Any desktop app based startups?
Seems a large majority are doing web based startups. Is anyone writing a desktop app as their MVP, etc? My background has been mainly writing "enterprisy" Microsoft based (yes I know) back-end office desktop applications in Windows using C#, WinForms, WPF, and in the past C++/MFC.
Just seeing what's out there as I'd be interested in joining a startup that is writing a thick client app even if it's not a true desktop runtime like Silverlight. And even if you're not looking for anyone I'd be interested in hearing about your startup (as probably other "desktop app dev" lurkers are perhaps interested as well).
And although I could try to learn web dev I feel I could better leverage my existing skills as there could be an untapped market/niche in the world of desktop apps that web apps currently can't deliver that could be filled while everyone else is focused on the next Web X.0 app (not that there's anything wrong with that).
60 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] thread1. don't appreciate nice software (it's a rare thing, most programs are considered good if they don't have malware in them)
2. don't pay for software because they're 'smart' enough to use BT
3. don't care a lick about decent UIs because there's inevitably a free/open source program with that skates by on virtue of being free
The OS, as of Windows 7, is damn nice (though the terminal is terrible). The UI of the apps is almost universally bad -- most apps disregard the system UI theme for absolutely no gain, and they end up looking garish. Many apps that target the 'power user' demographic fall into a pit of endless customization, which presumes that users want to tweak their software using components written by random people on the Internet. It's as if no app on Windows is content to just do its thing, it always has to be striving to do more in a thoroughly mediocre fashion.
1. Do appreciate applications that "just work" and are willing to spend time choosing the right apps that suits them.
2. Haven't learnt of BT yet or even if they have, they're willing to pay to save the hassle of checking for viruses, trojans etc.
3. Do appreciate user friendly applications, they'll choose a better looking application with lesser features over a featureful app with bad UI.
Going after this crowd can be lucrative indeed, just ask patio11 ;)
OS X appears to simply have more of a tradition of independently-written, beautiful software.
1.Having multiple tabs which is the killer feature
2.Marketing themselves as a secure and less-crashy alternative.
This might seem like an unfair example(not everyone has Google's or Mozilla's muscle) but the basics are the same for any type of software and given sufficient effort and planning, they can compete in competitive markets with established players.
I do however, expect that as Apple becomes less and less of a computer for geeks (of various types) and more and more of a mainstream competitor to Windows PCs that it will suffer from more of the problems you outline. I've noticed that my non-techy, but Mac-owning friends don't perceive the different between Mac and Windows software in the same way that I do, and many of them also do a lot more piracy than I do. (I don't really pirate software except for Photoshop, primarily out of laziness.)
The gamer demographic on Windows is also a bit notorious for piracy.
I've done some research, and found that on average, 80% of the music I listen to on Spotify was coming from peers rather than from Spotify's servers. If I'm anything like an average user, that means that Spotify may be cutting its bandwith costs by something like 80%. That would be impossible to do as a web app, and web-based competitors face huge streaming costs indeed.
http://www.flashrealtime.com/basics-of-p2p-in-flash/
But seriously, I don't think Spotify could be the great app it is if it were a flash app. Can you imagine yourself running a tab in your browser with an app like Spotify inside and your fans running full-speed on?
E.g. for a Windows app: reading files, connecting to Outlook, adding things to the registry, Windows Explorer context menu support, draw stuff on the desktop, plugin for Visual Studio, easier task-tray integration, better global shortcut key support, Win32 API trickery if you need to make controls do what they don't currently do.
The web as a platform still has trouble keeping up with capabilities of desktop apps from 10 years ago. But due to having pretty much no reasonable competitor in the deployment market and deployment being so essential to a company's success the web will likely continue to be a dominant platform for startups and should eventually catch up to desktop platforms(probably 5 years or so).
Compute-intensive and graphics-intensive applications
Our goal is to build a large collection of small software products, including a mix of desktop and web apps, that help people form sophisticated relationships with technology. We also want to build "hardware" to support people in making healthy changes to technology habits.
Our first product, Awareness, is a C# app for Mac and Windows, already distributed through the App Store.
