"In a world of digital excess, we choose constraint."
That's been our tagline since day one. It's painted across our website, embedded in our app descriptions, and guides every design decision we make.
So why do we now have eight apps?
It's a fair question, and one we've been grappling with internally as Ancestrix joins our family of "thoughtful technology." On the surface, it looks hypocritical. A company preaching constraint while steadily expanding its portfolio sounds like the classic Silicon Valley "do as we say, not as we do" contradiction.
But here's the thing: we think there's a difference between proliferation and specialization. And that difference matters more than we initially realized.
The Easy Criticism
Let's be honest about the optics. Eight apps from a company that talks about constraint sounds wrong:
- FocusAnchor (task management)
- NoteToSelf (constrained note-taking)
- Mikro (life logging)
- MemoryAnchor (spatial memory organization)
- DayRater (daily reflection)
- M43 DoF (photography calculator)
- WonderScout (exploration missions)
- Ancestrix (Norwegian genealogy)
That's a lot of icons on someone's home screen. It's exactly the kind of "app for everything" thinking we critique in other companies.
"DigTek claims to choose constraint but can't constrain themselves to fewer than eight separate apps. Classic do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do hypocrisy."
Fair enough. We deserve that criticism if we can't articulate why this is different.
The 7±2 Defense
Interestingly, our own MemoryAnchor app is built around George Miller's famous "7±2" rule - the cognitive limit for how many items humans can hold in working memory simultaneously.
Seven memories maximum in MemoryAnchor. Eight apps in the DigTek portfolio.
Coincidence? Maybe. But it got us thinking about what "constraint" actually means in practice.
Miller's research wasn't about limiting everything to seven items forever. It was about recognizing cognitive boundaries and designing within them. The magic happens when you chunk related concepts together - turning overwhelming complexity into manageable understanding.
Each DigTek app is a "chunk" - a single, focused solution to a specific problem:
- FocusAnchor: Decision paralysis in task management
- NoteToSelf: Thought capture without overwhelming lists
- Mikro: Life tracking without metrics obsession
- MemoryAnchor: Information organization that works like your brain
- DayRater: Daily reflection without complexity
- M43 DoF: Photography calculations for a specific camera system
- WonderScout: Exploration without screen addiction
- Ancestrix: Genealogy designed for Norwegian families
Seven distinct problem spaces (plus one very specialized tool). Each app constrained to its single purpose.
Constraint vs. Minimalism
We think the confusion comes from conflating constraint with minimalism.
Minimalism
"Have fewer things."
Constraint
"Make each thing do less, but do it perfectly."
A minimalist approach to DigTek would be one mega-app that handles tasks, notes, memories, genealogy, photography, and life logging. Everything in one place. Fewer apps, simpler portfolio.
But that would violate constraint thinking. It would create exactly the kind of feature-bloated, context-switching nightmare we're trying to solve.
Instead, we've chosen specialized constraint: Each app does exactly one thing, with no feature creep, no scope expansion, no "while we're at it" additions.
The Unix Philosophy Applied
The Unix philosophy has a relevant principle: "Do one thing and do it well."
Unix systems have thousands of small, specialized tools. Each does one job perfectly. You combine them as needed, but each remains focused and constrained.
That's our model. FocusAnchor doesn't try to be a note-taking app. NoteToSelf doesn't try to manage tasks. MemoryAnchor doesn't try to rate your days.
The constraint isn't in the number of tools - it's in keeping each tool perfectly focused.
When Constraint Means More, Not Fewer
Sometimes honoring constraint principles leads to more apps, not fewer:
M43 DoF exists because general photography apps don't understand Micro Four Thirds specifics. We could have built "general camera calculator" features into another app, but that would dilute focus.
Ancestrix exists because existing genealogy apps don't understand Norwegian family terminology. We could have made it "genealogy for everyone," but constraint meant building it specifically for Norwegian families.
WonderScout addresses screen-time addiction through exploration missions - a problem none of our other apps solve.
Each represents a choice to stay constrained rather than expand scope.
The Real Test
The real test of our constraint philosophy isn't the number of apps we have - it's what each app refuses to do.
- FocusAnchor refuses to become a project manager
- NoteToSelf refuses to become a knowledge base
- DayRater refuses to become a general mood tracker
- Ancestrix refuses to become universal genealogy software
That's constraint in action. Not fewer apps, but more focused apps.
The Tension Remains
We're not dismissing the criticism entirely. There is tension here, and it's worth examining.
Eight apps means eight different interfaces to learn, eight update cycles, eight potential points of failure. From a user perspective, that's complexity.
There's also the question of discovery. How does someone find the right DigTek app for their needs? We're asking users to understand our taxonomy of problem spaces and choose accordingly.
Maybe the real answer is admitting that our constraint philosophy applies to individual apps, not to our business strategy. Each app is constrained; our portfolio is not.
Living the Philosophy
Here's what we've learned: True constraint thinking sometimes leads to more tools, not fewer.
A carpenter doesn't use one tool for everything. They have specialized tools for specialized jobs - but each tool is perfectly designed for its purpose.
The constraint isn't in owning fewer tools. It's in ensuring each tool does exactly what it's supposed to do, and nothing more.
That's what we're trying to build: A toolkit for thoughtful technology users. Each app constrained to its purpose, refined to its essence, focused on solving one problem beautifully.
Eight apps might seem like a lot. But if the alternative is eight features crammed into one bloated app, we'll take eight focused apps every time.
That's our version of constraint. Not fewer things, but more focused things.
What do you think? Are we rationalizing our way out of a legitimate criticism, or is there a meaningful distinction between proliferation and specialization? Let us know at developer@digtek.app