How much software do we actually need?

There is an app for everything. Wondering when to use the washroom during a movie? There’s an app for that. Unhappy with the latitude and longitude system? Why not use three words instead? More choice in software is great at a global scale - it increases the chances that you will be able to find the one app that fits your specific use case - however, we shouldn’t confuse that with a need to use all that software for everything in our individual lives. More software doesn’t necessarily make for a better life. If anything, it carries an administrative burden; more things to keep track of that distract us from focusing on what really matters.

This post was partly inspired by two things. First, in How Big Things Get Done Dan Gardner speaks of “Backcasting”. We should define an objective before a process. To put this in a concrete example, I don’t want to use a budgeting app, I want to save money. In 2024, we’ve been conditioned to think that we can use software to solve most problems, and by implementing a technological solution we are “smart” or “modern”. So we google “what is the best budgeting app?” without asking ourselves if an app is really the best way to meet our objective in the first place. In doing so, we constrain the problem to fit into the desired solution. Almost all budgeting apps require you to manually input transactions (or sync them up to your bank, which is bold in terms of security), and unless we critically reflect on whether an app is the best method in the first place, we may just see that as the cost of doing business. A budgeting app is one possible solution to saving money, it isn’t the only solution.

Next, I’ve been travelling for the past week with a newly acquired cheap laptop and have used two programs: Firefox, and the terminal for taking notes. That’s it. Internet service has been nice to have in several places but not a requirement, and it has forced me to get to know the island more through walking around and exploring different routes. I could have downloaded a travel app showing the best spots to go to or a guide to all the local food, but that would have taken the fun out of it. There isn’t actually that much technology that is required for day to day living, even when abroad. The technology that I do use is dependable and meets a defined purpose.

While interest rates were low, many startups could afford to offer software products for free, so much so that the concept of paying for an app is likely absurd for many people. Now, many software solutions are having to raise prices in lieu of endless flows of venture capital money. With a real cost assigned to using a particular service, this may incentivize reflection on the role that technology in general has played in our lives. Great products that have a dedicated user base will flourish, others may flounder.

At a global scale, having lots of software is great. Out of billions of internet users, there is very likely to be someone that has the exact problem solved by a very niche app. Yet, at an individual level, we don’t need to use software for every aspect of our lives, just because it is available. Rather, we can focus our attention on the specific aspects of our day to day experience that software would solve, and reduce overhead for the rest.

I don’t need to record how fast I cycle, however someone training for a triathlon might, and an incredibly in-depth fitness app might suit their needs. The maker of that fitness app may try to convince everyone that their life is incomplete without their app, but that simply isn’t the case. Instead, I’ll use an app to track all the books I read, which takes up time and effort but something that I ultimately find worthwhile. By defining the why first, then the how, we can narrow in on what truly matters and cut out the noise.