Goodnotes has long been heralded as a good choice for note-taking, especially for students and professionals using tablets with styluses. Its reputation is built on a seamless handwriting experience and robust PDF annotation features. However, for many users, this polished facade hides a tool that is often more of a hindrance than a help. From its clumsy user interface to its questionable AI features and a subscription model that feels exploitative, Goodnotes presents a disorganized and often counterproductive experience.
One of the most immediate frustrations for a long-time user is the app’s user experience (UX) and overall design. Goodnotes often feels rigid and unintuitive, with an interface that prioritizes aesthetics over functionality. Simple tasks like rearranging documents or folders become tedious due to a restrictive alphabetical sorting system that doesn't allow for manual placement. The toolbar, with its limited customization and a tendency to shuffle with every update, disrupts muscle memory and forces users to constantly re-adapt. This is particularly annoying for a tool meant to facilitate a fluid and personal workflow. For an app centered on creativity and organization, this lack of control over the workspace is a significant flaw.
Beyond the interface, the app’s smart features and AI-driven tools often miss the mark. While features like handwritten spellcheck are touted as major advancements, they can often be more of a nuisance than a convenience. The autocorrect feature has been known to flag correctly spelled words or misunderstand cursive handwriting, leading to frustrating and often incorrect suggestions. This overcorrection can break the flow of thought and force a user to spend time correcting the tool itself rather than focusing on the content of their notes. In a note-taking application where accuracy and responsiveness are paramount, this kind of flawed functionality undermines the entire user experience.
Moreover, the business model of Goodnotes has become a point of major contention, particularly with the transition from a one-time purchase to a subscription-based service. The move to a paid subscription, especially for features that many felt should have been included in the original purchase, has led to a feeling of being nickel-and-dimed. This monetization strategy, which forces users to pay for what were once standard features, creates a sense of dependency and casts a shadow of distrust over the company’s long-term commitment to its user base. Ultimately, what was once a straightforward and reliable tool has become a frustrating and expensive proposition, riddled with design flaws and functional shortcomings that make it a difficult choice to recommend in an increasingly competitive market.