your data input was, what you needed to do, and who your end customer was. Sometimes even stringing a single data set through multiple tools to get the desired end result. As far as I know that group still has all the same tools, including one that was perpetually advertised as EOL, plus new ones that were created to "replace" the old ones but not quite, so now they are just living in an xkcd comic.
I might be the only one who basically agrees with your thesis. I am by no means a power user and I only have 78 apps installed on my phone but they probably break down into less than 20 real unique categories or capabilities (for example at least 9 of the apps are just for different vendors "IoT" / "smart devices"). Further I would say more than half of the apps get opened/used less than once a month and about a third probably are closer to once every 6 months or less. Heck I have 18 apps on my homescreen and they probably account for 90+% of my usage--and if I'm being really honest probably more than half my overall usage is in one app (Firefox). But then I'm also a "webpage first" person and will generally avoid the calls to "download our app" unless the webpage experience is completely miserable (and the website is important enough to actually go to the effort of downloading said app) or the app provides a genuinely better experience and not just a new vector for data extraction, ad delivery, and tracking. I also routinely get rid of apps I don't use and don't even meet the "it's nice to have when I need it" criterion. I'm probably due for another round of culling. Apps are not pokemon nor beanie babies in my world and I don't know when it became a status symbol to have more apps than someone else.
It feels like it's in the same vein of someone declaring how they're a concert level pianist, a master gardener, a machinist, a wood worker, a world trekker, a championship swimmer, run ultra marathons, volunteer at the orphanage, foster abused and neglected dogs, a chess grand master, take care of their elderly parents, and do all their own home and auto repairs--and that's just on the weekends. Even in heavy usage, say 10 hours a day, having 100 apps would mean on average they are used only 6 minutes a day. Yes there is the once a week, month, or year app in that mix but I think it gets to some point where you just have apps to say you have them rather than to actually use them. Especially true when you get into the multiple hundreds of apps.
But then maybe you (no individual in particular) are the music producing, screenplay writing, CAD using, 3d printing, trumpet playing, DnD GMing, chess analyzing, track day racing, commercial pilot that needs all the different apps available at a moments notice.
Audio.
Yeah, if your needs are utterly generic, then it's completely expected that you can't understand or judge the need for dozens of specialised, single-purpose tools.
I'll venture that you have no real idea what "fairly small" means, and what the toolbox actually looks like, even if their primary platform is just one major editor or DAW.
This amuses me, because when the Finder was introduced in 1984, there were only something like ten applications for Macintosh. It was called "Finder" because it was a file manager, used to sort and find your FILES.
Okay, so that's effectively a total retraction. If you lump all photo filter apps into a "single app" — despite the whole point of specialised tools is that they do a single thing in a particular way —, then might as well go the whole hog and reduce everything to five "apps": Office, communication, media production, media consumption, games.
This feels like a distinction without a difference. Chase and Citi are going to have different apps and I'm going to need them both. No one is going to make a single generic "Bank" app and have all functionality fed through it; who would build it? Maintain it? Accommodate specialized needs for each organization? Provide security? Be accountable for data leakage? The needs of personal vs corporate, or checking / savings vs investment are sufficiently different to warrant diversification of software. Similar to the recent knee-jerk reactions to the new Classical Music app; a lot of initial of "why do we even need this, why isn't it just part of the regular Music app?" to which people in the space chimed in with laundry lists of reasons why it's a good idea and very beneficial to the prospective users. Do the users really win with single monolithic apps that do everything, but require a ton of drilldown and mode swapping vs more specialized differentiated apps that handle more specific scenarios? Heck, even within a "simple" scenario of a word processer the needs between writing a middle school book report, a masters thesis, a movie script, a novel, a business proposal, and a contract data requirements list are all sufficiently different to make One Word Processer To Do Them All is both bloat and a nightmare of UI/UX compromises.
I thought it was audio, but didn't want to misremember.
My needs aren't generic, They are very specific. The tools I use are generic.
Yeah, I don't know the entire tool chain for Audio production. But dozens of specialized single purpose tools still sounds suspect. You're saying there are at minimum 24(Dozens plural means at least 2 dozen) fully unique single purpose tools that have no overlap, that you purchase and use, because no tool you already have does that thing?
