Ask HN: Has all interesting desktop software already been written? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Has all interesting desktop software already been written?

78 pointsnkobeissi102 comments

My question sounds overly generalized, but indulge me:

Can you think of any worthwhile/interesting software that is desktop-specific (Windows/Linux/Mac) and that does not already have in-production offerings by at least two competing teams?

It's actually shocking how difficult I'm finding it to answer this question. Ten years ago you could have said anything from money management software, to code editors, vector image editors, remote storage, news readers etc. etc. but now all of those markets seem to be addressed and with saturated competition.

This makes me wonder whether the "organic software" model of companies like Bohemian Software (Sketch) and Panic (Coda, Transmit) is no longer viable. If you were to create such a company today, what kind of software would you write? Is there still even a single opening in the desktop space for any kind of new software? And how could you assure your ability to compete on the chance that a megacorp (Google, Apple) suddenly implements all of your software functionality and builds it into their services for free?

Is there any path forward for independent studios making desktop software anymore?

View on HN

I don't think all the interesting stuff has been written. But more importantly, I think a lot of the existing software is just terrible. Big old monsters that can be time consuming to learn, and which kinda lock you in for numerous reasons. Horribly inefficient cluttered user interfaces, with old paradigms that aren't necessarily a great way to interact with the computer... I think there's a lot of innovation to be made.

Money? That's harder, unfortunately. It's hard to innovate when people want to cling on to what they already know. Make an image processing & digital painting utility, and people would only complain that it's not photoshop. Make a word processor, people complain that it's not MS Office.

> Money? That's harder, unfortunately. It's hard to innovate when people want to cling on to what they already know.

This is a core element of my questions that other answers are unfortunately not addressing. Even if you make software that's less clunky than legacy-grade Adobe Kamatsu-tractor like offerings, how do you make make switching lucrative to the point of achieving self-sustainability?

I definitely agree that people are slow to switch from what they know, but I don't think it is impossible to build software that will make people jump ship on the old stuff.

Take Sketch for example (http://www.sketchapp.com). Everyone on our team used to use Adobe Illustrator, and now everyone uses Sketch instead, because for what we do, it is simpler and better.

Good example, I think it is easier to dislodge old tractors with tools built for one specific thing, i.e. that do less, but do it so much simpler that they're just a joy to use (at least in comparison).

I've often though a good strategy would be to look at some incumbent (Quickbooks, Photshop, etc) then choose a subset of their customers (Landlords, Real estate agents, etc) you can target more effectively than they can.

Do you think that in this particular case (Illustrator vs Sketch), the fact that Adobe employed a subscription model sped up the process of people being a bit uncomfortable and looking for alternative solutions?

"Money? That's harder, unfortunately. It's hard to innovate when people want to cling on to what they already know."

It's also hard to make money when there's so much free software available, some of which is quite good. For example, it would take a huge amount of effort to improve on the functionality of Libre Office, Paint.net, Audacity, Wireshark, etc. (just to name a few of the free programs I use) but since people can get these for free, a competing product would have to be a whole lot better to convince people to pay for it.

All of those have piles of competition that make a bunch of money, except maybe Wireshark. In fact, I'm a paid user of the alternatives (MS Office, Photoshop, Reaper). I have used the free alternatives that you've mentioned, but relative to the commercial offerings, they are functional but clunky.

I think there's still piles of room for innovation on the desktop, both for open source and commercial software. We've reached a lot of local optima, but things can still be a whole lot better.

For an example of a Photoshop and Paint.net competitor, check out http://www.pixelmator.com/mac/. They've been around for a few years and seem to be doing quite well. BitWig is a new competitor in the DAW space: http://www.bitwig.com/en/bitwig-studio.html.

sketch (http://www.sketchapp.com) is a good illustrator competitor, as well

Bitwig looks amazing, especially its scriptability - thank you for sharing.

NO. All the interesting desktop software has NOT already been written.

Short example: there aren't many - if any - desktop word processing software with word or phrase completion, so that's one thing you could still do and sell if you wanted to.

Another example: you could port the majority of desktop software from Windows to Linux and sell that to companies who want to lower their costs with Linux. Even if windows was essentially a free upgrade for a time, it won't be forever.

Some would argue that there are libre or free as in free beer software clones of Windows desktop software available, often they will cite GIMP as a suitable replacement for Photoshop, or LibreOffice as a replacement for Microsoft Office etc., but you can always find a situation that makes you wish you were running the original on Windows instead of fighting against tersely-documented software with their fair share of quirks.

