It is that we perceive the presence of those effects to be intended to cover up the lack of features and need of the program itself, not to mention its various bugs
I see what you're saying, but my feeling is that if an app doesn't do anything unique and useful, people won't pay for it, so there's no need to fret.
Or if they decide pay $15 for something that provides the same service as a built-in tool, but does its thing with style and grace, than I think that's okay too. But that's in the extreme case. It seems Disco does, in fact, have features that Mac OS X's built-in tools do not.
In any case, I've read criticism about both Disco's appearance as well as its functionality, but I was mainly responding to the design side of things.
by Scott Stevenson — Nov 17
I see what you're saying, but my feeling is that if an app doesn't do anything unique and useful, people won't pay for it, so there's no need to fret.
Or if they decide pay $15 for something that provides the same service as a built-in tool, but does its thing with style and grace, than I think that's okay too. But that's in the extreme case. It seems Disco does, in fact, have features that Mac OS X's built-in tools do not.
In any case, I've read criticism about both Disco's appearance as well as its functionality, but I was mainly responding to the design side of things.
burning programs by design have to be stable
I agree completely.