Maybe that's true, but we live in a world of consolidation where racks of single purpose bespoke processing equipment get reduced to apps on a high quality computer all the time. And then those get further consolidated. BUT, that's not even my point. The question is do you have that tool chain, because each thing is fully unique with no alternative? Or do you have that tool chain, because app A does thing X better even though I mostly use App B. If that's the case, then again those aren't unique apps. They are useful apps that aren't unique.
Again, I don't know audio production worth beans, but my tangential little example would be that I volunteer on the audio board for a local Children's theater and when we need say reverb or some other effect on a voice (The wizard in the Wizard of Oz being the most recent example.) That effect was included right in the board. No external Reverb needed.
We could have used external reverb. Maybe we don't like the quality of what the board provides, but in that case, it isn't a unique device. Just one we like better.
A single use tool that does something in a specialized way that other tools also do, but in a different way is by it's nature NOT a unique application. It is one of a set of applications that do the same thing. The WAY it does things may be fit to purpose and unique compared to the class, but it is not unique from the class.
And again, reducing everything to 5 apps is taking things to an absurdist extreme. I'm not saying we must reduce everything to 5 apps, What I am saying is that there are far fewer UNIQUE and USEFUL apps than apps people install and use.
And let's be clear here. I'm not saying that using apps that are NOT unique is per se' negative. Because often as not, there is no single app in a category that meets everyone's needs. ESPECIALLY when dealing in niches like Audio engineering. What I am saying is that most apps Either are not unique at all, and far too often aren't very useful at the end of the day. but we install them anyway.
Last edited:
But this misses my point. At no point did I try to say that a specific type of app banking or music should have only 1 generic version. Nor that niche designs don't add value. Only that such apps are not unique.
Apps can be useful and not unique and there can be valid reasons to install multiple.
So someone has 259 apps on their phone. I said I don't believe there are 259 useful and unique apps in existence over the course of history.
Meaning Wordstar isn't unique from Word or Wordperfect.
You might install Apple music and Spotify, for different purposes, but that doesn't mean they are unique apps. They are not unique.
I have Pandora and Amazon music. I could ditch Pandora, because Amazon offers the same feature, but I don't, for legacy reasons. Those are not unique experiences anymore.
Nah, I'm with YoHo as well, although perhaps minus the desire to argue it out (or rather, what other people do with their phones or computers is up to them and none of my business).
To me, loading up my phone (or computer) with apps is clutter and I can't stand clutter. I have about 70 apps on my phone, about 10-15 of which I use with any regularity, the rest are unfortunate necessities (e.g. the app to control my Eero setup, apps for my banks/credit cards, etc). This is not counting built-in basics that I choose to keep, like Calendar, Mail, Safari, etc., although built-ins I can delete, I do (Music, Podcasts, Stocks, etc.) I go out of my way to not have to download additional apps, either—website, please. If not an option, then I download, use, and immediately delete if at all possible. OpenTable or Yelp are good examples since on mobile, their websites are weirdly limited. But when I don't need them, I delete them.
I found my "core set" of specific services I wanted to integrate with (versus approaching it from the app first), got comfortable with their apps, and then I was done. No, I won't trial your new idea. It's not actually new (per YoHo's thesis), and furthermore, I don't care, go away.
To me, it's the equivalent of a clean desk, and I'm one of those people, too.
Last edited:
Your entire position hinges on a flimsy reading of the word "unique". Microsoft Word and Scrivener are both broadly categorized as "word processing" programs, which could roll up under an even more generic "office" software category, but anyone who has had need to use Scrivener for its intended purpose would balk at the suggestion that Word and Scrivener are broadly interchangeable.
For music alone, I use:
Music.app - quick access to go play something
Partymonster - on-the-fly playlists with crossfade between tracks
Attics - frontend for the archive.org Grateful Dead concerts
Relisten - frontend for archive.org for non-Grateful Dead concerts (still has GD, but Attics does a much better job for the GD focus)
Albums - whole album playback with quick re-shuffle of albums
Picky - robust filtering of my library for surfacing filtered options
8Tracks - internet radio stations
Cs / Ecoute / Marvis - nicer frontends for the Music library
Pyro - BPM focused playlist creator
I could go on. How are these not all unique apps with specific purposes that are either not possible or not pleasant to do in other apps?