Finally the desktop software term may be becoming more vague with time, the reason for that is because Android is being modifies to run software in a windowing interface by at least two companies right now, one of them being RemixOS. Also, single board computers equivalent to the Raspberry Pi are often able to run the Debian distribution for ARM. so that's another reason to program more Linux desktop software.

I like the idea of a word processor with many of the features we expect in text editors. I've figured out how to make Vim (+pandoc) do what I want, mostly, but I don't expect non-programmers to do that. Word completion, version control, better image integration than Word or Latex...

Sort of a different case. People type pretty fast on keyboards, so completion for speed gain is pretty marginal. A big benefit of coding word completion is just remembering the right thing to type (was it foobar or foo_bar or get_foo_bar?), which isn't the issue for typical writing (you can forget words, sure, but usually a thesaurus is what you need to find it).

Could still be room for it though

Yup, I occasionally use text files plus pandoc. This allows me to keep plain-text files (actually markdown) in version control, sync'd across multiple devices, and to generate Word docs, PDFs, etc for those who want them.

I've yet to hit the snag-point when I start getting feedback in the form of "track changes" in a Word doc -- shudder -- but I'll clear that hurdle when I come to it. Perhaps I'm fighting a losing battle there.

Top tip for anyone else thinking of doing this: I generate Word docs using pandoc, then generate PDFs by "save as" from Word. This keeps the formatting the same, and my pandoc batch-script remains simple.

So... OP... A cross-platform Word-like editor with a non-tech-friendly interface to version control repositories. Or that last bit as a plug-in for Word.

Aaand googling "git plugin for ms word" reveals plenty of interesting reading material.

Desktop is for sure at the end of the hype cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle but that does not mean that you cannot make money or not be successful when you write a very good software or you hit a particular niche. And I would not fear Google or Apple, I cannot remember when Google did the last time a rich and good desktop app for end consumers (was it Picasa, the last one?) and the only big professional desktop app I use from Apple (beside the OS) is Final Cut Pro. They (Apple & Google) do not compete a lot on the desktop applications software market.

IMHO it may be even easier in desktop market than in the high competing mobile market where people want everything for free or at very low price. TL;DR Desktop will not die and there will never be a time were you can say "Everything is done".

Funnily, Google [itself] has discountinued its "desktop search engine", which is a great pity, as there have been no decent alternatives and then, what do you do when you need to search, say, a document database, consisting of some .xlsx and .docx files (which are essentially compressed XML files, as I get it)?

I too miss GDS and its related offerings. Lately Windows built-in search has impressed me though.

I also had great hopes for nepomuk on KDE but I think that is discontinued now.

Nepomuk has been replaced with Baloo, which is very much alive, way more performant and integrates well.

Thanks! Always liked KDE so nice to read.

For finding files within Windows, there's Everything[0], which is pretty fast and small (just one .EXE file).

[0]: http://voidtools.com/

I've used this, it is pretty fast comparing windows search. Any idea on how it differs from windows search?

try https://www.lesbonscomptes.com/recoll/ with https://github.com/koniu/recoll-webui

I hope desktop software will make a comeback, because the current situation with web-based applications is ridiculous - you pay on a monthly basis, but at the same time it can disappear the next month and you'll be left with nothing. With desktop software at least you pay once and can use it forever - just because an app is old doesn't mean it's suddenly "bad", if it serves your purpose and you mastered it over the years than why should you change it every few years?

Speaking as a user of Adobe and Autodesk software, I wish this was still the case with desktop products...

I'm going to continue to use CS6 for as long as I can, because of the shift to the ephemeral subscription model. So far I still haven't felt the need to upgrade, but then again I don't do anything too crazy with them.

> TL;DR Desktop will not die and there will never be a time were you can say "Everything is done".

Generally I'd agree with that. However, from a business point of view I am not sure whether writing desktop software is still generating good profits. I guess there is room for industry specific software. But I doubt there is much money in the end consumer market. Especially since piracy is probably still a big problem. I once contemplated whether adonation based model might encourage more people to pay for software but according to my web research it is not a good idea. Apart from Tarn Adams (The developer of Dwarf Fortress), who makes a living off donations (but he's working crazy hours iirc) there's not much reason for hope out there. Wavosaur, for instance, is a great wave editor. However, the money people donate is just enough to pay for webspace. [0]

[0]http://www.wavosaur.com/donation.php ; yes, there is also audacity which is free but in my experience it is still very prone to crashing and thus imo not as good.

