[wilsonng]

Originally Posted by bocomoj

In fact, it takes more time to add all your projects and action steps into OF before you "do them." OF is pure time-overhead

Uh, it take more time to add all your projects and action steps into any task management program. There's overhead in any program. But this prevents the 7 Ps - "Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Ps_(military_adage)


I think the planning overhead is worth the time saved if it helps me get on the right track (or as close to the track as possible). That's what OF can do for me. I lose a lot more time if I don't do any proper planning.

Originally Posted by bocomoj

In the real world, most people can't buy more "free time."

Originally Posted by bocomoj

What OF does is help with task prioritization and assuring you CYA by not forgetting important work.

I don't think it's about buying more free time. It's about choosing a task/project based on the current circumstances (energy available, time available, tools available) and getting at least something done.

OF saves time by letting me capture everything into one inbox and then help me process and organize my projects and tasks. I don't have to stop and ponder about what I need to do next.

Originally Posted by bocomoj

however, the number of new tasks added to our plates is always larger than what we accomplish, no matter how productive we are. In the real world, most people can't buy more "free time."

I save time by looking at my projects in OF and determine what I can delete, delegate, or defer.

If I can delegate a project to someone else who has more time, skill, or tools to complete a project, I just saved time there.

I also save time by doing my weekly review and delete projects. If I slowly realize that a project doesn't really align with company goals (or even personal goals), I arrange a meeting with the boss and bring it to their attention. This project does not align with the company mission statement and I think it should be deleted. It doesn't happen often but I can lighten my load by discriminating whether a project's return-on-investment is good enough to keep the project.

Or I might realize that a project is stalled and either needs revision (revise the subtasks or goals of project). I saved time and futility by realizing that a goal is not properly planned or is not correctly goal-aligned. Then I go ahead and revise it or delete it.

Originally Posted by bocomoj

The average cost of an iOS app is far below $1.

I'm guessing that we're going to be counting the ten different flashlight apps and fifty fart apps at free or 99¢? We have to distinguish these novelty apps from a project/task management app such as OmniFocus, Things, etc. Let's disregard the very simple iOS checklist apps and look at something a little more powerful that has project and task management features.

Things for iPhone $9.99
Things for iPad $19.99

2Do $9.99

Pocket Informant Pro $14.99

Firetask for iPhone $5.99
Firetask for iPad $9.99

Hit List $9.99

TaskPaper $4.99

OmniFocus for iPad $39.99
OmniFocus for iPhone $19.99

Wunderlist 2 - free for basic use (with monthly $4.99 pro plan for more storage space and tech support)

That doesn't look like an average price of 99¢.

Originally Posted by bocomoj

Anyway, the original point remains: the current Apple software model is (1) low cost of entry, followed by (2) automatic updates with no additional purchase. That's the model for both the Mac and iOS stores. It's what we now expect.

OmniFocus 1.0 was released in January 8, 2008. We've had free updates for the last five years. A version upgrade is different from an update. We can argue endleslly that version 2 may or may not be enough of an upgrade to warrant a version 2.0 label.

http://www.omnigroup.com/products/om.../releasenotes/

But, in any case, I think five years is a long time between upgrades and paying a discounted upgrade price to support a company to ensure future updates seems worth it to me. Maybe not enough for you?

A low cost of entry would be nice (heck, free would be better). But if you don't want to support future updates, you have the option of sticking with OF1 and not even bother with OF2.

But I've tried other programs. Wunderlist 2 is free. But it didn't compare to what I could do in OF. But there will be a segment of the market that will find its home in someone else's application folder.

Things is considerably cheaper. But it wasn't the right fit for me despite the lower price point. So that invalidates the notion that a lower cost of entry.

OF does have a demo mode that allows you to try it free for 14 days. That's a low cost of entry. If you really liked it enough, then you can pay for it.

Or if you find that another program provides a better fit for your needs, you can always discontinue using OF.

I love having the cheaper price points but I don't always expect it. Heck, the lower price points for iOS has actually distorted realistic price points in terms of software development costs vs sales price.

I remember having a conversation with someone about an iOS app. She asked me how much it was. i said 99¢. She said "oh. I won't buy it then. I it should be free." I had a facepalm moment there. I wondered how anyone can think 99¢ was to high a price point for a video game that would bring them hours of entertainment. That is reality distortion.

Originally Posted by bocomoj

$180 worth of value? Not so sure.

It appears that OmniFocus is still a very popular program despite being "expensive." I think if I've seen enough bloggers and podcasters choosing OmniFocus, then there must be something to OmniFocus that price is a secondary factor.


I got my $180 worth. And it appears that a lot of bloggers have gotten their $180 worth as well. Did you?

Expensive? Sure. But you get what you pay for. If you don't think the features of OF isn't worth the money, there are always cheaper programs that might fit you better.