Most of those app names and purposes just made me angry. 
but that's just me and my taste/preference. I personally despise putting work into music. Music is supposed to be an in the moment thing. Either listening or playing. It should be an organic experience with as little outside effort as possible. Regardless of genre everything that gets between me and enjoying music is a hassle whether its apps, collating and managing libraries, setting up seeds in Pandora or even the price of a concert ticket. It's why I'm far more likely to go to free concerts and events with low covers. It is more important to be listening to music than to be dealing with the effort involved in listening to music. I HATE that.
But I'm not a DJ, so I don't need to look at it as a "job" which drives at least some of those apps. I have pandora playlists a decade old that still generate new tracks organically,
But that is off topic.
My use of unique is not flimsy. It's my proposition, so I can set what the parameters of unique are and how to interpret it. It cannot be a flimsy reading of the word. Others could interpret proposition flimsily.
Yes Scrivener and Word are not unique, Scrivener even describes itself as a Word Processor.
Scrivener IS a targeted application. Word is general purpose.
Again, there are valid reasons to have multiple non-unique apps.
Scrivener is very very useful which is why it overcomes not being unique.
I'd never use Scrivener for my work related documents though. Word all the way there.
Whatever works for you. But don't pretend like your app set is filled with nothing but bespoke artisanal applications. It's mostly rehashes
but that's just me and my taste/preference. I personally despise putting work into music. Music is supposed to be an in the moment thing. Either listening or playing. It should be an organic experience with as little outside effort as possible. Regardless of genre everything that gets between me and enjoying music is a hassle whether its apps, collating and managing libraries, setting up seeds in Pandora or even the price of a concert ticket. It's why I'm far more likely to go to free concerts and events with low covers. It is more important to be listening to music than to be dealing with the effort involved in listening to music. I HATE that.But I'm not a DJ, so I don't need to look at it as a "job" which drives at least some of those apps. I have pandora playlists a decade old that still generate new tracks organically,
But that is off topic.
My use of unique is not flimsy. It's my proposition, so I can set what the parameters of unique are and how to interpret it. It cannot be a flimsy reading of the word. Others could interpret proposition flimsily.
Yes Scrivener and Word are not unique, Scrivener even describes itself as a Word Processor.
Scrivener IS a targeted application. Word is general purpose.
Again, there are valid reasons to have multiple non-unique apps.
Scrivener is very very useful which is why it overcomes not being unique.
I'd never use Scrivener for my work related documents though. Word all the way there.
Whatever works for you. But don't pretend like your app set is filled with nothing but bespoke artisanal applications. It's mostly rehashes
Yeah, I am late to this debate, but here's what I think. Let me preface my statement with this: I am very frugal (almost spartan) when it comes to apps. Even my laptop shows my frugality and desire to consolidate when at all possible. I must have 20 apps installed on my laptop (and I don't really use / enjoy having at least 50% of the apps preinstalled by Windows). My Android phone has a dozen apps, and that serves my purposes inasmuch as I don't use my phone as a laptop substitute. I have gone to lengths throughout my life to find what apps are must-have (for me obviously) and quite frankly a couple dozen seem like does it for me. The apps preinstalled on my phone lessen the need for an ad hoc app that performs the same task albeit a tiny bit better? Yes it does. Now, having 100s of apps installed seems like a collector's thing. I do remember 20 years ago when I had 10 gfx apps installed on my computer, 10 music apps, and so on and so forth. These days my need for variety (trivial variety many times) has disappeared, and I have become a firm believer that less is more.
I find that list almost comical. I could see 2, 3 tops, apps being required for listening to different music (one to stream and one for a local library) anything beyond that is the app equivalent of hoarding. Holy hell you have an app for a single artist/group. You have three different apps for "nicer front ends" to your library. I think that's actually worse than my teenage years when I was using Winamp and constatly changing it's skin and visualizer.
