Free software scares normal people

Some reasons for this:

1. Free software is developed for the developer's own needs and developers are going to be power users.

2. The cost to expose options is low so from the developer's perspective it's low effort to add high value (perceiving the options as valuable).

3. The developer doesn't know who the customer is and rather than research/refine just tries to hit all the boxes.

4. The distribution of the software itself means anyone who successfully installs it themselves really is a power user and does like the options. Installing it for family and friends doesn't work.

Probably many other factors!

It takes a lot of time and energy to refine and maintain a minimalistic interface. You are intentionally narrowing the audience. If you are an open source developer with limited time you probably aren't going to invest in that.

That’s one of the great things about the approach demonstrated in the post. The developers of Handbrake don’t need to invest any time or energy in a minimalist interface. They can continue to maintain their feature-rich software exactly as it is. Meanwhile, there is also a simple, easy front end available for people who need or want it.

> 4. The distribution of the software itself means anyone who successfully installs it themselves really is a power user and does like the options. Installing it for family and friends doesn't work.

i have seen many comments, by lay people, out of Sonobus [0] being superb on what it does and impressive by being 100% free. that's a niche case that if it was implemented on Ardour, could fit the same problem OP describes

[0] https://sonobus.net/

however i can't feel where the problem of FOSS UX scaring normal people is. someone getting a .h264 and a .wav file out of a video-record isn't normal after all. there are plenty of converters on the web, i dunno if they run ffmpeg at their server but i wouldn't get surprised. the problem lies on the whole digital infrastructure running on FOSS without returning anything back. power-user software shouldn't simplify stuff. tech literacy hopefully can be a thing and by quickly learning how to import and export a file in a complex software feels better to install 5 different limited software over the years because your demands are growing

> . Free software is developed for the developer's own needs and developers are going to be power users

* Free software which gains popularity is developed for the needs of many people - the users who make requests and complaints and the developers.

* Developers who write for a larger audience naturally think of more users' needs. It's true that they typically cater more to making features available than to simplicity of the UI and ease of UX.

> 2. The cost etc.

Agreed!

> 3. The developer doesn't know who the customer is and rather than research/refine just tries to hit all the boxes.

The developer typically knows what the popular use cases would be. Like with the handbrake example. They also pretty much know how newbie users like simplified workflows and hand-holding - but it's often a lot of hassle to create the simplified-with-semi-hidden-advanced-mode interface.

> 4. The distribution of the software itself means anyone who successfully installs it themselves really is a power user

Are people who install, say, the Chrome browser on their PC to be considered power userS? They downloaded and installed it themselves after all... no, I believe you're creating a false dichotomy. Some users will never install anything; some users might install common software they've heard about from friends; and some might actively look for software to install - even though they don't know much about it or about how to operate the apps and OS facilities they already h ave. ... and all of these are mostly non-power-users.

I think There’s a survivorship problem though. This software needs to be marketed and maintained to stay in the zeitgeist. It would have to compete with competitors that do more than just the simple things.

I think it’s essentially survivorship bias. The simple applications don’t get traction and later get abandoned.