Could Logos Now Stunt Future Development?

I think that Logos Now is a great idea, and I appreciate it, but I was wondering about its impact on future iterations of Logos. Right now, we are on Logos 6, but Logos Now gives us the benefit of early features for Logos 7. That would seem to indicate that Logos 7 is going to be built largely on the Logos 6 foundation, since the Logos 7 features work in Logos 6.

I assume that things will continue that way. Once Logos 7 is released, Logos Now will give us the benefit of early Logos 8 features. If that is the case, then they would still need to be based on the same basic framework as Logos 6. Is this correct?

What happens if Logos wants to make a complete overhaul, as was the case with the jump from Logos 3 to Logos 4? Would it be possible to use Logos 8 features in Logos 7 if Logos 8 is going to be a complete overhaul?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Lynden O. Williams

From what I recall Joseph, most of what worked in Libronix 3 also worked in Logos 4. So that is a fair assumption.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/837284#Comment_837284

From what I recall Joseph, most of what worked in Libronix 3 also worked in Logos 4. So that is a fair assumption.

Hello Lynden! Actually, L4 was built from the ground up and was very different from L3. L5 and L6 are built similarly to L4.

MJ. Smith

Would it be possible to use Logos 8 features in Logos 7 if Logos 8 is going to be a complete overhaul?

Given the modularity of modern software design, this is far less of a concern than when Libronix was rewritten as Logos. It is a logically possible concern but not one I'd worry much about - I'd be more concerned about the need for mobile/tablet support.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/837330#Comment_837330

Would it be possible to use Logos 8 features in Logos 7 if Logos 8 is going to be a complete overhaul?

Given the modularity of modern software design, this is far less of a concern than when Libronix was rewritten as Logos. It is a logically possible concern but not one I'd worry much about - I'd be more concerned about the need for mobile/tablet support.

That's helpful, thanks!

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/837348#Comment_837348

I have pretty much come to the conclusion that we've plateaued. Welcome improvements aside, most of us never learned 4 well enough to maximize 6. Hopefully we'll catch up in 7 to have a fresh perspective on the future.

Mark Barnes

That would seem to indicate that Logos 7 is going to be built largely on the Logos 6 foundation, since the Logos 7 features work in Logos 6.

I assume that things will continue that way. Once Logos 7 is released, Logos Now will give us the benefit of early Logos 8 features. If that is the case, then they would still need to be based on the same basic framework as Logos 6. Is this correct?

What happens if Logos wants to make a complete overhaul, as was the case with the jump from Logos 3 to Logos 4? Would it be possible to use Logos 8 features in Logos 7 if Logos 8 is going to be a complete overhaul?

This is an interesting question. I think there are two things to note.

The first is that Logos' development has been roughly along these lines since at least 2001. There was the original Logos in 1991, then Logos 2 in 1995, then a huge jump to Libronix. We tend to call Libronix L3, but actually there were three major versions of Libronix (version 1 in December of 2001, version 2 in July 2003, and version 3 in May 2006). But each major version also had incremental versions in between (so Libronix 3.0 eventually went to 3.0g). In the grand scheme of things, there's little difference between this model, and the L4/5/6/7? model, except that development is more rapid now.

On the other hand, software development has changed massively since the early 2000s. It's becoming increasingly common for developers to only offer relatively small updates, but to do so very frequently. (You can read up on Agile Software Development if you're interested.) Google Chrome is at about version 52 at the moment, but you've probably barely noticed any changes since it launched in 2008 - and yet it's changed massively. We just don't notice, because each change is small.

The theory with agile software development is that users get constant benefits, and developers get near-instant feedback on their code. It's been very widely adopted in the open source community, and in web-based software, but only recently in desktop software for small businesses or home users. That's because it's been very difficult to monetise for small users. Monetisation doesn't matter in Open Source, and in web appsusers will be paying a monthly fee, so they don't really need to worry about monetisation from new featuers either. On desktop software the monthly fee option has only recently started to become known, principally through Office365, and also Adobe Creative Cloud.

Logos Now is Faithlife's attempt to create an even (and hopefully growing) income, rather than have major income peaks every 2-3 years. Like Microsoft, they've retained the old purchase options, but I think they're trying to make 'membership' sufficiently attractive to make most users voluntarily transition to that model.

Faithlife will need to ensure that the allow time for code refactoring and under the hood improvements to ensure they don't lock themselves in to software that has evolved rather than has been planned. That's one of the issues with agile development. But from what I've seen, there's quite a lot of refactoring going on at the moment, which obviously we can't yet see, particularly with regard to online services.

Will we ever have a complete overhaul? That's increasingly unlikely, as Microsoft are showing both with Windows, and with Office.

DMB

I doubt LN will do anything to development. They're still water-testing. And any answer is theirs; it's their company, vision, life. LN can disappear just as fast as it appears. My opinion, LN warns users what is not in the future. Instead itty-bitty improvements.

I think the presentation model is the bigger issue. They're stuck in a database model ... tables, attributing, queries. Limited 'reports' with traditional formatting. The search is old, just fast. Text comparison is just the basics. Data attributing is for a small user segment.

There is very little embedded intelligence (guessing/helping users), and almost no user encouragement ( helpful hints, alternative paths, etc). Certainly, no intuitiveness that drives success with mobiles.

Given the itty-biity-ness of development after L4, I assume the Logos budget is powering Proclaim, and the more recent developmental area.

Not being intentionally 'catty', but for Bible software, 'major steps' lies in Australia. The US Bible software group are honing a model from the early PC days with another hopeful flavor every 2-3 years.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/837467#Comment_837467

There is very little embedded intelligence (guessing/helping users), and almost no user encouragement ( helpful hints, alternative paths, etc). Certainly, no intuitiveness that drives success with mobiles.

I agree with this assessment, Denise. This is exactly my view of the state of Bible research technology. It seems like FL/Logos is now stuck in a certain model/mindset/way of thinking that it will be very unlikely for them to break out and break through. Logos is getting more and more complex and clunky, cf. Windows, iOS, Android.

It will take another startup with fresh thinking and fresh eyes to disrupt the current Bible software industry currently being dominated by Logos and the other big players and big publishers.

for Bible software, 'major steps' lies in Australia.

Any news / links you can share in this space?

Thanks,

Peter

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/837478#Comment_837478

Peter, no info. Sorry! But my observation is the west coast of Australia seems to birth good thinking, and new ideas (Bible-wise).

The other possible source is on the Catholic side of the house. New approaches. Also, review what the Mormons are doing for Mormons. I'm quite impressed. Beliefs, not business.

JoshInRI

Mr. Turner I believe that Logos needs a complete overhaul to make it powerful and useful for common users who are not developers or language scholars looking for minute detail