Just an anectdote: I've made several apps for Android and Windows phone, but the only place I've made money is on Windows Desktop (an outlook plugin of all things). People seems to be more accustomed to having to pay real money for software on desktop. Don't even think about the donation route

Since industry specific software is (and has always been) a much larger business than the end consumer market, the health of the off-shelf software market is not a big indication.

The majority of software engineers work on industry-specific internal software. Parts of it are also switching from desktop to web or mobile solutions, but it's important to note that most of the development would not be affected even if sales of consumer-aimed software approach zero.

You make a good point, a Picasa is sorely needed.

At the mortgage company I worked at after college, the entire company was using "command line style" "ms-dos" looking software that ran the entire company. This software completely dominates the entire mortgage market! Makes some boring ass mortgage software with a GUI and some bug fixes and you might make yourself a millionaire. And the software was not "rock solid". It had all kinds of bugs that screwed up customers accounts and cost them $$$. The only reason companies use shit like that is because it beats running the company manually without a computer. So anyway, go out there and write yourself some boring business process software!

Yep! There is a cabinet company that has been trying to revolutionize the customer quoting process. The old software is slow and clunky that requires entering data from quote sheets. They want the process to be simple as tapping away on a tablet and getting a quote from a server/central office within minutes all while in the customer's home.

what software would that be :) :)

Was it a servicing company? If so probably LPS.

>The only reason companies use shit like that is because it beats running the company manually without a computer

Probably not. The reason they were probably using it is because it was originally written in the 80s/90s, it works, and it's too expensive to tear down their current architecture and teach everyone a new system.

VR, AR, AI. Three two letter buzzwords. All of them have massive unexplored potential on the desktop.

> It's actually shocking how difficult I'm finding it to answer this question.

You are asking the wrong question, because you are looking at the existing market. You need to analyze trends, news and cutting edge science, have imagination, vision and forward thinking. That's obviously also hard, but it's not like looking for an empty field in the forest where you want to plant your trees.

You might find "Blue ocean strategy" a good book.

Augmented reality has potential on the desktop? It kind of depends on being able to move around and look at arbitrary things in arbitrary directions and places.

And needs authoring and testing tools. And for many apps a (maybe wirelessly) tethered headset is fine.

AR content creation tools will likely be desktop apps similar to video editing software. Not that web-based is impossible, but these are probably going to want stand alone apps.

Also, enterprise AR ad placement, buying, and management software could be desktop software.

I don't know, but I can imagine a wireless headset that talks to a powerful machine. Remember also that by desktop we don't really mean a huge crate anymore. Laptops are still hard to miss out of daily work. I spend most of my day sitting next to one so I wouldn't say AR is not a desktop category.

Pantomime is a networked augmented/virtual reality system that supports desktop, laptop, as well as mobile and tablet devices.

It's great to run the server on the powerful desktop, and use it to display an overall view of the world.

https://vimeo.com/149319403

This is a bit like asking "Have all good books already been written?"

Maybe all the trivial/obvious/easy ones have but certainly not all the interesting ones.

Now I'm pondering what a trivial/obvious/easy book is... ;)

They're all kept in one wing of the Library of Babel.

Goodnight Moon combines very short length, repetitive format, relatively straight-forward subject matter choice, and a cross-cultural emotional goal. Maybe the book that would have been written wouldn't be word-for-word the same, but if there wasn't Goodnight Moon someone would have written something nearly indistinguishable.

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe...

"If there wasn't Goodnight Night, someone would have written something nearly indistinguishable."

Books are so mid-age..

Sketch actually arrived in a period when the vector / pixel drawing tool space was pretty filled up by giants like illustrator and photoshop. They still hold the "best software in da place" title. But, Sketch found its niche by offering a mixed, self-contained solution. The point is, first, distinction: while Adobe brought real innovation, Sketch somewhat aggregated functionality. Today, there are new fields opening (AI suffices to keep the thread open for ages). So it's actually safe to say that there will be a) space for primary innovation applications and b) space for aggregators, re-configurators of selected functionality looking for niche functionality (very much like Coda, today totally disrupted, did with web development tools ~ 5 years ago). Just look at Sublime and Atom. Even Coda.. wasn't it Vim with some fancy ftp plugin and tree plugin?

