Ask HN: Was Joel wrong?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5661920

by spicavigo • 13 years ago

29 65 13 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

I read the Architecture astronauts article by Joel Spolsky again recently (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html). In it he mentions the various "File Synchronization" platforms and says "Nobody cared then and nobody cares now, because synchronizing files is just not a killer application."

With the massive success of Dropbox and the way Box.com is getting the mindshare amongst users, would it be right to say "Joel, you got it wrong"?

jister• 13 years ago

Did you read the date of the article?

spicavigo2• 13 years ago

Of course. Hence the title says "Was" and not "Is"

nijk3• 13 years ago

He wasn't wrong then. The world has changed. A user has far more computers now than she had then.

ryanbrunner• 13 years ago

I'd say he got the broader point right.

Prior to DropBox, no one did care about file synchronization, because the solutions presented thus far were largely "architecture astronaut" solutions. Rather than providing a simple, straightforward way to synchronize files (such as what DropBox provided), technologies like Hailstorm always focused on way too broad a feature set - it wasn't about "your files are always available", it was about pervasive cloud architectures that revolutionized the way you use your computer.

It wasn't until DropBox simplified the problem to "put files in this folder, and then they're synched" that file synchronization tools took off in any significant way.

Joel isn't complaining about file synchronization per se, he's arguing that the Microsoft approach of attempting to revolutionize computing every year with yet another failed omnipresent platform.

spicavigo2• 13 years ago

Totally agree with you. I take exception with the statement "Nobody cared then and nobody cares now, because synchronizing files is just not a killer application."

hobs• 13 years ago

Would you call "the killer app" something that everybody needs/uses? Because file sync is a GREAT feature, but many people have 1 computer, and wouldnt understand syncing with a smart phone via an app anyway.

Also, I would say while the sync is awesome, some of the other dropbox features are actually why I use the product instead of other more private options. (instantly link to anyone anything in the folders you have? very nice. +constant free space via different referral games.)

smurph2• 13 years ago

Many of the attempts that had been made, especially at Microsoft, were also just new versions of existing apps with some kind of syncing built in and a higher price. Office Groove is an example. Office doesn't need to have a DropBox built into it, it just needs to be Office. But if you've got an architecture astronaut in charge of the project, then they are going to want to use the position to build a reputation for being an innovator rather than just getting things done.

seanmcdirmid4• 13 years ago

So is architecture astronaut a perojative that we can just fling at people who come up with innovative features when really we want office 2013 to be the same as office 2011 and so on?

What's the point of revving office if there is no innovation allowed?

scholia• 13 years ago

Live Mesh was a Microsoft syncing service, it worked well, it was free.... and it got dropped.

Otherwise, SkyDrive (which is the Microsoft equivalent of Dropbox) has had a free Office built into it ;-)

haddr• 13 years ago

I would say that this kind of explanation could be used to justify every wrong statement.

In the end if someone claims something it is usually true until someone proves it wrong. I think that in this case Dropbox popularity has proven Joel's statement wrong. And this is also why Drobox is successful. It hid the complexity and provided some simple and intuitive mechanism for file synchronisation. Joel's argument was simply based on the previous unsuccessful attempts...

scott_s• 13 years ago

I don't think Joel got it right in a way that matters. What he said, with emphasis added:

"Nobody cared then and nobody cares now, because synchronizing files is just not a killer application."

The first part of the sentence is about the fact that no one cares about such architecture astronaut solutions. He may have gotten that statement right, but it's not the interesting part. The second part is the mistake: he's assuming it's because no one cares about file synchronization. But it's clear from Dropbox and even Apple's cloud solutions that people do care.

fooqux• 13 years ago

I remember back in Windows 95, Microsoft had the "Briefcase" icon on the desktop, which could easily sync files across non-networked computers via a floppy disk.

I never used it because back then I was too young to have more than one (still very expensive) computer, but it sounded nifty. Not sure why they killed it off.

mcintyre1994• 13 years ago

They still do! Right click desktop, new > briefcase. When you delete it, its description is "synchronizes files when you use two computers". No idea how it works now, but it's there.

EDIT: Windows 7, not sure about 8.

Shorel2• 13 years ago

Reality check:

Prior to DropBox, I had used LiveDrive, which was featured in HN, for about six months, but I don't really remember for how long. It was a beta, and the free plan was over once the beta was over. But it was a great and fully functional implementation of the concept.

For the first months of DropBox, it was known as 'a LiveDrive alternative'.

