Talk:Killer application/Archive 1

Article Hijacked by Video Game Junkies
This started out a nice little article about the meaning of "Killer App" and ended up being a free-for-all for video game players to list their favorite games. The whole section titled, "Selected applications for gaming consoles" belongs somewhere else. Folks, that's not what this article is about. Please move your list of fav vid games to another article. Thanks.

PDAs & Other Mobile Devices
Would you say that car navigation was a killer app for Pocket PC based PDAs? Traditionally, PDAs were only used for taking notes, addresses, phonebook, etc.

what would be the killer application on mobile handset ? Is their a need to look away from mobile handset( which needs to be outdated), while coming out with some other device like a data communication device, which holds all of mobile phone , palm top / PDA and laptop features.......

Defining Criteria
Instead of constantly debating and editing if a game should/shouldn't be included in this list I propose coming with a unified "bar" to define a "killer app".

Reception: A game must have overwhelmingly positive reception to be considered a killer application, so lets say games that only games that reach a ~90% or higher in combined review scores (cheking gamerankings, metacritic, gamestats) can fit the description.

Sales: A game should move a considerable amount of units, a game that has sold less than a million units can hardly be described as a killer game if people really didn't bought it. (checking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_game#Consoles should be a good start) Exclusivity: A game should be exclusive (at least for some time)for a single platform otherwise its impossible for a game to define a console.

In case of franchises meet the criteria (Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Halo, GTA, etc) we should limit to the earliest release on a given console which meets the criteria since it probably had the biggest impact, or otherwise list as a franchise.

Agree? Disagree?Lethalwiki 22:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Killer apps
By definition a killer apps are exclusive to a console (at launch at least), are critically acclaimed AND have a very good sales. Resident Evil 4, while a good game is not quite a killer app for the ps2 since A) it was released first in the GC and b) sales were quite low compared to other titles in the list (less than 2 m. units in the ps2). Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_game#Consoles in case of doubt of sales.Lethalwiki 05:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Killer apps aren't limited to consoles at all. In my understanding, a killer app is software that is a prime reason why people buy particular hardware. Examples of non-game killer apps are Microsoft Office (Windows), Adobe Photoshop (Macs), Deluxe Paint (Amiga), Cubase (Atari ST). Bitplane 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Metal gear for the gameboy colorLethalwiki 06:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How did Beryl/Compiz get to become a killer app ? While it is popular, as far as I know, there are not droves of people installing Linux or buying PCs just to run this window manager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.130.68 (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

PS / PS2
Ok I'm I the only one how finds really silly the lack of games for these two consoles? Here's some for starters. Gran Turismo, Gran Turismo 3, Metal Gear Solid, Metal Gear 2: Sons Of Liberty, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X, Tekken 3, Devil May Cry, Grand Theft Auto 3, SSX. 201.211.241.19 04:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gears of War?
Gears of War should not be on the list of important killer apps. If it is, why aren't FF7/X, MGS/2, Wind Waker and SSBM on the list? All of those are games that should come before Gears.

Because none of those are on the 360. The one's you mentioned are all from well established franchises that were releases later in each respective consoles life. Gears is new IP which has obviously been driving the sales of the 360 since it's release in November. You've got to remember that the next gen consoles haven't totally established themselves, including the 360. Until we have the entire library of each Next Gen console, we have to just list what games are noticably driving sales of the consoles, if any are. Hope that helped, if not, sorry.

Who popularized this term?
I've always wondered.
 * I've looked around a bit, and found that it might even have been Apple that coined the term application for "computer software to solve a user need", and this is also why on the Mac operating systems, programs are usually called applications while Microsoft have traditionally used the term executable instead. I've also seen signs that it was also Apple that coined the term killer application for this very reason, and it coincides well with how Apple indeed was the first to actually market software as "killer applications". But this is mostly from word of mouth in newsgroups and so on, so I didn't want to put it in the article just yet. If true, however, articles like software application could also use an update though. - Jugalator 09:53, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with noting Usenet posts as examples of use of a term on Usenet, if you feel up to trawling Google Groups - David Gerard 13:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edit is wrong...
"Killer app" doesn't mean "best app / game". It means "people bought the system just for that app / game". Halo 1 is such a game for the X-Box, so removing it is wrong. And, surely, nobody kept off buying the PS2 for all these years just to buy it now for Metal Gear Solid 3. Dehumanizer 12:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not true, The reason i got a PS2 was for Metal gear solid. Great game.

