> Software that prioritizes ease of use and friendliness has a much broader appeal—and, consequently, user base—than those that don't. There's value in that.
Why is that? If a tool is so simple that you don't need to learn anything about why does it matter how many people use it? There won't be a community for it because there's nothing to say. That would be learning about said tool which is the very thing we're trying to avoid.
Perhaps you were thinking ubiquity. But, in fact, the most ubiquitous text editor is probably vi/vim!
> If a tool is so simple that you don't need to learn anything about why does it matter how many people use it?
Are you saying there is no value in a tool having a large user base? The web and mobile app revolutions happened largely _because_ the software was accessible. If people needed to read manuals to learn how to use Facebook or TikTok, those projects never would've become popular. Microsoft and Apple built their empires on making operating systems easy to use. Obviously this is very valuable to many people.
If a tool is popular, it is more likely to be a sustainable income source for its authors, and thus more likely to continue to exist. Everyone benefits from that.
> There won't be a community for it because there's nothing to say. That would be learning about said tool which is the very thing we're trying to avoid.
A community doesn't just exist to discuss how to use a piece of software. It may consist of enthusiasts, discussions about program features or changes, value added services, etc. Besides, a community about the software itself is not required for it to be successful. Software can be popular just because people enjoy using it, and what it allows them to do.
> Perhaps you were thinking ubiquity.
No, I wasn't. I'm just saying that accessibility and ease of use are large factors in how popular a piece of software can be. Vi(m) had very humble beginnings and its growth was gradual over several decades. Yet it still pales in popularity compared to something like VS Code (see the Stack Overflow Developer Survey). Why do you think that is? Do you think Vim or Emacs will ever make it to the top of that list? What would need to happen for that to happen?
I'm not saying that chasing that metric is important. But there's safety in numbers.
Not following your argument. You start by talking about tools with a network effect which is totally irrelevant for something like a text editor (assuming it supports common formats like utf-8). Then you talk about tools being simple to use making them popular, which I never disputed.
Why is that? If a tool is so simple that you don't need to learn anything about why does it matter how many people use it? There won't be a community for it because there's nothing to say. That would be learning about said tool which is the very thing we're trying to avoid.
Perhaps you were thinking ubiquity. But, in fact, the most ubiquitous text editor is probably vi/vim!