I am doing just that. A hugely ambitious project, with a very wide potential user base, but I have lost all hope in finding funding at a reasonable rate. I am consulting during the day to pay for what I need, and working on the product at night.

tell me more about your project

Sent you an email.

Tell me about your project too!

Send me an email. Aaron at newtype dot com

Any space that lacks competitors is probably lacking competitors because there's no money in it, or because it takes a huge amount of work. The bar is high, but we're certainly not "done" with desktop software. For example, if you can create a text editor that's as snappy as Sublime and as extensible as Atom, you have my money.

Try Visual Studio Code. It's an Electron app, just like Atom, but it's a LOT faster. It's open open source too (https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode).

I don't think that having existing software is a bad thing. There were loads of DVD ripping packages, but at some point Handbrake came out and was better than the rest. There were loads of screenshoting tools, but at some point Monosnap came out and set the bar high.

Inventing and implementing soothing that is both compelling and has never been done before is really tough. How about instead improving on an existing idea that has not been implemented well?

Great topic!

Short answer: 'No'

The idea of software development for the desktop is one of the reasons why I got into learning to code in the first place.

FWIW I think a developer should look outside the tech community (and I define tech loosely to include artists,illustrators and such.) There are, as has been pointed out, many industries that are neglected,pharma,finance(!),education,religion,home-users. In addition I think it is useful to turn ones attention from the West to huge swathes of territory and consumers that remain unconquered in Africa, Asia, Latin America. Even within North America many niches exist. Last year an I almost struck up a partnership with a North American pharmacist who had an idea for a desktop application that would aid in reviewing patients. Turns out that the pharmacy review process for patients is ripe for 'digitization'. Our back-of-the-envelope calculations showed a potential income in the millions of dollars if we captured just 10% of the market (sadly the partnership did not work out.) I am currently working on a CRM(!of all things) desktop/mobile app for use in an under served market. I strongly feel that many such niches still exist. But you have to look deeply beyond current customers and traditional markets.

I like how you considered religion an industry.

I have a friend who sells software that enables churchgoers to donate via a mobile app and someone in the town I grew up in wrote software for youth group management. You would be surprised at the niche needs that are out there.

There are no good fieldguides to plants/trees/fungi for either desktop or mobile. (I think I've purchased every single one for iOS.)

I was just thinking about this the other day. I'd like to develop something...

I don't really understand why people are writing off the desktop in general. For engineering and design and lab software nobody wants tablets. I guess this is all niche but it's a big niche.

Do I really want my next finite element analysis package or pattern design software or whatever running on a tablet? Maybe if the tablet is the size of my table or at least as big as all my monitors put together. This category of software is in general a bit crappy since professionals in these fields tend to just accept the flaws of the software and work around them and they just become part of the practice of the field if the software is sufficiently popular.

I work in a large enterprise. Total workforce of 150,000 computer users. 7% smartphone/tablet penetration rate.

Some PCs are going to be displaced by server based solutions like VDI, but there has literally been almost no substantial displacement of PC apps. It's a decade away at least IMO.

The "death" of the PC is exaggerated. I think it's become a boring, stable market. If anything, the browser computer (i.e. Chrome book)will replace more PCs than the "mobile" OS platforms. And Chrome is closer to a desktop than an iPad.

I agree with that. The Pc is not the default choice when you want technology, but you need one to produce content quickly/with good productivity.

The problem with PCs is replacement times have increased and margins went down.

I took the other option to be web-based services. There are a lot of developers putting forward the narrative that almost everything that could be done as a traditional on-device application would be at least as well suited to being built as a web app, often basically skipping right over mobile.

I would say not all the desktop apps have been 'rewritten' lately. The evolution of the desktop many, many great apps for years and decades past have been obsoleted sometimes the software was way ahead of the hardware.

If you aren't finding anything interesting that is unwritten, you might take a trip down history and see what things had been abandoned on the wayside fro one reason or other, that might be time for a refresh.

As far as new platforms - I think augmented reality (such as google glass, hololens) is going to be a new desktop metaphor and see a lot of "wheel reinvention" in the coming years as the platforms become stable.

"Can you think of any worthwhile/interesting software that is desktop-specific (Windows/Linux/Mac) and that does not already have in-production offerings by at least two competing teams?"

I would say Microsoft Visio on Windows, and Omnigraffle on Mac OS X would be good examples. Both software packages that command a premium price, have virtually no competition on their respective platforms and are very specific to the Desktop.