Halo is available on PC --SunTzu2 11:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The PC version was announced and released months after the Xbox version. There is widespread agreement that Halo was an extraordinary incentive for people to buy the Xbox. Until the release of Halo 2, it was still high in the sales charts. Phils 10:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I will have to agree here. Halo was a system-seller, by a large margin. The XBox would not have an userbase if it wasn't for it. --Sn0wflake 14:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Guess I'd have to agree then... --SunTzu2 02:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the word "useful" in the first sentence. (Did people buy Halo because it was "useful"?) I'd think it has to be something general, like "good," but that doesn't sound particularly scholarly. Any ideas? Uttaddmb 21:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I added 'or desireable' to include both productivity apps like VisiCalc and entertainment apps like Halo. Rodeosmurf 20:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Killer App for PC Upgrades?
Would anyone consider games/apps that cause people to upgrade their PC to the top of the line just so they can play that particular game, a Killer App?

Recent examples are Doom III and Half-Life 2, people also did it for UT2003/4, Quake III, Half-Life, UT, DOOM, Duke Nukem 3D, Falcon 4.0.
 * I dont think so. Killer apps are revolutionary, not just the latest game that has come out. For that reason I find the inclusion of GTA III in the article to be a real stretch, the game was not a killer app for the PS2 hardware. Remy B 12:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The article has really shifted away from it's original purpose: to describe applications that caused people to invest in a system in order to use it. Originally it was normally a business application (VisiCalc, Lotus, Word Star, Pagemaker), but it is now concentrating almost entirely on game consoles.

And yes, there are examples in the computer world. The Amiga became the "Defacto Video Computer" for almost a decade because of the Video Toaster. Windows largely stagnated until Microsoft Office for Windows came out in 1989. MS Flight Sim 95 spured a lot of people to switch from DOS (and Windows 3.1) to Windows 95, and other game makers followed. Galactic Civilizations was almost a killer app for O/S2, but never caught on enough for the platform to survive. Mushrom 15:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The table in the end
The table in the end isn't killer apps'. People don't buy bluetooth just because they want to use a headset with it, bluetooth isn't really a separate product. That table only shows common uses for general technology and it's pretty trivial. We need other examples.

However, I can't think of any at the moment.. d'oh. Any ideas?

And I can't quite wiki-phrase it, but this article really needs a reference to Seinfeld - the one where Jerry buys his parents a PDA but they only use it for its calculator app to calculate tips in restaurants. AilaG 00:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge
A merge with killer game was proposed by User:Mosesroth
 * Agree - Jak (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - "Killer games" is little more than a subset of "Killer apps", imo - Darric 01:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree - Such topic is more related to computers and has diferent audience. Video Games are not computers, people may search for diferent things than "killer apps" when come to "killer games", wich is more related to blockbusters in games MFillipe 13:48, 01 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - they're both the same concept, just with a different product. -th1rt3en 00:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - Both articles can be subsets of each other. Throw 16:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - Never even heard of Killer Game, I know it as Killer App. The latter should take over. JaffaCakeLover 16:12, 14 August 2006 (GMT)
 * Disagree - Killer Game implies console systems. While short-term this may seem significant, there are such jumps every generation that this is largely meaningless.  Each console generation is basically an entirely new system.  Let the "Killer App" stay as it's own topic, and more dedicated to games and applications.  A game may be a "Killer App", but not all Killer Apps are games.  Mushrom 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. A killer game is a killer app for a console. Fullstop. 70.100.90.144 (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Merged
I've merged the two pages. I made most of the content of the killer game page a section within the killer app article. mosesroth 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Killer games
Should we add a list of killer games? There are many examples: Super Mario Bros., Tetris, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Halo: Combat Evolved, Super Mario 64, Final Fantasy VII, Super Smash Bros. Melee... igordebraga ≠ 23:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the evidence that Zelda is a killer game for the Wii? Isn't it a bit early to say that? --81.178.85.14 22:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There’s a Zelda fan on the loose in this section. They might be good but not one Zelda game is the killer game for its system.  And yes, all Wii and PS3 games should be removed for now. Bombot 11:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following in the killer games section: It cannot be determined yet if these games will have such an impact. Nobody here is a psychic. BirdValiant 07:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Super Smash Bros. Brawl - for Wii
 * Gears of War - for the Xbox 360
 * Blue Dragon - for the Xbox 360 (in Japan)
 * Resistance fall of man - for the PS3

