i deleted all my apps

Okay, not all of them, but most. It's because building for the web has gotten out of control.

Too many tools, a new LLM every three seconds, and yet paradoxically, less efficiency (I have zero data to back this up, but hang with me).

In the moment, these new and shiny advancements appear to improve our quality of life, yet their full implications are hard to see. It's as if we're blind towards their inefficiences.

The phenonema is exemplified by the shift from hunter-gathers to agriculture. Life got better, right? Wrong (according to Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind). Wheat-based diets led to more disease. Larger communities caused diseases to spread more easily. Farming was bad on their backs. At the time, it appeared better – no more wondering where the next meal would come from or exerting energy to hunt. But in reality, their quality of life was worse off.

Are we just repeating this pattern in the 21st century?

Shortly after the iPhone App Store launched in 2008, the phrase "there's an app for that" became popular.

15+ years later, new apps typically don't do something brand new; rather, they do something better than their predecessors. Or, as marketers would say, a "the modern tool for <insert vertical>."

Faster, better, agentic... these new apps were all started for very viable reasons.

They have a purpose. They are better.

better isn't better (unless it's a lot better)

Our work is composed of an unreasonable number of tools.

LLMs, email, calendars, notes, writing apps, terminals, CMSs, frameworks, task management... on and on it goes.

For every single one of these categories, there's a whole suite of competitors.

Which one is the best?

In the case of LLMs, the answer seems to change every time I refresh LinkedIn. For more rudimentary apps, like note-taking or task management, be prepared to see over 100 different tools.

1. So you turn to Reddit, YouTube, and LLMs to help narrow down your selection.
2. You pick a few, sign up, and try them out.
3. You think you've found your favorite, but it only does two out of three things well, while another tool does that one remaining thing perfectly. 😤
4. Time goes on. You get marketing emails from the three tools you signed up for, you spend time configuring the app, you keep it updated, and you question if you made the right choice.
5. You might even convince your colleagues to use it, get a license for it, and create content about it.

All for what, exactly? To save time? Ha.

Here's the point (read John's theory): Time saving tools can't save you time.* It's paradoxical. You'll spend too much time on the hidden costs that the breakeven point will never come.

*There is one exception to this rule. More on that later.

So I turn to strategic minimalism.

strategic minimalism

After realizing how much time I was spending on all these "better" tools, I deleted almost everything.

Now, I approach my decisions like this:

1. Default to the defaults. Your Mac comes loaded with apps: Mail, Safari, Terminal, Notes, etc. Use them. Similarly, if you're using some app, start with whatever comes with it.
2. No default? Go simple. When you need something that isn't built-in, choose the simplest option available.
3. Invest where it counts. Here's that crucial exception. For the tools that are absolutely critical to your core work, go pedal-to-the-metal to find the best solution for the job. But even then, prioritize minimal maintenance. While flexibility and low maintenance often seem to be at odds, some tools give you the best of both worlds.

I get two primary benefits from this approach:

• Time back to focus on what I want to do. No more emails, updates, or maintenance for tools I don't have.
• Adapt to change more easily. By staying lean, I can pivot without a tech stack holding me back.

By using fewer tools, I get more done.

There actually might be some science that prevents productivity when using fancier tools...

"yeah, science!" - Jesse Pinkman

Can new technology save more time than it costs, overall?

My theory is no. I'll explain but note I say overall.

Of course, a person or company can gain efficiency from a new tool. But I'm talking about the entire ecosystem. For example, one company leverages AI to save time, but the entire industry is now spending an unquantifiable amount of time "doing" AI – researching, learning, writing, debating, and playing with it.

This is where the science comes in: entropy. A concept in thermodynamics that roughly says that when considering the whole, things tend to get messier over time.

Think of a fridge. Inside the fridge (aka local), we get the desired cool environment, but outside the fridge (global) the energy used creates heat increasing the total disorder of the universe.

I'm not a scientist and have very little knowledge of thermodynamics, but it seems this principle applies to the energy we put into technology.

Locally, these tools can help us. But globally? How much collective time and energy does the research, manufacturing, data centers, debugging, marketing, user education, and dealing with societal side-effects actually cost?

This expenditure increases the overall complexity, resource consumption, and "disorder" of our entire human-technological system.

how to beat science

Globally, you can't beat it.

Even locally, for yourself, it's tough. Sure, AI might save you time coming up with a banger title, but dang, I can't say I've hit a breakeven point. I'm guessing AI has cost me more time and energy than it's saved me so far.

So when choosing tools, only put in the energy when that tool plays a significant role in your work. That's how you "beat" it on a personal level.

For me, that's my content system (shoutout to Sanity). Even then, I build on a platform that doesn't require ongoing maintenance, because those little costs add up, making that breakeven point impossible to reach.

While that shiny new app may be "better," it will probably cost you more time than it saves.