I'm actually looking to bring another programmer onboard, so send us your resume!
http://shavevideo.com/
Just got a great review in MacLife:
http://www.maclife.com/article/reviews/shave_video_review
I think there are plenty of opportunities on the desktop-side of things; millions of computers are sold every month. While we may be entering the long-tail of dedicated computer sales, being replaced by iPads and other specialized devices eventually, it's going to take a while for that switch to fully happen. At least 5 if not 10 years or more; the keyboard/mouse interface still rules for content creation, and many people spend their days sitting in front of one.
However, it's becoming very difficult to release a desktop-only application without some sort of web component. Everything from note taking software, to video games, to music software, is all expected to be connected online somehow.
I'd imagine a sticking point for some corporate software is security. Most companies are not comfortable having their data stored on someone else's servers, potentially unencrypted. Some even have special agreements with governments and businesses preventing them from doing so. A lot of these companies are being left out of the cloud.
Two possible solutions include providing server software for IT departments to deploy (been there, done that, it's not pretty or cheap), or to have some sort of encrypted solution syncing to the cloud. The trick is, data must be fully and securely encrypted "before" going to the cloud. If someone breaks into the cloud provider's storage, or intercepts the data in-transit, they must get gibberish. The cloud provider can't read the data either; only the business. Just an idea to think about. :)
On a sidenote: That doesn't really count either, but MacHeist has done fantastically well selling Mac desktop software in bundles online.
http://www.evernote.com/about/opensource/
I think they got the Webkit license wrong. Just like the LibXML License, it says:
> Copyright (C) 1998-2003 Daniel Veillard. All Rights Reserved.
(I've got no relationship with them)
I think you'll find more desktop-app-focused startups in Apple-land, largely thanks to the impetus to Obj-C & Cocoa programming that the iPhone has given.
I'm bootstrapping a native-client-software-based business. My business isn't successful yet, but we'll see how things play out in the next couple of years. I'm hoping that though web-based apps are all the rage, there still exists a large-enough market for desktop software. My economic goals are modest (though a wildly-successful outcome wouldn't be unwelcome).
For several years I've kept up with many, very-helpful startup-related blogs and sites. The vast majority of these recommend launching web-app-based startups. Even one startup owner who had hybrid approach phased out his desktop version (http://www.kalzumeus.com/2009/09/05/desktop-aps-versus-web-a...) So why am I developing desktop apps? The main reason is that I care passionately about user interfaces and the effect they have on my experience as a user. There doesn't seem to be a very consistent UI for the Web as a platform, not as consistent a UI as exists for Windows, Mac OS or GNU/Linux distributions. Web apps have their advantages, but UI-consistency isn't their strong suit (nor do I foresee this changing very soon).
A second reason for my focus on desktop apps is that I want to scratch my own itch and make programs that I want to use myself. I want to write high-quality software that 1) aids me with tasks related to various personal interests and 2) is desktop software, if possible. I want to exclusively produce "dogfood" (though not necessarily programmer tools). Having myself as a target user fuels my motivation to get up and work hard on making a streamlined, powerful, easy-to-use product, since I'll be using it. Yes, I'll still perform usability testing and try to understand my other target users. However, I believe it can be helpful to be a target user myself. I can't imagine how hard it must be to develop software for an unfamiliar field or making a program whose only value to me is as a source of income. (By the way, having oneself as a target user is generally considered by startup bloggers to be a mistake.)
A third reason for my desktop-app obsession lies in the opportunities I see to leverage the advantages of native client applications. Various articles lists the advantages of web apps. However, desktop apps have their own particular advantages, though many desktop applications fail to leverage them. I plan to keep identifying these advantages and capitalizing on them. At the same time, there's a lot for client apps to learn from web apps (and I hope to internalize those lessons as well).
As you can see, I'm a bit of a contrarian and somewhat stubborn about this particular issue. It may turn out to be my undoing. (I hope otherwise, of course.) Check up on me in a year or two... In the meantime, be careful about any advice you may draw from what I just wrote.