Tag Archives: technology

Is the golden age of Indie software over?

8 Replies

The concept of shareware appeared in the 1980s. Developers would use relatively primitive tools to create their software, then promote it via fanzines, user groups and bulletin boards to a niche audience of shareware fans. If you wanted to try the software, you would have to get hold of a floppy disk with it on. And, if you wanted to buy a licence, you would generally have to post a physical cheque to the developer. This was being an Indie developer in hard mode. A few people made a lot of money, but most vendors made modest returns on their efforts.

I started selling my first software product in 2005. This was a good time to start up as an independent software vendor. High quality compilers, IDEs, debuggers, version control systems and web servers were widely available and mostly free. The market for software was growing, as more and more people purchased PCs and Macs. Payment processors were starting to streamline online payments. But the real revolution was being able to distribute your software worldwide via an increasingly ubiquitous Internet. And getting noticed by potential customers, while never easy, was generally achievable through writing content for search engines to find, paid online ads (such as Google Adwords pay per click), download sites or even ads in physical magazines. With a lot of hard work and a bit of luck, it was quite possible to make a decent living.

Things have continued evolving at a rapid pace over the 20 years I have been selling software. Development tools have continued to improve. Mobile and web-based software has become mainstream. App stores have appeared. Outsourcing became a thing. Subscription payment models are increasingly common. Mostly these changes haven’t affected my business too much. But recently things have begun to feel noticeably harder.

LLMs have made a major impact. While I don’t worry that LLMs will do a better job than my seating planner software, data wrangling software or visual planning software any time soon (my main competitor remains Excel), everyone is noticing that their web traffic is falling. People increasingly read LLM summaries rather than clicking on search engine links or the accompanying ads. Maybe the LLM will include a link to the website that they ripped off the content from, but probably they won’t. So writing content in the hope of traffic from search engines is becoming less and less of a viable strategy to get noticed.

Other promotional channels are getting squeezed as well. Online ads are increasingly expensive and rife with click fraud. This makes it hard to get any chance of a return, unless lifetime customer value is hundreds of dollars. Google Adwords is a case in point. In the early days, I could get lots of targeted clicks at an affordable price. But Google have done everything they can to raise bid prices and generally enshittify Adwords, so they can grab more and more of the value in every transaction. I now get barely any clicks at bid prices I am prepared to pay.

One of the few useful promotional channels left is YouTube. But it is very time-consuming to produce videos and the amount of competition is huge. I fully expect generative AI to erode its value over time, as AI slop floods the channel.

Typically promotional channels start off great for vendors and become less great over time (the law of shitty clickthrus). But then new promotional channels appear and the dance starts again. But there just doesn’t seem to be much in the way of viable new channels appearing for Indie vendors like myself. My experiment with advertising on Reddit did not go well.

LLMs potentially also make software easier to write, which is a double-edged sword. It might help you code features faster, but it also lowers the barrier, so that more people can compete. Even if your new competition is bug riddled garbage, ‘vibe coded’ by someone who doesn’t know what they are doing, it still makes it harder for your product to get noticed.

The general cost of living crisis hasn’t helped either. The super-rich are making out like bandits, but everyone else has less disposable income. And that is only going to get worse when the current AI funding circle-jerk implodes.

Each of the different software platforms also have their own issues.

  • Downloadable software has fallen out of fashion and the market is shrinking as increasingly people expect software to be web-based. People are also wary about downloading software onto their computers, in case it contains malware.
  • Web-based software is more of a service than a product and is expected to be available 24×7. Expect to get lots of very unhappy emails if your server falls over. And woe betide you if your customer data is hacked. Disappearing off somewhere for a few days without an Internet connection is not really viable, unless you have employees.
  • Mobile-based software is expected to be free or, at best, very cheap. So requires huge scale to make any decent return. And that is tough when there are some 2 million apps in the iPhone app store. You are also at the mercy of app store owners, who really don’t have your best interest at heart.

The new wave of AI tools must be creating new opportunities, but it seems these opportunities are mostly there for big companies, not for Indie developers. And it is very risky to build your product as a thin layer on top of someone else’s platform. Ask people who built tools and services on top of Twitter.