The only real innovation of DropBox over LiveDrive was the free plan. Which I'm still using for free.

jorgeleo• 13 years ago

In other news, we have recently discover that all tech gurus are human too, hence fallible

We martians are infallible, and we are very surprised at this human weakness

qompiler2• 13 years ago

Just because someone is a professional online ranter it doesn't mean they are always right.

gnoway• 13 years ago

Likewise, just because some people (a lot of people?) like dropbox et al., that doesn't mean it's revolutionary or killer or whatever. It just means a lot of people like it.

I have a basic understanding of what dropbox is. I've never used it. Never even been to their website. I don't care about synchronizing files. I suspect I'm not in the minority.

qompiler2• 13 years ago

College students use Dropbox as a means of keeping backups, as an online thumb drive and sharing work with each other.

There was even a "college space race" to get more storage a while back, https://www.dropbox.com/spacerace

edtechdev• 13 years ago

They have over 100 million users, and then of course there is Google Drive, Microsoft Skydrive, etc. I've convinced several non-techie folks to use Dropbox once they realize it replaces the need for flash drives (which of course can get lost). So it's not so much "file synchronization" that was the killer app for some, but rather "accessing and storing/backing up files in the cloud."

hasenj• 13 years ago

Incidentally I have a dropbox account and the daemon is always running in the background but it's kinda useless for me as I only have one machine. I don't access my dropbox from any other machine.

edem• 13 years ago

I bet you did not create StackOverflow nor have a successful company.

hdra• 13 years ago

I would simply agreed with the article if I read it at that time.

On the topic, seems like Microsoft produced quite a lot of products that simply ahead of its time. Some of the product pitch and description quoted in the article may sounds stupid at the time, but now, it is simply is a necessity.

jokoon10• 13 years ago

Depends on how you sync it. bt sync is really awesome, and i'm really waiting to see all computing done in p2p, which is not the same thing than in "the cloud". The cloud is still centralized so that they can control the content in some way.

I really wish I could have the skill, time and motivation to work on p2p techs like the ones bittorrent is working on. But defining what you want to do on p2p is really hard and is unexplored.

Every geek nerd investor/programmer you-name-it will join the current mainstream herd and tell you to make facebook apps, iphone apps, android apps, and advise you to auth your blog comments with twitter or openid.

I don't know what this joel guy is always saying that can attract so much attention, all I know is that I want to bury the web2.0 remains into the ground, forget about internet browsers and focus on sharing mechanisms that actually work. The web was designed to make static pages, not dynamic pages. So please, kill that SPDY thing right now, close those huge, innefficient data centers and try to work on decentralized techs.

The web currently works in a centralized fashion, so there is no way developers can join in and add value. Facebook is a fortress.

And if the CIA knocks and tells you they need to monitor your stuff, let them do it. Nobody really cares except journalists, who are professionnals.

I know it sounds unreal, but I'm so convinced people could share more information if the platforms were not owned and regulated by websites, but instead by people, even if there is are security and spamming risks. I'll sound crazy but the internet has always been an opportunity to have a better local economy, and that's a shame it's not happening.

ucee0549• 13 years ago

The bandwidth in the centre of the network is way higher than the bandwidth in the access network, because to increase the bandwidth in the access network you have to do very expensive stuff like digging up the road to lay optical fibres.

Result: The internet will always be centralized. Deal with it.

jokoon10• 13 years ago

First, you're talking about websites, which will always require bandwidth. Why ? Because websites are narcissistic, expensive, and not designed for a dynamic experience. Websites are synchronous: the server generates a 500kB text blob file each time you want to communicate, it's zipped, unzipped, and parsed again, it's totally inefficient. Why ? because a webpage is just a string blob.

I live in france, and here, youtube is barely usable anymore, because everybody uses it. Streaming sucks, because video on demand is the worst pitfall of the internet architecture.

Websites are great for static pages. It's also great to advertise things, because html is easy, and quickly doable. But for other things, I don't believe it's really worth it. I dare you to find a html5, lightweight internet browser that can do optimized javascript, for what, checking your gmail, and connect to the facebook server farm? Why not using a mail application instead ? And then come up with SPDY, which is not so fast anyway.

Not everybody wants websites. People also like to share files, do video conferences, which are not possible with a centralized network, or really painful and expensive. Think about skype and bittorrent.

Those are economic alternatives because access network are not only expensive, they're not technologically viable.

Saying p2p is not viable because it is slow is a joke, because the way we use the network to make websites is already slow and require tremendous amounts of bandwidth. You're comparing airplanes and bicycles.

jaynate• 13 years ago

"file synchronization is just not a killer application"

...is still true. Solving for the problems of not having having my files when I need them, on any device I'm using and without having to map drives and deal with complex, technical setup IS a killer application.