I have to agree that those shouldn't be listed as killer apps. Both because it's too early to make such a determination and just from my own personal opinion. I've saved a bit of money and could buy a next generation system (well, maybe not that PS3, because wow that is expensive, but that's not the point), but I can't decide which or even if I should get any because there's no game that makes me go "wow, I have to have that". I imagine that I'll think that about Grand Theft Auto IV, Halo 3, or Super Smash Bros. Brawl, but none of those are going to be released any time soon. Just my opinion, probably too long winded. --24.114.252.226 07:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Wii and PS3 killer games because this quarter is not yet over, we have yet to see whether the games will have an impact on the hardware sales. I believe we should wait until after the holiday before putting them back in. Further, I'm not entirely certain that Twilight Princess fully qualifies for the reasons: 1) It is not solely available for the Wii 2) It does not prove the hardware since its runnable on a previous generation of hardware 3) Last it may be that the hardware sales for the Wii are impacting the sales of Twilight Princess, rather than the sales of Twilight Princess are impacting the Wii. It does seem the current best choice of selection for the moment for the Wii, It may be prudent to wait until a few more hit games come out and see if Twilight Princess still has an impact.  In any event I think waiting is the best option for now.--66.68.238.13 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the thoughts of others. There's no proof that games such as "Resistance: Fall of Man" are killer apps (do we have a good definition anyway?). Granted it's a very good game, but it's suspect that people are picking it up because simply there's nothing else on the PS3 to compete with it. Ditto for Gears of War - The X360 didn't really have any other top-tier shooters this season. People who have a system or planned on buying a system likely picked it up, but is there any proof that it's "driving" system sales. Not to my knowledge. User:Anonymous:Anonymous 8:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

- So why haven't they been removed now? or has someone put them back.. also, for the N64, although Mario 64 and & Zelda were hugely succesful, the killer app, which led non nintendo fans buy the console, was Goldeneye.. Romanista 15:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've replaced Zelda with GoldenEye. According to their respeciive Wiki pages, GoldenEye sold more and, as you say, it is the game that appealed to non-Nintendo fans.  It's hands-down a better candidate than Zelda.  Bombot (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone put them back. I removed them again. If anything the Wii's killer app is WiiSports, which seems to have a lot of appeal to people who wouldn't otherwise be in the console market. BCoates 09:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain a list should even be there, but there shouldn't be games there that haven't been released yet. Can't assume every big budget ps3 app gonna motivate sales. Also based on game sales, Wii version of zelda didn't sell as well as wii sports or wii play did. It clearly did not motivate sales of the hardware.--66.68.236.16 08:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Brawl is definitely a killer app. Many people bought a wii just for that purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.3.32 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Videogames are very pov killer apps, and so are not included in the list. Fin©™ 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect?
Not sure how to program a re-direct but should be for "killer ap". If you just hear this phrase you won't necessarily know it is spelt "app" hence redirect needed. --Ethikos 17:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sense?
I took this half of a sentence out of the article because I couldn't figure out how it made sense:

, in the hope that it will be the breakthrough needed to get that the pre-paid contract model actually acted as the killer application and the wide dissemination of mobile phones since up to 80% of mobile operator's customers are pre-paid customers.

Maybe an older revision includes a sentence fragment that has since been lost? Xaxafrad 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Timing?
Currently, the page lists "Perfect Dark Zero" as a killer app for the XBox 360. I would disagree with this, simply based on the very tepid response that game received. I don't think it could possibly be considered a reason for owning the system.

The thing is that I would argue for a killer XBox 360 app you would have to look in one of two directions: The game Gears of War, or the XBox Live Service. The issue is that with Gears of War, it was released almost a year after the system was released, and I don't particularly see any evidence showing that Gears of War led mass numbers of people to purchase the 360 on the game's merits alone. I think I case could be made for the XBox Live Service being a killer app, though that might go against expectations since it is not a game, but rather a method of connecting gamers. However, the breadth of the service certainly makes it something worth considering.