Now I know some workflows require multiple apps that would not be easy or desirable to to merge into one (the Adobe ecosystem being one example) but for listening to music needing a different app depending on the artist or what sort of transition I want between songs would drive me nuts. It's bad enough when I have to select a different album / play list / station / etc. I can't imagine going to a different app. As an example, at one point I had Waze and Google maps installed (pre buy out) and even that was too much and I just ended up defaulting to Google Maps and eventually uninstalled Waze. Further, I would love a single interface between Prime Video, Disney+, Hulu, etc. that I could just search or browse and yet here you are going the opposite direction with your music. I'm not one to tell you how to listen to your music and you do you but from my perspective, that list is madness.
I think that all of those apps would fall under the category of music playback, in in theory (although perhaps not a good idea to try it), could all be combined into a single app for music playback.
My list of Music apps includes only 3 for playback, and all of the others are for completely different music purposes, which I think would fit YoHo's (odd-to-me) definition of "unique":
- Music - Apples standard music playback app (offline and streaming)
- Spotify - Alternative music playback app (focused on streaming)
- Music Centre - configuring and controlling my Sony home stereo as well as for music playback
- Anytune - bookmarking locations in audio tracks, in order to manage them for music rehearsals
- MuseScore - sheet music notation with multi-instrument synthesis - ie, play/synthesise music from sheet music, not from pre-recorded audio
- PiaScore - sheet music viewer and sheet music library manager
- MonitorMix - manage the audio from personal foldback headphone channel when performing/rehearsing
- Tuner T1 Pro - tune to correct pitch
I'd imagine maybe MuseScore and Piascore might be logically combined.
That's actually a really good list. It seems to break down into 2 broad categories, Music consumption and music creation and performance. (rehearsal)
The music consumption side is 2 very much not unique from each other apps,
The performance side though shows a bunch of useful unique tools.
That's actually a really good list. It seems to break down into 2 broad categories, Music consumption and music creation and performance. (rehearsal)
The music consumption side is 2 very much not unique from each other apps,
The performance side though shows a bunch of useful unique tools.
"might" being the operative word
. They do two completely different jobs. They could be combined in the same way that MS Word and Outlook* could be combined... after all, Word and Outlook are both for text entry and text display. ;-)"[sheet] music creation and [music] performance (rehearsal)" are not a single category. They are two distinct categories, serving two completely different purposes.
In fact, the performance/rehearsal category is at least two completely different categories. The AnyTune app is for playing along to audio tracks (using programmed bookmarks, loops, etc), whereas PiaScore is for viewing sheet music. Again, these are two completely different categories related to the general concept of Music. So that's 4 categories right there for starters: Playback, rehearse-along-with (audio), play-by-sight (sheet music), sheet music notation/editing. That's 4, so far.
Then there are also the device-specific music apps, such as 'Music Centre', so that's 5 distinct categories. Then music mixer - that's 6. Then tuning - that's 7 That's 7 completely distinct categories of apps, just related to music. And that's only the ones I use. I'm sure there are other categories, just within the arena of music, which I don't use.
You may think they should all belong in 2 broad categories, but in reality, that is ludicrous. There is very little overlap between these 7 categories, and I would not want them combined into single apps!
* (Well, MS did combine email and calendaring - amongst other things - which are two completely different tasks. I still think it's a terrible idea to have email and calendaring combined in the one application (Outlook), but I guess if they are so incompetent as to be unable to figure out how to get two applications to talk to each other nicely, then this is a work-around.)
PS. MuseScore actually performs TWO distinct functions (creation/editing of music notation) plus playback from sheet music notation. These are two distinct categories within the one app, but this is a case where the two distinct functions do naturally belong together within the one app.
Last edited:
I disagree on your point here. You ate talking one app MuseScore that does a bunch of things and another PiaScore that offers a subset of the functionality of the other. Having a subset of functionality doesn't mean it's somehow a different category, it just means it's not as full featured."might" being the operative word
"[sheet] music creation and [music] performance (rehearsal)" are not a single category. They are two distinct categories, serving two completely different purposes.
