Yes, this has been a problem with FOSS. Linux is only getting popular because the UX has advanced beyond “developer UX”, and Windows has declined into corp uselessness, and Mac doesn’t do what’s actually needed for half of the people. That’s how this works because users are normal people. Either you adapt or you gatekeep. Both approaches are valid, but you don’t get to complain about your choice.
The Fediverse will see mass adoption when it matches the actual features people want. Think about this: Foursquare was a great local social media. But the moment their big feature - the check-in - got added into Facebook and Nextdoor, usage dropped like a rock. People go where the most features are presented most conveniently. Privacy is a “nice-to-have”. If I’m already sharing pictures of myself from a phone, I want it to automatically read the EXIF data and pick up the geolocation and other stuff. I expect filters that are doing the intense work on the server rather than my device (and for free [as in beer]). I want easy sharing and tagging, and a way to put myself in front of my friends and especially in front of my rivals.
If the platform you’re pushing doesn’t have those features, it’s not fit for purpose. Remember - iStock, Pexels, Imgur, Flickr, DeviantArt, Pixiv, Pinterest, Instagram, and Snapchat all have different purposes, even though they all perform the same basic function: hosting and serving pictures. It’s the feature set that matters, not the core function. Don’t ask yourself “what does this thing basically do?”, but rather, “what will people want to do with this thing?”.
Yes, this has been a problem with FOSS. Linux is only getting popular because the UX has advanced beyond “developer UX”, and Windows has declined into corp uselessness, and Mac doesn’t do what’s actually needed for half of the people. That’s how this works because users are normal people. Either you adapt or you gatekeep. Both approaches are valid, but you don’t get to complain about your choice.
The Fediverse will see mass adoption when it matches the actual features people want. Think about this: Foursquare was a great local social media. But the moment their big feature - the check-in - got added into Facebook and Nextdoor, usage dropped like a rock. People go where the most features are presented most conveniently. Privacy is a “nice-to-have”. If I’m already sharing pictures of myself from a phone, I want it to automatically read the EXIF data and pick up the geolocation and other stuff. I expect filters that are doing the intense work on the server rather than my device (and for free [as in beer]). I want easy sharing and tagging, and a way to put myself in front of my friends and especially in front of my rivals.
If the platform you’re pushing doesn’t have those features, it’s not fit for purpose. Remember - iStock, Pexels, Imgur, Flickr, DeviantArt, Pixiv, Pinterest, Instagram, and Snapchat all have different purposes, even though they all perform the same basic function: hosting and serving pictures. It’s the feature set that matters, not the core function. Don’t ask yourself “what does this thing basically do?”, but rather, “what will people want to do with this thing?”.