Ultimately, my big question here is whether or not there is a limit to how much time can pass between the release of the "underlying technology" and the "killer app"? I suppose for what its worth, it's hardly worth calling something a killer app if its released on a system that's already reached a certain level of presence in the market. Eurotransient 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So, in a way Playstation 2's killer app could be its playability technology: it could play CDs, DVDs, PS1 games, and PS2 games. This was surely a major factor in its sales; hell, I wanted one only because of what all it could do, and I'm sure that other people felt the same way when getting one. A killer app, even for a gaming console, doesn't have to be specific game. What do you think? --Davidjustinlee 05:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Halo 3 could be considered a killer game for the 360 as well... even though it's not out yet. -DMurphy 00:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I bought a 360 because of halo 3. Acglaphotis 21:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the fact that the 360 outsold the Wii for the month of September (I think) provides cause to believe that Halo 3 is a Killer Game, especially considering the amount of hype and Halo 3's record sales. Gophergun (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

GameCube Killer App
I added Super Smash Bros. Melee as a killer app for GameCube. The game was in the Top 10 for GameCube game sales nearly every single month since the game came out and it is also an extremely popular game, even among those who aren't Nintendo fans. If that doesn't make it a killer app, then I don't know what is. Zomic_13 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

LittleBigPlanet
Seeing the reaction to this it would seem that it's already a killer app a year before it's even released, don't know if it would be worth adding, if only to make the PS3 look a little less pathetic--Shadebug 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not released yet, therefore it can't be a killer app. This isn't the place for fanboyism. Starwarsrulez 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This need some serious attention
The list at the end of this article is out of control. It is apparently run like a little-league football team, every kid gets to play some, even if he doesn't deserve it. There's a few games listed for every console, as though the title of the list were "Games for each console that sold well". Its supposed to be "killer apps". There are very few games which can make this claim in a realistic fashion. I can think of only two off the top of my head. Those being Tetris and Halo, I'm sure there are a FEW others worthy of inclusion, but not the masses given in the list. To include dozens of other games which were merely popular in that list dilutes the importance and definition of "killer apps" to merely "best selling" or "most popular". I see no reason to cater to the preferences of various fanboys by giving everyone equal representation without merit. Failing a massive cleanup, the whole list should be scrapped, as its clearly original research, and POV. In the case of Halo (and perhaps Tetris,) finding multiple notable sources, confirming it unequivocally as a true "killer app", should be a simple matter, I doubt it would be as easy with the majority of the games on the list.PreciousRoi 09:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There should definitely be some kind of criteria for the list. How many units were bought compared with individual games, the percentage of a particular game bought as compared with the entire system. For instance, if there were  (theoretically) 1 million X-Box's sold, and 900 thousand Halo's sold, it could be a killer game. But if there are only 400 thousand Halo 2's were sold, it would NOT be a "killer game"Littlebum2002 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sequels
I personally don't think sequels should be listed. Like for the PS2, maybe put GTA, but not Vice City or San Andreas. (I've never played the game, but the chances of all three being a "killer app" are slim.) And the "hot coffee" controversy does NOT make the game a killer app. ~Rogutaan 11:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario Sunshine
Could Super Mario Sunshine be considered a "killer app." for the 'Cube?

Hardware components: MYST
I've heard that Myst propelled many people to get their first CD-rom drive. Find a source and add it, I say. Mathwhiz90601 09:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Masterchiefshoot.jpg
Image:Masterchiefshoot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Exchange
Metroid Prime Hunters is a Killer-App de facto,due to its high-socre reviews and high selling.But the game is for Nintendo DS and not for Playstation Portable.Due to this fact,i put the game in the Nintendo DS list and removed it from the Playstation Portable list.

Limit of one?
Perhaps there should only be one video game listed for each console. I don't know much about the other consoles, but I do know that Final Fantasy VII broke a whole bunch of video game sales records and put playstation in first place in the video game market at the time. I doubt if any of the other games on that list can claim that. The only Zelda titles that MIGHT qualify are A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time.

Also, I'm not totally sure that "PC" should be listed under the video game section. Seems like just another excuse to list somebody's favorite games.

Lastly, I think people adding to this page need to reconsider the perspective from which they are adding "information" - This page is to define what a killer app is and give examples for the purpose of learning what a killer app is. This page is not present to define what games are killer apps for every video game system that has ever existed. (along those lines, it's probably way too early - YEARS too early - to determine what games are killer apps for PS3, Wii, and Xbox 360) I personally like the idea of having a separate killer games page, just because this section seems to detract from the rest of the article. Or just axe the section and solve all our problems.