In fact, the performance/rehearsal category is at least two completely different categories. The AnyTune app is for playing along to audio tracks (using programmed bookmarks, loops, etc), whereas PiaScore is for viewing sheet music. Again, these are two completely different categories related to the general concept of Music. So that's 4 categories right there for starters: Playback, rehearse-along-with (audio), play-by-sight (sheet music), sheet music notation/editing. That's 4, so far.
Then there are also the device-specific music apps, such as 'Music Centre', so that's 5 distinct categories. Then music mixer - that's 6. Then tuning - that's 7 That's 7 completely distinct categories of apps, just related to music. And that's only the ones I use. I'm sure there are other categories, just within the arena of music, which I don't use.
You may think they should all belong in 2 broad categories, but in reality, that is ludicrous. There is very little overlap between these 7 categories, and I would not want them combined into single apps!
* (Well, MS did combine email and calendaring - amongst other things - which are two completely different tasks. I still think it's a terrible idea to have email and calendaring combined in the one application (Outlook), but I guess if they are so incompetent as to be unable to figure out how to get two applications to talk to each other nicely, then this is a work-around.)
PS. MuseScore actually performs TWO distinct functions (creation/editing of music notation) plus playback from sheet music notation. These are two distinct categories within the one app, but this is a case where the two distinct functions do naturally belong together within the one app.
The easiest way is Apple lists them both at the same category. There;s multiple reviews comparing the two that list them as the same category of software.
Or lets put this a differnt way, do you consider macOS and windows to be of a different category of software? After all they both have overlaps and both have unique features the other lacks. They don't run on the same hardware natively at the time of this post was written.
See, I can't even fathom why someone wouldn't want their Calendar to be integrated with their email. Like that's fundamentally crazy talk to me. And why would Microsoft benefit from having them be separate?"might" being the operative word
"[sheet] music creation and [music] performance (rehearsal)" are not a single category. They are two distinct categories, serving two completely different purposes.
In fact, the performance/rehearsal category is at least two completely different categories. The AnyTune app is for playing along to audio tracks (using programmed bookmarks, loops, etc), whereas PiaScore is for viewing sheet music. Again, these are two completely different categories related to the general concept of Music. So that's 4 categories right there for starters: Playback, rehearse-along-with (audio), play-by-sight (sheet music), sheet music notation/editing. That's 4, so far.
Then there are also the device-specific music apps, such as 'Music Centre', so that's 5 distinct categories. Then music mixer - that's 6. Then tuning - that's 7 That's 7 completely distinct categories of apps, just related to music. And that's only the ones I use. I'm sure there are other categories, just within the arena of music, which I don't use.
You may think they should all belong in 2 broad categories, but in reality, that is ludicrous. There is very little overlap between these 7 categories, and I would not want them combined into single apps!
* (Well, MS did combine email and calendaring - amongst other things - which are two completely different tasks. I still think it's a terrible idea to have email and calendaring combined in the one application (Outlook), but I guess if they are so incompetent as to be unable to figure out how to get two applications to talk to each other nicely, then this is a work-around.)
PS. MuseScore actually performs TWO distinct functions (creation/editing of music notation) plus playback from sheet music notation. These are two distinct categories within the one app, but this is a case where the two distinct functions do naturally belong together within the one app.
Further, Outlook and Word ARE fundamentally linked, because the text composition portion of Outlook is LITERALLY WORD. If you write an email in outlook, you are effectively using Word.
Sure maybe there is are 3 categories. creation, performance and consumption.
Maybe within the categories not everything can be combined so you have 7 unique apps, but your break down of every app into individual narrow categories I think misses some of the point.
And I don't want to argue the point too much, because you're the one using these apps to do something, so you know the workflow, but I imagine sitting there getting ready to rehearse and thinking it might be nice to be able to control the playback from the sheetmusic app.
You could on the fly point to where you wanted to pick up the playback and have the system queue up the audio tracks.
Imagine having the run through stopped as someone needs to correct something or make a note. In the case of musical theater, maybe the director needs to adjust blocking or whatever and they call to start the song at a convenient pickup that isn't pre programmed. Just point to the measure referenced and everything queued up just starts right where it is supposed to.