Customer experience and usability changes everything.

lnanek2• 13 years ago

I wonder how many people use Dropbox for sync amongst multiple devices. For me it is mainly backup and sharing from my laptop.

orclev2• 13 years ago

I use it to synch files between my Windows gaming desktop, my Windows and OS X work laptops, and my personal Linux laptop, plus access from my phone... so that's 5 devices right there. So there's at least one data point right there.

orclev2• 13 years ago

I really like Joel, I think he has some very worthwhile articles to his name. That said, he's probably more often wrong than he is right and I disagree with him on many points regularly. Even when he's wrong though he's still worth reading because usually you'll find a few nuggets of wisdom buried in there even if the broad picture is wrong, or as in this case if it's the other way around.

moron4hire• 13 years ago

I think Joel's larger point is that most programmers are actually arrogant assholes who aren't as good as they think they are, so when they start these massive, architecturally complex projects, they get themselves in way over their heads and it ultimately fails. Actually-good programmers are humble enough to not try to arbitrarily force their white-whale architectures on their project mates and can engage in much more reasoned discussion that results in appropriate, incremental change.

Incidentally, that's what my handle is about: I remind myself everyday I'm just a moron who puts his britches on one leg at a time like everyone else. It's helped me stop caring about code and start caring about my customers' needs. The code I write is what is necessary and sufficient for the task at hand, and as soon as it is no longer necessary or sufficient, it gets deleted or augmented without argument.

And I do catch myself, "but I like this code", and I remember the handle. "Just a moron for hire". Yep, delete the code, it's nothing.

I've had people on message boards reply, "it's hard to take you seriously with your name...". Yeah, no shit. Quit taking people on the Internets so seriously, mostly because they have no impact on your life and you shouldn't let them rise to the level of giving a shit about them.

michaelochurch4• 13 years ago

Well, everyone is Wrong sometimes, so let's talk about Wrongulence, which is the matter of whether a person is consistently Wrong. Technically speaking, there's a lot of Wrongness on the Internet not because there is something wrong with the Internet, but because of the persisting Wrongulence of people who use it.

Back in 2008 I applied to Fog Creek and was rejected. I turned out to be awesome, not that one would have known that 5 years ago, because at the time I was a n00b with a capital zero and wrongulent about many technical things myself.

Add this to a noninformative prior of Beta(1, 1) and we get a posterior of Beta(1, 2) on the Wrongulence distribution.

If we interpret x < 0.5 as "Not Wrongulent" and x > 0.5 as "Wrongulent" then we get a 95-percent confidence interval of...

    [Not Wrongulent, Wrongulent]

Conclusion: hell if I know.

oinksoft2• 13 years ago

Pardon my language, but do we have to get this narcissistic shit from you in every thread? I know the "I'm awesome" stuff is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek and all, but still ...

beedogs• 13 years ago

Seriously. I avoid technical discussions on reddit because they're inevitably full of comments like the parent comment. It's disheartening to see them here now too.

michaelochurch4• 13 years ago

Pardon my language and metaphor, but you are wasting the fire-breathing dragontits off of my goddamn time and I don't fucking appreciate it.

Your score: 3/10. I can give you heckling lessons and bring you up to a 7-- not good enough to take down a Steve Hofstetter, but good enough for the Internet-- but I'm booked until August and my rate's $275 an hour.

krschultz• 13 years ago

Why does this matter? Who cares?

brudgers• 13 years ago

We make the future in the same way: We extrapolate as much as we can, and whenever we run out of imagination, we just shovel the present into the holes. That's why our pictures of the future always seem to resemble the present, only more so. -- Corey Doctorow [1]

Dropbox just happens to be a part of the future Spolsky didn't invent. Then again, neither did Alan Kay.

[1] http://www.informationweek.com/how-hollywood-congress-and-dr...

archangel_one• 13 years ago

Strictly, I don't think he did; Dropbox is a big thing but it is not a "killer application" as I'd define it, ie. an application that people would buy a particular platform just to get. In the way that, say, Office is for Windows, or Halo might be for Xbox (or so I hear).

Of course, it's kind of irrelevant to Dropbox; they don't have a horse in the platform race, so they're supporting all the major ones and doing very well, but they're not a killer app for any one of them. I don't think that proves that it couldn't ever have been a killer app, but it looks unlikely now that it'll be the case.

Ask HN: Was Joel wrong?

Related Stories