Killer game Removal
I've removed the killer game section after reading the results of "Video games that have been considered the greatest ever"'s AfD. The section was completely subjective, and while some games definitely deserved inclusion (Halo, Zelda, GTA), some were more dubious (Super Smash Bros, Devil May Cry, Crazy Taxi), and generally, their addition depended on the attitude of the editor (myself included), as there is no concrete, verifiable, definition of what a "killer game" is. POV, non-notablility, original research, unverifiable, etc. Fin©™ 17:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Human Language Technology
This section appears to be spam by an editor with a COI. See WP:COI/N and Articles for deletion/Language technology. Gordonofcartoon 17:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

.exe?
"Killer apps" exist on platforms other than Windows, so why does the article say in the jargon of computer programmers, has come to mean any .exe? --Teh.cmn 23:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wii Sports
In my opinion, a game such as Knights of the Old Republic to the Xbox is much of a killer app than Wii Sports is to the Wii. I'm willing to bet that Wii Sports, while being a fun party game, did not influence many to run out and buy a Wii due to it's exclusivity. I know many on the other hand, who bought an Xbox to play KOTOR. I know this classifies as original research, but I beleive it's rather easy to see it. Perhaps a more worthy candidate for the Wii would be Rayman Raving Rabids. It was during the Wii's launch an exclusive. As an aside, I believe that another reason for KOTOR's iclusion would be if memory serves that it's conversation system was a the time considered revolutionary, and it's well known for it's epic story and well developed characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.66.35.68 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
 * If you can find proof that Rayman Raving Rabids was an exclusive reason why many people bought the Wii, I suppose you could place it on the list. Wii Sports, though it is a popular and fun game, was not, as I agree, a reason why people bought the Wii.
 * In Japan Wii Sports is selling more than Zelda every month so I think it's a killer app in Japan... 82.131.250.253 18:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * in hindsight, wouldn't you say either Super Smash Bros. or Wii Fit are "killer apps" for Wii? I believe a lot of people who enjoyed Smash on Gamecube waited until it came out for Wii before buying the new console, and others are willing to buy the Wii if they can let their kids use Wii Fit so it's more than just "distraction" gaming, now it's "serious" gaming. 199.214.27.252 (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the point about Wii Fit, it's selling loads, but I think it's a stretch to call it a "game". But regardless, yes people are buying it, but I doubt it was the defining factor for purchasing a Wii in the first place. Likewise with Smash Bros. Games as killer apps as usually POV though, which is why there's only a few in the article at the moment. Thanks! Fin©™ 09:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Definition
Primarily, I believe the term has evolved over time. Yes, Apple may have copied the term but according to modern culture the word shouldn't be restricted to it's original definition. I belive a killer application to mean: software which is revolutionary AND popular, rather than simply a catalyst for hardware sales.

For example Napster was revolutionary, maybe not nessesarily inventive (someone may have come up with the idea before), but was successful in bringing the ideas of P2P communication and file sharing into the mainstream.

Other examples of using this definition: --Doom was very popular and was revolutionary using a 3D perpective (Again it may not have been the first)

Additional to the above definition, a killer application could be an application which nailed a set of features which users have been looking for in a single package. There are many products which have different sets of features, like Linux flavours, browsers, email clients, File Sharing Clients (since Napster) and users are always scattered over the many choices. A killer application would contain a set of features which far exceeds the relevancy of the competition, increasing marketshare, and this may only be for a time.

Which brings me to the next qualifier. Time. Napster (I believe) was a killer application, but since then the gauntlet has been passed on (this is probably controversial) to LimeWire, then eDonkey, then BitTorrents. As users requirements changed with government regulation, and developers adapted their products. It's true to say that Napster is no longer a killer app, but was considered one in it's day.

Finally, I believe there is a weak link with killer applications to marketing. A good example for this is the Firefox web browser. Not only did Firefox have tabbed browsing, an independent rendering engine (to IE) and better stability (controversial), but the Firefox consortium succeeded in marketing the browser differently to the others. There were countless of other flavours of the Mozzila browser, as well as IE build ons and the tabbed opera brower, but these never became as popular as Firefox. Firefox looked visually more appealing, the website was clean and easy to use, and although it was not a new technology was revolutionary in taking market share from IE.