Maybe that's not technically feasible yet, Or maybe these tools aren't in use in that environment yet, but seems like something potentially desirable.
Device specific apps are just device specific apps. I'd almost want to categorize them separately with other device specific apps. If you didn't have the app to drive the Audio board or the Sony Stereo or what have you, then you'd still have the audio board or the Stereo.
It's a weird limbo case in my mind, because it's dependent on the physical hardware it drives. It's like the bad old days where every part of the Home Theater/Audio room had it's own bespoke remote.
In some cases, you might even have a dedicated device to run that app. I've seen that in my very limited experience and in similar usecases outside of music.
And don't even talk to me about Tuning. Even I, a rank amateur, have 3 different physical devices that include a tuning function. Not including any apps. And the App I have for tuning is also a Metronome app I got for my son to help him keep on tempo when he sings.
I'm not saying tuning is a function that is logically combined with any of the other apps listed though, but It does fall into that category of "I would be annoyed to have an app that ONLY did this.
Last edited:
Alone fourteen of those are installers/management apps for various plugin vendors. Zero overlap, because there is no unified plugin purchase/installation/authorisation/update scheme. Another fifteen or twenty are the standalone app versions of plugins that I will not delete, because there is no unified plugin purchase/installation/authorisation/update scheme, and randomly deleting any component may break some part of whatever dependencies that particular vendor has chosen to smoke up (or port from Windows). Or they're purchased via the App Store and NEED to have the standalone app installed to even be available as a plug-in.
I understand what you're saying from a layman's perspective. But think of a toolshed: Those 80 screwdrivers aren't necessarily "unique" in their functionality — they all do the same thing. But even though they do the same thing, a #6 Torx isn't going to work for a Phillips head. Are they unique tools? From a professional's standpoint: HELL YEAH.
From the perspective of somebody who has a hex driver and a $10 set of interchangeable bits: I guess maybe not.
Yeah, this is where I need to beat you down a bit. The whole point of being a specialist is a combination of knowing how to best work with the tools you have handy, but also knowing which tools best to have handy to do your job.
All microphones basically do the same thing. But there's a bit of a difference between a 19,000€ M49 and a 300€ Røde, even if they're of the same type (large diaphragm condensors). And even just looking at categories — electret condensors, large diaphragm condensors, ribbon mics, small-diaphragm condensors, boundary mics, dynamic mics — all of these have vastly different qualities and use cases. Or not, depending upon what you want, or what you have available.
I had several mics available including a large-diaphragm condensor, but I bought a pair of MD-441's and an MD-21 specifically to mic up the Leslie speaker for a very particular sound. Despite this, I usually use much cheaper SM57's in lieu of the 441's because I like the bite they give to my particular Hammond.
On your theater production: Sure that reverb worked fine, because it was a reverb, and you were just looking for some kind of reverb. But on an album production, the only justification for using it would be that it was precisely the exact reverb that was wanted. I have five or six external analog reverbs, all of which do ostensibly the same thing, but sound RADICALLY different. And that's not counting the BX20, gold foil, and plate reverbs my buddy has sitting at the studio. A vocal chain will usually have two or three different reverbs on it at some point. Just the voice.
One aspect of my job is sound design. That is all about nuance. That's literally what makes it a job.
Is a polaroid cam filter app a separate and unique tool from one that applies ML oil paint filters but doesn't do polaroid-style?
Of course it is. If it's not, you're already in the reductionist mindset that arbitrarily erases distinction between products.
Your assertion was — whether intentional or not — uselessly hyperbolic, and I replied in consequence.
Point taken. That's the point I felt was valid, but I took issue with how you were making it.
Last edited:
Have you used both of these apps?
There is virtually no overlap. One is is for vieweing and annotating PDFs and it cannot edit music notation at all. The other cannot even view PDFs and is for editing music notation. These are two completely different tasks.
Sure... they are both within the broad category of "Music", but that does NOT make them unique in the sense the YoHo was attempting to define. Or if it does, then the definition is not really of any practical use in the real world.
