One of the most important things for any project is the way they are defined. Even though people like things to be familiar, they don’t necessarily need that. Just for the heck of it, I remember once reading someone stating (a quote from memory): “I didn’t know I needed GNOME Shell an iPod until I got one”.
So, in software development you don’t actually need “vector graphics editor like Illustrator, but gratis” or “instant messenger like Miranda IM, but for Linux”. Yes, people ask for those every frigging day. What happens however, is when you define the project that way, you start meeting requests to make 100% copy of UI or features or both.
And this is when things go terribly wrong.
Since you don’t have the resources of a big company, your copy is never better, and you end up with software that sucks, and users who absolutely hate it. And they never ever forgive you attempts to make something original, because it’s not how you positioned your project. So you become a grumpy overworked monster who is never happy.
I think Sven had more or less that idea in mind regarding GIMP and Photoshop when he wrote: “We need to define our goals but we should by all means avoid to define our goals in terms of competitors.”. And the final product vision, as you can see, honors that view.
But when you fail to understand that you need to make your software appealing on its own, all you can do is define your own project via disadvantages of other projects (imaginary and obsolete at that, too).
So whoever is reading this and thinking about starting his/her own project, if you expect this project to take off, think about how you present it.
- Are you solving an issue bigger than “Oh noez, they killed Amarok with this new UI, we need a new player”?
- Can you explain the point of your software in one short phrase?
- Are you able to talk to your potential users in the language they understand?
It’s really important to pick the right words and explain the core idea without abusing buzzwords. I, for one, was particularly stubborn when it came to Novacut first, partially because they did not immediately deliver a definition that was understandable (and partially because I’m just very stubborn on my own). But after I listened to them long enough, things began to make sense. I am now confident that what Jason, Tara et al. are trying to achieve is a serious project.
Also, think of the technical side. Will your software blend into the mix? Does it have an architecture that’s not like a fractal sandwich? What does it take to install and try it?
At this point you might discover yourself balancing between software development, project management, QA, marketing, PR and copywriting. And it’s good. It means your brain is actually trying to work. It means you are discovering new angles to look at things from.
This also means that the existing intro text at inkscape.org is going away any time now. In a manner of speaking, Inkscape is much like Adobe Illustrator or Corel DRAW. But that’s not the point, you see 
