The future of subscription: fair development, different platforms and feature integration
Since I took the recent survey (results: Logos is not easy to use and not very well integrated), I think it's only fair to ask about some of the issues. I truly expected that the subscription would not only develop more tools for language analysis, but also integration. Things like the morphology charts and much more can't even be exported, copied or used with other tools directly from it. Others are underdeveloped and left for dead, like many analysis tools (while websites like BibleArc keep developing them for free or very cheaply). To say nothing of tablet or phone versions. To be fair, I thought some features were 'game changing', but the broader integration to make it a reality for all never happened. It stopped at the pastoral level.
I wonder if subscription will only ever be used for the 'busy pastor project' or it will honor the teased 'researcher' tier and financing purpose.
Maybe Faithlife should separate the Logos platforms to make them less bloated. Logos for preachers, Logos for researchers etc. Each one with their own set of tools, even if you can download and integrate more at your own risk of overburdening the main app. Why? Because separate developments could be helpful to more people and seems to be only fair to each customer's subscription goals in the first place.
I mean, I never intended to pay exclusively for the 'busy pastor project', but that's what the subscription is financing, while the rest is getting cosmetics, at best. It's not a matter of being 'against' it. I'm not! It's about different subscription options being used for different goals and people. I bet many people had very different expectations of what the promise of 'quick development through subscription' meant, and what were the goals.
Obviously, you can't satisfy everyone. But I think it's fair to say the different tiers and expected goals were pretty different than watching a single focus and a project that was not clear from the financing promises of subscription. It was about 'quick feature development and integration', but it seems to be only the 'Logos for busy preachers' to sell it to parishes etc. Sorry, but that wasn't clear.
Again: it's a laudable goal and I hope it helps to preach the Word of God, but it shouldn't be done in expense of a more diverse development as teased to sell a subscription model.
In other words: seems more like subscriptions are being used as 'crowdfunding' for the selling of a Logos tool especially developed for parishes and pastoral needs, and not what expected from the promises of 'subscription for quick feature development for all levels of users'. Especially for those relying on it as a research tool. The single-mindedness of "Logos for the busy pastors' sermon" is getting dangerously close to get scary about the future. Especially with the demise of other platforms, like Accordance etc. Simply put: every tier of subscription in getting the same thing, and it seems like the lower tier one.
Getting many perks may ease the pain, but it's still not clear what the future of Logos and subscribers that expected a research tool is. Different development cycles and teams (and different tools and platforms) seems to be the only answer for the different tiered expectations. Even if it momentarily slows down some plans. Everything in a single tool-platform may be impossible to integrate and deploy (certainly not on a so-called quick development subscription model). So we will be left with a great tool for pastors, but an underdeveloped tool for researchers.
Hope it's a healthy reflection. Just so Faithlife knows that 'the audience is listening' and part of it is getting a little impatient and worried. I don't think Faithlife is hearing the chatter before the boos begin. Take this as a friendly advise and an old supporter's plea.
God bless!
Comments
-
I think that all users in markets with unmet basic needs need to be vocal and vote up suggestions and resources that point towards our needs whether or not it meets our exact needs. We need to be clear with Logos as to what we want to do through Logos and what we are willing to slough to AI.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I agree with Mateus … at least in the current time, busy-pastor, and happy-new-user seem the targets. And I agree with MJ, that at least for forumites, other needs need voicing. But I suspect (fully uninforumed) that the lions share (I guess from a zoo?) of any 'researcher' effort, will go into their Lexham volumes; not the app. I just don't think they still have the OL depth of expertise, they used to.
I've pretty much resigned my self to my PDF on old latin. The Vulgate interlinear seems their last hurrah.
Ooopsie-doopsie! Did I REALLY forget the Hebrew Encyclopedia's arrival … hmmm, 5 days from now? I'm just hoping it won't get the Tov treatment (his Hebrew volume that came and went).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
« Maybe Faithlife should separate the Logos platforms to make them less bloated. Logos for preachers, Logos for researchers etc. »
The only problem with this approach (and it is a BIG problem)- I use a hybrid set of features which don't fall into one category. So splitting them would force me to subscribe to two different packages that probably would integrate even less than what we have now. (That would be a bad thing, for those of you from Rio Linda.)
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
2 -
« I just don't think they still have the OL depth of expertise, they used to. »
Agree…when you look at some of the scholar-names that have left Logos, you can't help but think this.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
1 -
vote up suggestions and resources that point towards our needs
I'm using Verbum for about 15 month now and repeatedly asked for more catholic resources in original German language or German translation. This tradition isn't as used to "the bible" like protestant denominations and I suspect that the mere existence let alone the scope and capabilities of this software is in the first place unknown to the average German-speaking Theologian. So the first step would be to do some marketing/publicity moves and then broaden the resources still lacking in Verbum.
The same could be said maybe of Italian language resources, which are nearly non-existent as far as I see. And having the center of the Catholic Church (and a lot of Universities) in Rome leads a lot of people learning Italian. I had conversations in Italien with people from Uganda, Albania and even Ireland, only to mention a few.
In short: More resources in German and Italian, please!0 -
Again: it's a laudable goal and I hope it helps to preach the Word of God, but it shouldn't be done in expense of a more diverse development as teased to sell a subscription model.
