Quote:
Originally Posted by whpalmer4
Anyone reading something else has been reading what they wish to see, not what is there. If you assume what you want rather than reading what is put forth, how is this Omni's miscommunication? How could they have acted differently to get this message across?
|
One of the first insight from studies of human communication is in fact that people put in it much more than what is offered. Including all sorts of intentions, bits of subtext and, yes, wishful thinking. Acting as if human communication were, like machine communication, a matter of coding and decoding is the basis of failure in many spaces, including markets.
The point isn't that it's Omni's one-sided fault that some people have been waiting enthusiastically for an iPhone version of OO. One point is that the consistent but vague message ("we might do this in the future") was sustaining some expectations until we got this new and clear message that, while they have an explicit strategy for another iOS device, they have no intention of broadening their strategy to the large majority of iOS devices. Blaming people for being disappointed is counterproductive as it does exactly nothing to explain the Omni Group's strategy with OO (something they haven't done such a good job elsewhere) and angers some of the product's most enthusiastic supporters. Given the state of outlining as more of a niche feature with a dedicated following, it sounds like a rather inelegant approach and a potentially damning one. When you take in consideration the fact that the product in question is used as part of some very elaborate workflows which clearly benefit from having some clear release schedules, the handwaving by Omni Group followed by a "oh, yes, we forgot to tell you, we won't develop an iPhone version after all" is the prelude to a nightmare.
What the Omni Group could have done includes a number of different things as we're talking about human complexity, not the complicated problems associated with developing the software from a set of specs. But one thing which could have helped would have been a blogpost, similar to the first one about the iPad (before they started reacting viscerally) or a part of that same post mentioning a clear vision for iOS development and/or doubts about the future of an iPhone version. Integrating plans about OO4 would also have made sense. Though it's a tricky strategy, discussing the results of an informal poll about OO's future might have helped, though some apparent lack of interest for the wishes of some usage patterns could have backfired ("we're listening but only if you belong to the powerful part of the Pareto rule").
What I'm expressing here isn't disappointment about the decision not to support the iPhone (and, I assume, the iPod touch). My needs may have expanded away from those about which the Omni Group seems to care. I wished for a new iOS outliner but I wasn't holding my breath.
In fact, what I'm expressing here isn't about me. Not is it about individual members of the Omni Group. It's about the relationship between a widely-respected but still small software development outlet, its fanbase, and the wider public. If the Omni Group were bigger, something as simple as this could lead to a "PR disaster." Given the size of the "group" and relationships it has developed over the years with some categories of users, it can be solved more easily with a healthy dose of respect. It can still lead to headaches and nightmares, but it's still manageable.
If and only if they avoid the mistake of "blaming the user."
It's an attention economy: pay attention to get attention.
(Posted from my iPod touch.)