While writing a clone of either might not be a license to print money, perhaps focussing on a diagramming tool specific to a niche market might be interesting?

Visio has plenty of web-based competitors.

I think this is a reflection of the fact that the web is actually a pretty good platform for developers.

> Visio has plenty of web-based competitors.

If there's a market for desktop users that would buy that over a subscription to a web-based system, then it could still be a valid space to try to develop in.

I am curious why you are asking the question this way. I would ask what are the most interesting new markets for software. Then you can see if desktop software seems a relevant part of the solution.

There is a need for something that makes it easy to build and display pivot tables on the web. Tableau attempts to fill this, but it is not as easy and does not have as much functionality as Excel.

Have you tried PowerBI?

> Ten years ago you could have said anything from money management software, to code editors, vector image editors, remote storage, news readers

Then years ago there almost certainly where more than two options for most of these categories, at least for windows and Mac. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a market for competitors if they can offer something new.

Sketch seems like a perfect example: there already were tons of design packages before, but they found a niche that wasn't covered well and made a product fitting it perfectly. Despite Photoshop being the "king" of image editing software for over a decade there still are commercial competitors around. Despite google maps & co there still are desktop mapping packages targeting private users, not to mention commercial users. They probably are not the most profitable software products, but they are around for years and get updated, so their makers think it is worthwhile.

A common thread seems to be that these are professional or enthusiast tools, where user stickiness is higher, and that they either have unique features that are unlikely to be replicated elsewhere or that they offer a cheaper alternative to established professional tools. Also harder to be replaced by mobile or web options.

Regional markets can be another thing, where global companies often only offer sub-par or way to expensive options.

The biggest issue I see for "studios" is having to find good niches repeatedly to maintain headcount, because maintenance on a product often needs less developers than getting it off the ground, and in many markets you can't sell a new version every year.

I can't think of any serious competitor to Adobe After Effects. There are many apps that partially overlap e.g. Fusion, or 3D apps like Cinema 4D. Apple's Motion 5 (the latest version) was released in 2011 and is not considered a serious competitor.

Another example is InDesign. There are other DTP apps available, but for professional publication design, InDesign is the leading DTP program.

What Adobe has is "mindshare" amongst designers (and a wealth of tutorials, brushes, scripts, plugins, presets etc).

But there are encouraging signs that some users are considering alternatives. Sketch (Mac only) is a suitable alternative to Illustrator for many (if not all) tasks. So is Affinity Designer (Mac only too, but a Windows version is in the works). Affinity Photo (Mac only again) is an alternative to Photoshop.

Plus, there are actually a wide number of digital painting apps for both Windows and Mac (e.g. Painter, Clip Studio, ArtRage, SketchBook Pro etc).

Like other posters have said, there is plenty of scope for new desktop apps to rival old established apps. So much existing software has poor UX. If you can develop a better UI and a better or easier method of accomplishing tasks, people will take an interest. Both Sketch and Affinity Designer/Photo have enjoyed a swell of enthusiastic users who champion those programs. Much of their success is precisely because they offer a different/quicker/easier/more comfortable way of performing tasks than the clunky, cumbersome UIs of their Adobe rivals.

I'd hate to think that someone would give up on a desktop app because they think the desktop space is too established or settled. You might not topple your rivals, but you can certainly carve out a profitable niche.

Has all the interesting art already been created?

There is likely enough art to keep any one person entertained for a lifetime, sure.

In the case of software, there is likely enough desktop software to keep users content for their lifetime use of computing too - but that doesn't mean that all useful/interesting art or desktop software has been created, or written.

The question is rather of necessity rather than interesting I think.

Remember, build a better mousetrap. Don't avoid mousetraps because somebody already made one.

> money management software, to code editors, vector image editors, remote storage, news readers

Is that really true? e.g. for code editors: vim, emacs and several IDEs.

There's usually only a very brief period between when an idea gets maket validation, and competitors appear.

In effect, your question asks us to predict the next successful idea, before it's successful.

That said, creative people tend to be attracted to newer platforms - web, mobile - which generally have more user convenience and features than desktop apps, and are "powerful enough" these days.

Something that requires even more power - simulation, VR, games - and/or requires keyboard and mouse could win on desktop.

All the interesting cutlery has also already been made, but people still design new forks and knives. It would be pretty unpleasant if there were only two fork manufacturers in existence.