I'm not sure the "busy pastor project" - pushed to the extent Logos seems to be taking it - is good for the church. It already feels like our local preacher is too often feeding the congregation microwaved frozen dinners. I don't think we want to normalize that behavior.
1 -
Maybe Faithlife should separate the Logos platforms to make them less bloated. Logos for preachers, Logos for researchers etc. Each one with their own set of tools, even if you can download and integrate more at your own risk of overburdening the main app. Why? Because separate developments could be helpful to more people and seems to be only fair to each customer's subscription goals in the first place.
Over the last 10-15 years, we have seen a considerable consolidation of the Bible Software market. The market for premium Bible software is niche, and even within that niche, there is a lot of diversity. From an original languages side, it has been a while since I was excited about some new capability from anyone, including Logos' last competitor. Of course, that is just me and my focus of studies and current use cases/workflows.
I suggest that those who like the tools in Logos for original languages need to advocate for what they would like to see more of.
I, too, would support the development of analysis tools and charts. A short example, after running a Bible search and opening the chart, it would be a time saver to be able to just click on that chart to navigate the verses in a book that I want to investigate further. Sure I can back out and build the search to get to that, but using visualisation to drive my engagement of the software would be an exciting area to explore.
I would also love to see some much-needed TLC given to the text comparison tool. This tool's interlinear view only supports a limited number of texts, and being able to visually process text differences in this and many other ways would add real value. What else can be pulled into the text comparison tool to help us build out a fuller picture? Are there elements of AI that could highlight things I might be missing in my library?
Anyhow, let's keep the discussion going. I know Logos listens so it is good to put our ideas out there to see if there are enough others to create critical mass.
0 -
I'm against dividing Logos up to meet "special" needs. Remember, Logos like any other "program company" is working with a limited number of people to do the job. I understand also that some people don't use all the "features" as others do. But, that should not be a call for splitting up a great program.
Logos seems to work on what the customers call for. Lately, it seems to me, more customers have complained about Search (which I am very much a fan for this), and we can see that Search has been worked on. Once Search is up to speed, I am sure the Logos Team will address other customer concerns.
And being an ex programmer myself, it just doesn't help to add more people (all at once) to a programming project. It just doesn't work. It adds confusion, chaos, wasted time and upsets the team. But Logos has a team that seem to be listening to the customers. I think this is most important, that the team listen.
Like has been said, voice our concerns, in a Christian way, and I believe whole heartily that Logos will listen and add the concerns to their list of priorities that they work with. I have seen this in the past, I believe Mark Barnes and others are very attune to what customers want and listen very much!
That's my 2 cents, which with about $3.00, you can buy a cup of coffee in a lot of places! 😎
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
Another thing about software changes is that a tiny, seemingly-simple thing isn't always easy to do. And then that one change can send the whole row of dominoes crashing. So there is that. I'll have one $3.02 coffee please!
0 -
Maybe Faithlife should separate the Logos platforms to make them less bloated. Logos for preachers, Logos for researchers etc.
According to the web site, they already do this with their subscription tiers.
Premium (some tools) is for small group leaders & in-depth study
Pro (more tools) is for pastors & sermon prep
Max (all tools) is for language study & research
0 -
For me (2005), with the current breakout, I'd never have gotten so involved with Logos ($$$). They define the journey, before the journey begins. Like a shipping company. I'd of said, nope.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I think one thing you have to realize is that Faithlife isn’t going to create separate application instances for each seperate need. I’ve been part of companies where we designed an app for a large segment of people and each with different needs. What ends up happening for example is Logos vs Verbum. Exact same platform just rebranded for a new look. I use Verbum, but I also know that my settings change in my profile from Catholic to … changes everything on how things are being searched. I still can sign into the Logos app but I know that all I get is a different branding.
I think they are building tools and features that the masses want. They have one large development team working on various parts of the app and they have to prioritize. They have a place that allow for recommendations and can be voted upon. There are some things I want in the app but right now it’s not high on their list. Logos/Verbum is an amazing tool that has saved me countless hours I would have spent traveling back and forth to a library. I’m very thankful for a tool that I have a considerable amount of $$ invested into.
0 -
That's where I am too. Most of the stuff they brag most about now, I never use.
0 -
I think they are building tools and features that the masses want.
That's the real question, isn't it? There's only one other person in our congregation who uses Logos. That's the preacher, and I know for a fact that he doesn't use sermon builder or any of the visual media. He writes his sermons the old-fashioned way, in Word, and doesn't use any visuals when he preaches.
I do use visual copy and some of the media resources, because I've found slides to be helpful when I teach. But most of the fancy interactives and stuff won't export or copy into PowerPoint - and when I try some sort of workaround, the formatting is unusable.
I know from reading the forums that there are some users who're very excited about the newer features that have been rolled out in recent years. But I've found most of them to be impossible (for me at least) to use in a congregational classroom setting.
I don't know who these features are for, but it's not me, it's not our preacher, and it's not any of the people sitting in the pews in our congregation (most of whom would find Olive Tree to be overkill).
0 -
Poor OliveTree (overkill for most; true). But it's been a nice balance of app-books-devices. Logosians might turn their collective noses up … where's the features?!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0