So i've stated an alternative with optional additions to the replace currently used definition, which I believe is more accurate. But perhaps the above arguments could simply be appended to the already existing article and presented to the reader for consideration. Anyway, I'll leave it to others to consider first, before I or someone else makes any changes. I would like to hear some consensus first. --Merarischroeder (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a look at, Google: "define: killer app", you'll see that all the results point to a definition consistent with the one I suggested. I believe that the "Catalyst for Platform Adoption" definition currently being used should be downgraded. It should be considered a definition used by a minority or a historical definition which is now mostly outdated. It could also be completely abondoned as VisiCalc could be described as a Killer Application which helped to propel sales of the Apple II platform (this sentance isolates the Killer Application definition from having to be used with platform adoption). The new article may simply state that Killer Applications are sought to add value to a platform, and that the Monopoloy of a Killer Application on a platform or making a Killer Application exlusive for a platform is a common practice. The relationship of an application (not necessarily killer) and a platform can both improve popularity of both the platform and the application, making the application a killer application. --Merarischroeder (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The current page does not explain a common meaning of the term. 'Killer' primarily describes the application's effect on competing software, not hardware. Google's second hit for this term,, better reflects the term's origin. Wikipedia should at least cover both definitions. --JBR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.59.83 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The google search you link seems to support the traditional meaning of "killer app", that is, something that proves the worth of the platform or category it was built upon.  Just because some investors think that "killer" is refering to competition (it isn't) or that someone hacking out ad copy misuses a buzzword a synonym for "good" doesn't mean that the term has lost all meaning.  If the normal public definition of killer app has really become "good software" we should just delete the article, but since I don't think that's the case, I'm going to revert this and try to clean up the previous version.
 * Also, Napster is and always will be the "killer app" for p2p filesharing, even if it doesn't exist anymore, it's the reason the platform came into common use. Today's most popular filesharing product is not automaticly the "killer app" becuase it's not a synoym for "good" or "popular".  Compare google searches for "killer app" napster and "killer app" bittorrent; outside the junk results you see napster described as the killer app for p2p, and bittorrent described as the killer app for broadband (as in people upgrade to a faster connection to torrent more).  Dilution of this term hasn't overwhelmed the more precise meaning in public yet. BCoates (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Google results did change to now only show the traditional meaning. When I rewrote the article, I couldn't find the link which supported my more modern definition (but it was there before). If you look now, you'll find it has changed again to a wider definition. I believe the article should not be focused on the one reference to Apples definition. There are more opinions out there and I tried to accommodate and generalize all of them in my rewrite.


