Traditional product development says to know your customer, and what their problem is, and then create a product for them that solves that problem. But you don't get products like web browsers, terminals, and text editors through that process.
There's one obvious answer: That when you launch your product, you focus on a single problem, and a single type of user. Which is what I've tried to do. There are some benefits to this approach. It certainly makes some conversations easier. But it also simultaneously has a negative effect, in that it ends up making the product seem less magical, and correspondingly it's harder to tap into my own enthusiasm for the product when I'm so focused on one use case.
To me, web browsers, terminals, and text editors are special. Because they're so adaptable, they become less of just a solution to a problem I'm currently solving, and more of a part of my identity. Something feel I can bring with me to any problem I might be trying to solve. I've tried to design a new tool that I feel the same way about.
I'm wondering if there's a way of tapping into my own, and what I hope is others, interest in open-ended tools like these. Perhaps in addition to focusing on one specific use case, or maybe even instead of?
One interesting thought experiment might be: If a web browser, a terminal, or text editor didn't exist today, then how would you market them?
Before video-display terminals, there were teletype terminals. A VDT was faster at displaying information, could be addressed randomly in a 2D matrix, and didn't run out of paper.
Before text editors, there were line editors, and before line editors, there were card stacks.
Before web browsers, we had GOPHER, and FTP, and TELNET. When I first saw a web browser, I dismissed it as an extravagant way of navigating GOPHERspace.
So: what's the predecessor for your invention, and what are the improvements that your invention offers? Make them obvious enough, and you'll have a hit.