It feels that it is getting harder for small software vendors, like myself, to make a living. Of course, this could be just the ramblings of a 50-something-year-old, looking back through his rose-tinted varifocals. What do you think? Has it got harder?

If you want to show indie software vendors some love, check out all the great indie software for Mac and Windows (including my own Easy Data Transform and Hyper Plan) on sale at Winterfest.

It might be a good thing if someone hates your product

Nobody likes getting an email message telling that that the end result of all their hard work is a piece of garbage (or worse). It is a bit of a shock, when it happens the first time. One negative piece of feedback can easily offset 10 positive ones. But, hurt feelings aside, it may not be all bad.

For a start, that person actually cared enough about your product to take the time to contact you. That is not something to be taken lightly. A large number of products fail because they solve a problem that no-one cares about. Apathy is very hard to iterate on. At least you are getting some feedback. Assuming the comments aren’t completely toxic, it might be worth replying. Sometimes you can turn someone who really hates your software into a fan. Like one of those romantic comedies where an odd couple who really dislike each other end up falling in love. Indifference is much harder to work with. The people who don’t care about your product enough to communicate with you, are the dark matter of business. Non-interacting. Mysterious. Unknowable.

Negative emails may also contain a kernal of useful information, if you can look past their, sometimes less than diplomatic, phrasing. I remember having the user interface of an early version of PerfectTablePlan torn apart in a forum. Once I put my wounded pride to one side, I could see they had a point and I ended up designing a much better user interface.

In some cases the person contacting you might just be having a bad day. Their car broke down. They are going through a messy divorce. The boss shouted at them. Your product just happened to be the nearest cat they could kick. Don’t take it personally. You need a thick skin if you are to survive in business.

But sometimes there is a fundamental clash between how someone sees the world vs the model of the world embodied in your product. I once got so angry with Microsoft Project, due to this sort of clash of weltanschauung, that I came close to throwing the computer out of a window. So I understand how frustrating this can be. In this case, it is just the wrong product for them. If they have bought a licence, refund them and move on.

While polarisation is bad for society, it can good for a product. Consider a simple thought experiment. A large number of products are competing for sales in a market. Bland Co’s product is competent but unexciting. It is in everyone’s top 10, but no-one’s first choice. Exciting Co’s product is more polarizing, last choice for many, but first choice for some. Which would you rather be? Exiting Co, surely? No-one buys their second choice. Better to be selling Marmite than one of ten types of nearly identical peanut butter. So don’t be too worried about doing things that polarize opinion. For example, I think it is amusing to use a skull and crossbones icon in my seating software to show that 2 people shouldn’t be sat together. Some people have told me that they really like this. Others have told me it is ‘unprofessional’. I’m not going to change it.

Obviously we would like everyone to love our products as much as we do. But that just isn’t going to happen. You can’t please all of the people, all of the time. And, if you try, you’ll probably ending pleasing no-one. Some of the people, most of the time is probably the best you can hope for.

The AI bullshit singularity

I’m sure we are all familiar with the idea of a technological singularity. Humans create an AI that is smart enough to create an even smarter successor. That successor then creates an even smarter successor. The process accelerates through a positive feedback loop, until we reach a technological singularity, where puny human intelligence is quickly left far behind.

Some people seem to think that Large Language Models could be the start of this process. We train the LLMs on vast corpuses of human knowledge. The LLMs then help humans create new knowledge, which is then used to train the next generation of LLMs. Singularity, here we come!

But I don’t think so. Human nature being what it is, LLMs are inevitably going to be used to churn out vast amount of low quality ‘content’ for SEO and other commercial purposes. LLM nature being what it is, a lot of this content is going to be hallucinated. In otherwords, bullshit. Given that LLMs can generate content vastly faster than humans can, we could quickly end up with an Internet that is mostly bullshit. Which will then be used to train the next generation of LLM. We will eventually reach a bullshit singularlity, where it is almost impossible to work out whether anything on the Internet is true. Enshittification at scale. Well done us.