 * Also, do you think that it was constructive to completely revert the entire rewrite of the article? If I was of your opinion, I would have simply added additional sections to the article to state the opposing view. I just don't see why (other than my lack of references) you reverted the article, effectively loosing the additional information which would be useful for those interested in the topic of Killer Apps.
 * The argument that Napster is or isn't still called a killer app. Could also be branched with the two views, to challenge the reader to consider both arguments. And to clear up my opinion - I would say "Napster was the killer app for p2p", that is it happened in the past, and is no longer available in the market. Whereas I see your opinion as saying "Napster is the killer app for p2p", implying that Napster is still around and is still shaping the p2p market.
 * Finally, yes there is a section that I wrote which sounds similar to a "good software" article. But this section is about writing software which is intended to be a killer app. This is quite different to a general guide to writing good software. And being completely relevant to the killer application article, I would consider it's place relevant. --Merarischroeder (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Killer Application?"
Not to be pedantic or a pain, and I know someone thought this was a very good idea to change it, but "killer application" is an extremely uncommon way of using this term. It's used as "Killer app" - and that may sound like slang, but the very idea of a "killer app" is basically "nerd slang" already. "Killer application" should redirect to "killer app" and not the other way around. 70.100.88.251 (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) [I agree --Merarischroeder (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)]
 * Clearly anecdotal, but I have always known is as "killer application". And the shorter version seems odd to my ear. I prefer it the way it is, certainly more proper, and it is keeping in line with the origins of the term. HumphreyW (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would go with Killer App as the term for "software that sells hardware", which was what the term meant when it first came along. I remember the days when Guys in Suits would come in to the store and say "I want to buy a VisiCalc", meaning they wanted to buy a COMPUTER along with the VisiCalc program.
 * As for the original discussion, I do not recall ever hearing someone say "Killer Application" in normal speech, it is always "Killer App". Kid Bugs (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not just anecdotes, but citations, from Oxford Dictionary:
 * 1988  PC Week (N.Y.) 24 May 39/1   Until we see those first two or three killer apps..few corporate customers will see much reason to begin to commit to OS/2.
 * 1991  New Scientist 21 Sept. 35/2   The multimedia industry is still looking for what it calls a ‘Killer App’, a feature or application that will persuade us that we can't live without a unit.
 * 1998  E. Davis TechGnosis vii. 203   In many ways, games are to digital technology what porno videos were to the VCR: the ‘killer app’ (or application) that, by stimulating gargantuan desires, creates a mass consumer market for a new media technology.
 * Clearly from the late 80s the term had become "killer app". 202.81.248.18 (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Definition
The article starts off by stating that a killer app is one that "stretches the capabilities of current computer hardware and software technology: i.e. it "kills" the system by demanding so much of the processor(s), memory, data bus and / or data storage devices that the response to the user is slowed down to unacceptable levels". This must surely be a misunderstanding; it seems to have beamed in from a parallel dimension. In our world, here on Earth, a killer app is a piece of software that is so desirable that it drives sales of a compatible piece of hardware, and by extension it is any media that drives sales of a medium (I paraphrase this from the Jargon File's entry). In its current form the article is misleading, out of sync with the rest of the world. At first I assumed that User:Merarischroeder was responsible for this nonsense, but reading his replies above I am left none the wiser as to where this odd, non-standard definition came from. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look in the history, the intro paragraph was just changed 2 days ago by someone who wasn't logged in and made no other edits. Would reverting the last change put this back to a more accurate definition? The prior version seems to be more in line with the source you cited. I'm not familiar enough to really judge though. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like HumphreyW had the same idea and already reverted. Hopefully this takes care of the issue. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First time poster, anonymous IP, no citations and making bold claims that completely change the subject matter. All those signs together point towards something that should not be there. So I reverted it. If the original contributor wishes to reinstate it then hopefully next time there will be suitable citations to follow else it will get reverted again. HumphreyW (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want another example, crash simulation became the killer app for the Cray-1 supercomputer and its successors. See entries for Cray and LS-Dyna. Until about 1980, supercomputing was mostly confined to government and defense. km —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.99.180 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-standard Usage
The term killer app sounds like something that "in-the-know" software sales and marketing people would use to justify their own existence. Those who use the term are less software designers and implementors than monetizers of other people's work. The uninitiated are intended to be impressed with the erudition of people of who use the term "killer app." At least the money men on Wall Street and your local banker are supposed to be impressed. One could call Windows 7 a killer app on Intel iron. You'd, of course, be mistaken, since W7 is simply a rearrangement of Vista which was a rearrangement of XP. Of course, you might be killed (heart attack or stroke) trying to install any these killer apps on your machine, when you discover exactly what it is that they didn't tell you before you started.--72.75.76.40 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Twitter and Settlers
The paragraph about Twitter and Settlers of Catan, which I just deleted, was inconsistent with the definition we've offered. Twitter obviously isn't the "killer app" of the Internet since the Internet was broadly popular long before Twitter came on the scene. And Settlers of Catan isn't even part of a technological platform, so it obviously doesn't fit the definition.

People use "killer app" as a generic buzzword in all sorts of situations. If we included every such instance this article would become hopelessly cluttered. Binarybits (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But including those two cited instances isn't the same as including every such instance. Instead, they show that the term is used more generically than the narrower definition. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In the Settlers of Catan article, the author goes out of his way to explain why he is using the term outside of its regular definition, which would be evidence that it's a one-off rhetorical device and not something the reader would expect as normal usage. The "Twitter GURU" article (online here) is apparently an effort to include every buzzword known to man in a short article by someone who thinks "guru" is an acronym.  BCoates (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Request and clarification
First off, I don't believe hot selling games should be called killer apps, especially not recent games. Shareware games should be considered but the word 'app' is archaic language, definitely not found in any software titles anymore. Applications morphed into Programs, certain terms fell out of favor (ex. 'master','slave') and the thought of 'wii' games being thought of as killer apps tells me people don't understand this term. It isn't about sales numbers either. Killer app is the idea of someone creating a new application for the computer that represents a pioneer of it's kind. When these apps came out, they weren't popular simply for enjoyment, but for the realization that they provided a new way of doing complex tasks in easy terms. A killer game app would be the first game to support multi-player and have people play (Doom death match), it wouldn't be Zelda 6 because it sold well and came on a new game system. Maybe I've just been around longer, grew up with the computer when it was already blossoming at 1989 (I was born in 83 but they were too expensive then). Killer app? Oregon Trail because it was one of the first games to be used on school computers. PowerPoint is another great example because it's popularity spawned its own terminology. Now a Power Point is a verb, it's something you will see for yourself ect ect. That is 'Killer App'.

Maybe another reason for the confusion is that 'killer' in this way being used, is a Southern California Surfer term. People outside of California might see 'killer' as different then the very laid back use by CA Surfers (and Jeff Spicoli). But it makes sense also because many software developers at the time were in California and were exposed to the term.