Honetly I haven't. I went from reviews. I did download MuseScore on my tablet and it does seem like a very different programs from PiaScore*
So I retract what I said and agree they both seem to be very difernt programs
*I'm going by other reviews and what you claim. I don;t see PiaScore on the google play store or at least not for my tablet. If I'm worng again, I'll put my tail between my legs and shut up about this subject
Analogika, I'm gonna respond, because I'm incapable of not, but it's not my goal to somehow poo poo people's tool chain or experience or something like that. That's pretty dumb. I'm glad we agree in the general case. But I do have some thoughts
I will say this though, your comment about plugins and installing apps, because you aren't sure what bit of code might be broken if you don't is EXACTLY the kind of thing that is frustrating about app proliferation. I mean, yeah, you gotta do it. And 14 apps that are for different plugin installer vendors? that kind of gets to the heart of my point. I know WHY you need to install them, but that doesn't make that use model desirable or good. You do what you gotta do despite how infuriating it may be.
And as for the reverb example, Again, I'm not trying to suggest that everything SHOULD be reduced to a single product and there's no value in alternatives.
In fact, there's another way of looking at stuff like reverb. You need a set of reverb tools. Those maybe fully digital or they may be fully analog or some combination. But the entire set of tools to create reverb is equivalent to an Application.
The screw driver set is the same to me. All 80 drivers are a single application. You don't think of each as an individual thing.
If you have a digital reverb A which has some set of reverb samples and digital reverb B with a different set. It's still just 2 different of the same thing. Both valuable, perhaps indispensible, but not unique.
The same for photo filters. Image filters is an app category. Actually more often a plug in category. Plug ins are kinda their own thing aren't they. There's an app they plug into, the filter transforms things in a specific way, but it's the main app that's in question.
The microphone issue gets even further afield. I likely know more about microphones than you think I do, both due to education and some slight experience, but I would never judge someone with actual work experience on Mic knowledge. I don't know what brands are best at what and which price points are worth it and which are inflated to no purpose. But I do know what boundary mics are, condenser mics, ribbon mics.
To me, once you get too far into HW this discussion becomes less relevant, because physical HW can get meaningfully specialized in a more significant way. And specifically to Mics, physical number you might need is not fixed.
On the other hand, you can much more easily rent mics if it's something you only need occasionally and so from the point of view of my initial point, its so different as to not be comparable.
but it's not my goal to somehow poo poo people's tool chain or experience or something like that. That's pretty dumb. I'm glad we agree in the general case. But I do have some thoughtsI will say this though, your comment about plugins and installing apps, because you aren't sure what bit of code might be broken if you don't is EXACTLY the kind of thing that is frustrating about app proliferation. I mean, yeah, you gotta do it. And 14 apps that are for different plugin installer vendors? that kind of gets to the heart of my point. I know WHY you need to install them, but that doesn't make that use model desirable or good. You do what you gotta do despite how infuriating it may be.
And as for the reverb example, Again, I'm not trying to suggest that everything SHOULD be reduced to a single product and there's no value in alternatives.
In fact, there's another way of looking at stuff like reverb. You need a set of reverb tools. Those maybe fully digital or they may be fully analog or some combination. But the entire set of tools to create reverb is equivalent to an Application.
The screw driver set is the same to me. All 80 drivers are a single application. You don't think of each as an individual thing.
If you have a digital reverb A which has some set of reverb samples and digital reverb B with a different set. It's still just 2 different of the same thing. Both valuable, perhaps indispensible, but not unique.
The same for photo filters. Image filters is an app category. Actually more often a plug in category. Plug ins are kinda their own thing aren't they. There's an app they plug into, the filter transforms things in a specific way, but it's the main app that's in question.
The microphone issue gets even further afield. I likely know more about microphones than you think I do, both due to education and some slight experience, but I would never judge someone with actual work experience on Mic knowledge. I don't know what brands are best at what and which price points are worth it and which are inflated to no purpose. But I do know what boundary mics are, condenser mics, ribbon mics.
To me, once you get too far into HW this discussion becomes less relevant, because physical HW can get meaningfully specialized in a more significant way. And specifically to Mics, physical number you might need is not fixed.
On the other hand, you can much more easily rent mics if it's something you only need occasionally and so from the point of view of my initial point, its so different as to not be comparable.