Surely there's a market somewhere for a mix between chopsticks and a spoon.

Slurpee Straws?

You might have better luck looking into a small business niche. If you can find the right launch customer, software for small businesses can be lucrative. Orthodontists, pawn shops, dry cleaners, pack-and-mail, etc. A good launch customer would have enough info to let you know if there's a price or feature gap you could exploit. Then, a follow-on appearance at a trade show (even with a faked up mock-up app) would let you gauge interest level.

You can delevop new softwares like cloud management (aws or/and google compute engine) or really working docker management ui, or something similar.

Or flash to html5 converter (convert all games example)

So you have keep eye on technical changes around the world.

Also softwares reaaly depending local env. Yes maybe photoshop or ms office is big products bu these is lot of local area to develop new apps. (When i said local think as countrys) for doing that you must travel the world.

Someone might very well have said exactly this five years ago. One of your examples, Sketch, has only existed since 2010. In five years time there will probably be some widely known app that didn't exist today.

What are the design and creation tools for augmented reality? Or chatbots or whatever. There will be new niches created, and new ways of doing old tasks discovered.

I'm still always wishing that there would be some really good way to manage my information/media consumption in a simple, centralized way. I find Pocket unsatisfactory. I'm talking particularly about books, videos (movies, youtube vids, netflix series, etc) and news articles online. My current system is ridiculously scattered.

Apple really, really wants you to use iTunes for this. (Well, eventually, they decided that iTunes manages everything but books, so now we have iBooks, which doesn't even let you manage your own library.) In case you haven't used it, take my word for it that it's a disaster and you probably don't really want that.

Hahahaha yeah. I've tried a lot of different systems and tools and combinations, but I've never even gone near iTunes. I'm not sure why, I think I just have a subconscious intuition that it would be terrible.

Goodreads is surprisingly frustrating to use, I wonder why nobody's made a better version yet.

All of the book sites seem to have really bad notifications that an author you like has released a new book.

They heavily spam you with 'recommendations' to read books that you explicitly dont want to read, but never even a peep about authors you told them you like.

Really? Goodreads reliably emails me every month about new releases of authors I've read. I actually love them for this, because amazon does a terrible job of notifying me when authors from whom I've bought multiple books release new books.

ps: authors -- get a goddamn email list. You can write short fiction set in the same universe as your longer works and I'll buy it for $3 for 30 pages. Way more profitable than a whole book. Have a gap between releases? Spend 2 weeks and earn $10k or more. It's nearly free goddamn money. See, eg, Mira Grant.

One thing I would love to find as commercially friendly open source or want to buy or for up to $2 pr license is basically a single-site-browser creation kit (like mozilla prism) only with a few more added bells and whistles like quake-like slide-in, configurable window borders etc.

On the Mac, Fluid.app might fit some of those requirements.

There is a systematic, though still hard in practice, approach to answering this question. You can enumerate what software could possibly be needed, as automation tools for what tasks can possibly be required to complete and methods which are available for them.

No, everything is up for replacement. How/when are we going to replace web browsers (and tech) we're currently using?

Have all the interesting paintings been painted?

make an app that works exactly like Stickies.app, except shows up exactly the same on all of your devices. I'd pay about 20 bucks for that.

you need the cluttery look? syncing text-files or evernote or something would be that otherwise.

yes, i like the cluttery look because i can arrange the windows in a way that makes sense to me.

that will give trouble on smaller screens, you'd have it scrolling or need to zoom a lot

i think the fact that you're trying to tell my own opinion to me is pretty hilarious.

My word choice ("cluttery") was a subjective bias, expressing, tongue-in-cheek, that I prefer folder hierarchies.

With my later comment I simply referred to the problem of translating the desktop widescreen to the small smartphone screen.

I want the 90s style ui chrome

No, the Monero GUI has been in development for two years and its almost done!

I'm being partially sarcastic

The answer to this is a resounding NO.

Browser graphics is in the stone age compared to Desktop graphics. And that's just to name one thing.

Have all the great songs been written? I get the feeling the answer is the same probably for similar reasons.

I honestly think it was easier for me (located in ND / MN) to find good pop bands in the UK in the 90's than finding good software now. There is so much noise and I cannot easily keep track of what people I follow on various networks are using. We have a huge amount of information, but search just doesn't work anymore and the filters on various networks are horrible. I get the feeling the ad model is to blame.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com