Midnight Beep's Inbox

[Adriano]

I see that the most recent post on Midnight Beep's program, Inbox, is from more than a year ago.

I'll state upfront that I'm relatively new to the GTD process/method and that I have not really implemented it in full. However, for myself, the most important hold back has been that I have not found a good GTD program for use on the Mac.

I've tried iGTD (it looks as if the programmer is no longer working on it for the past year or so), OmniFocus (not really GTD-specific and too complicated), Ready-Set-Do (not really a program per se but a bundle of Applescripts and so lacking a single interface), and Things.

The latter has been the most promising and has a nice clean approach. However, I found it to be too "loose" to use in the application of the GTD method. It's just out of beta testing and so there is a fee that is to be paid and, although relatively inexpensive, I am not convinced it's worth the investment, more so in the time to learn and apply it further rather than anything else. The incremental changes in the various beta stages does not cause me to think that the interface is to improve much further.

I recently tried Inbox by Midnight Beep. This is a much more structured and robust program and so requires a greater amount of time to learn. However, it does follow the GTD method quite reliably. For example, it has a two-minute timer as you review an item and either deal with it then and there or or to make it actionable, etc. It is a program that helps to create a structure and discipline to the applicaton of the GTD process that really is missing in the other programs I've tried or reviewed. The website does state that there is a Ver 2 that they're working on but, admittedly, it's not in beta yet.

This program is certainly promising in providing a tool in applying the GTD method in a disciplined approach. Has anyone else tried this program or any other program that closely follows the GTD method?

Thx for your feedback.

 

[dschaffner]

OmniFocus (not really GTD-specific and too complicated)

I'm using omnifocus. While I agree the app is complicated, I'm curious why you think it is not GTD-specific. Can you explain?

- Don

 

[ext555]

inbox is like having D.A. hold your hand while you process your " stuff "
It was way too rigid for my tastes .

Omni focus is indeed GTD oriented but you can't really compare it to inbox.
Omni would never make a program that strict and "buttoned down ".

inbox has this annoying option to have a timer pop up and ask you if you're doing what you're supposed to be .

Inbox is more like " thinking rock " but thinking rock is much easier to use .
You might want to take a look at thinking rock if you don't like omnifocus or things.
Things has great potential but the developers appear to have really slowed it down till they can hire more help.

 

[Adriano]

inbox is like having D.A. hold your hand while you process your " stuff "
It was way too rigid for my tastes .

inbox has this annoying option to have a timer pop up . . .

Things has great potential . . .

I'm fairly new to the Mac environment (and to GTD) but I could not understand why none of the GTD-type programs out there makes use of the slickness of the Mac environment. I'm not sure if you have seen or tried the Outlook AddIn by Netcentrics but this is quite slick in the way that it makes use of information already on your system from which you create an Action. Inbox is the only Mac-type program that approaches this kind of functionality and, if it were improved, would surpass it by far. Inbox achieves what Ready-Set-Go was supposed to do: automate the gathering and processing of the jumble of information that one gathers through the day so that you can spend your time concentrating on placing this information into a readily accessable environment so that it can be processed.

I would not agree that Inbox attempts to "hold your hand". What Inbox attempts to do is achieve a greater level of functionality by automating the capture and processing of information that's already on your system and brings it into an environment where you can process it and associate Actions with it, as opposed to having to re-enter it. This information comes from Mail, iCal, and your desktop.

Why do you have to re-enter or manipulate information that is already on your system? No other program that I've seen for the Mac makes use of the information already residing on your system whether it be OF, Things, or others. Although there is a bit of rigidity with Inbox, it does not require you to re-enter or manipulate information.

For example, with Things, if you have an email from which you want to create an Action, you have to drag the email TWICE to Things (the first time it does not work but the second time it does, which has been a known issue in all of the beta versions and continues to be the case with the current "release candidate") and then you have to enter the subject, the category/area, etc. Instead, Inbox does a scan of Mail and then you decide whether you want to deal with it right away, to associate it with a task, or to do nothing!

I admit that Inbox is still a bit quirky and I would say clunky and rigid with some things. However, it's the only one that does the "looking for" and capturing of information into an interface from which you can formulate an Action rather than having you formulate an Action and then have to go looking for the information/file/email to associate with the Action (e.g. with Things). In essence, Inbox brings the information to you for your consideration.

I do know that there is supposed to be a new version 2 coming out, which I hope will deal with some of the "clunkiness," but there is no release date and no beta version available yet.

Let's hope that it's sooner rather than later . . . .

 

[Jyn]

Midnight Beeps's Inbox 2 and Inbox touch for iPad

Midnight Beep (http://www.midnightbeep.com) recently put a lot of effort into their GTD-app Inbox. There is an iPad version called Inbox touch that seems quite well made. As the former posts seem to refer to the classic version (that was actually quite quirky...), no one seems to use the new, much more sophisticated version. I'd be interested in why that is and - if I am wrong - in the experiences people had so far?

All the best from Berlin
Jyn