That being said, I'd like to request AutoCAD, PowerPoint, and Oregon Trail for being killer apps when they first premiered. 68.5.97.182 (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC) (logged on Fadedroots (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC) )

iLife's status as a killer app
I'm not meaning to be offensive to any Mac aficionados, nor trying to start a fight, but I don't think iLife is a killer app. I don't hear people talking about how great it would be to have iLife and that it alone justifies buying a Mac. Can anyone substantiate the claim? I'd be more inclined to believe that Final Cut is a killer app, although it's probably too expensive to really boost consumer sales, since I hear a lot of people talk about how great that is, and since most of my friends in film/video bought a mac just for final cut. Tealwisp (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

List removed
I've removed the list of killer apps from the article, since it includes no references and seems like a magnet for original research. I moved it here if anyone wants to work on finding references for it.


 * Selected applications for computer systems
 * Altair 8800: Microsoft BASIC
 * Apple II: VisiCalc
 * Amiga: Deluxe Paint, Video Toaster
 * Atari ST: C-Lab Creator/Logic Pro and Cubase
 * IBM PC: WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, Novell NetWare
 * Intel 80486: Doom
 * Linux: Apache
 * Macintosh: Adobe PageMaker, Adobe Photoshop
 * Macintosh Quadra: Sound Tools
 * Mac OS X: iLife
 * NeXT: Lotus Improv
 * RISC OS: Sibelius (before 1998)
 * Solaris: Oracle Database
 * Windows 3.1: Microsoft Office
 * Xbox: Halo: Combat Evolved

— tk tk  tk  19:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm reinstating Sibelius because it now has a reference (and a link back to this article). --Trevj (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also reinstating VisiCalc (with cn), as deemed uncontentious. --Trevj (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

E-mail as Killer App?
Hi - first time post.

I've heard before that e-mail would be considered as a killer app, with its platform being the internet. Does it deserve inclusion? It definitely made the internet what it is today... Would it not be the ultimate killer app?

Bing search "e-mail as killer app" to return nearly 6m results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Goldeneye?
Goldeneye is NOT a killer app, surely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.6.230 (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Growing up in the 90's there were only two killer apps for N64. That is, games that you bought an N64 just to play. Ocarina of Time and Goldeneye 007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.247.150 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sour grapes
Regarding the section about Macintosh being a niche market for design, what's up with: "despite the fact that PCs running Windows or Linux have been capable of running versions of some of the same applications since the early 1990s." Besides that just being an odd statement, I can pretty much guarantee that no one uses Linux for any sort of artistic production. You can almost sense the attitude of the author, implying that he doesn't know why Macintosh is popular for creativity. To me, it just reads like sour grapes. --ComradeSlice (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

3DS killer app
IGN stated that Super Mario 3D Land is the killer app for the Nintendo 3DS handheld in their article titled "How Mario Saved the 3DS" I'd edit the page myself, but I don't [want to know] how to create links to other pages on Wikipedia, let alone references to outside websites. 173.81.241.53 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

video game list
i think the list should be much much shorter. VisiCalc was bringing computers in "every office" and started a new industry while most of those games "only" did push the sale of one system for a short while. the only gaming killerapp i can see is Pong, it did start electronic arcade games and video game consoles, but is not even listed here. 212.90.151.91 (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

More Than Just Computer Programs
First of all, I agree the term is "killer app" and while the article should certainly explain that app is short for application the term used is killer app. No one goes around talking about killer application; they say killer app. So that's one problem. The other issue I have with this article is its statement that a killer app(lication) is a computer program. Haven't people said that porn was the killer app for VCR sales? True or not, it doesn't matter. But it is an excellent example of how this usage is not just about computer software. (Some also say that porn was the killer app for computer video but then we're back to software.) Anyway, the article needs significant editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.128.82 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the PBS / BBC series Triumph of the Nerds uses the term for all sorts of things. The Killer App for the internal combustion engine, they say, was the automobile. (I entered this edit to say that, before the car, there was the one-cylinder outboard motor engine. Workers would steal one part a day, or week, and assemble their own at home - the real basis of the Johnny Cash song "One Piece at a Time".) 173.162.253.101 (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

pack-ins
Pack-ins like Donkey Kong (Colecovision) Tetris (GB) and Super Mario Bros (NES) are not killer apps, as they didn't sell extra hardware, surely, otherwise Combat (Atari VCS 2600) should be a killer app too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.154.74.145 (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)