Talk:Application software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Application software vs. software applications[edit]

I don't think that application software and software applications are the same. 'Application software' denotes specialized form software, namely those that is used for direct applications, eg. in comparison to operating system software that is not 'application' software. 'Software applications' however are a special form of applications, made 'from software', e.g. an operating system. Do you agree? If so, one should change redirects and article contents. FelixKaiser 16:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. There is also a need for a page on software application from the standpoint of application portfolio management. I added a page for Software Application and linked between the two pages.--Nickmalik 01:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between system software and applications software?
"System Software" tends to refer to all of those components that are "generic" on the computer such as the operating system, the device drivers, the network layers, the HAL, etc. (Speaking a bit generally) no matter what application the computer is used for (or switched to), the system software remains approximately the same.
By contrast, Application Software tends to be that software that implements the actual application (purpose) that the user is using the computer to accomplish. For example, text editing, word processing, data collection, architectural rendering, etc.
The line can, admittedly, be a bit blurry, especially near the line between the system software and the application software, but generally speaking, you'll know which is which "when you see it".
Atlant 23:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
No software remains the same. The definition of software is that it is recodable and the definition of human is that it keeps learning. Besides updates between major version levels, firmware changes, and the exponential knee of technology, software remains 'soft'. The primary difference between system software is that system software provides a platform for applications. The platform is the combination of the O/S and the machine on which it runs. Utilities that are bundled with the sale of an Operating system, are considered application software since they have a user programmable interface (either GUI, BATCH, or etc.) The Kernel itself, drivers, and any run-time management services (not daemons) such as "init" for *nix platforms, or other real-time priority processes are considered to be system software. Keep in mind that personal computers are not the only computers in the world. Thanks! :) Ste4k 12:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, guys, but this is a distinction without a difference. A software application is application software, full-stop. Just as watching high-def TV is watching TV high-def, and eating cold porridge is eating porridge cold. They are the same thing. You aren't describing a difference here -- you're inventing one.-- 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Re the original section heading and question, I think part of the problem with the lede 1st par wording is a language/grammar issue. As of Now() it says:

Application software, also known as software application, application or app, is computer software designed to help the user to perform singular or multiple related specific tasks. Typical examples are word processors, spreadsheets, media players and database applications.

The two phrases "application software" and "software application" cannot be correctly used interchangeably in English, as the current wording implies. In the phrase "application software" the noun is "software", and "application" is an adjective to describe what kind of software, whereas in the phrase "software application" the noun is "application", with "software" being the adjective to describe what kind of application. I've got a few other things to do but will come back and have a go at re-wording the lede to clarify the different uses of the two terms, if no-one else does it first. --Bricaniwi (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Another possibility is that "Software Application" uses two nouns in apposition! Even so, it isn't the same as "Application Software". - Pointillist (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


I am changing the screenshot from MS Word to The reason is twofold:

Firstly, under the fair use licensing tag of the MS Word image, it states that the image may be used for identification of and critical commentary on the software in question. Using the image to illustrate and example of a type of software does not meet the stated requirement.

Secondly, according to Wikipedia's fair use policy, fair use images shouldn't be used where free alternatives are available.

-Seidenstud 03:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted two image stubs (blank images) because they were blank, were poorly placed, and made the article difficult to read. I attempted to make some other clean ups and messed up on one of them but it was reversed anyway by another user or software. I attempted to remove the box asking this article to be changed to a prose format, as I can not understand how a prose format could be used with this list. The list is quite nicely categorized but it needs I believe examples under each category and subcategory perhaps in parentheses. This topic could also use a lot more writing with references about application software, its uses, history, and other such related topics. If their is another more detailed topic already perhaps it should be combined into that one or the topic name changed to Application Software Categories or something similar. I hope my suggestions or edits have not offended anyone, as my edits on this and other articles have often been reversed because of I believe pride of the contributors which I believe is detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole. I am not offended when my edits are reversed when they were a mistake such as when I messed up the columns on the list ;-) sorry about that. Contributors in my opinion need to be less dictatorial and more open to suggestions and other people's edits. This all said IMHO -Socrates1983--"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates, Ancient Greek philosopher in Athens, Greece (469 BC - 399 BC) (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

about Industrial Automation software[edit]

I edited the section on industrial automation software because it lacked links to articles with examples. It appears to be describing possible features of software instead of actual software packages. I tried to find examples of packages that would use those classifications, but there appears to be none that aren't already mentioned in other categories. The only one that was unique to automation was programmable logic controllers which sums up sensors, actuators, and regulatory control. I was hesitant to even leave that part in because it is borderline describing system software instead of the application software contrasted by this article. HMI is summed up in the user interface article, but only describes a feature of system software. Supervisory, Process Optimization, Production Management, MIS, ERP, Corporate Business Systems software are all summed up by the Enterprise software and Enterprise infrastructure software examples in this article. Manufacturing Execution and Plant Engineering appear to be describing applications of programmable logic controllers.

The whole section and associated reference appears to be advocating for alternate ways of classifying software, but is too narrow in scope to classify all application software. It looks like the makings of a separate article rather than support of this article. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


What's the difference between an application and a program, other than the fact that you don't install applications, but install programs? What are the differences and why is this so? (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question, the term 'program' is starting to slide away but it is largely a synonym for 'application' or 'utility' in the sense of "any non-system bit of software that can be invoked on demand." That definition is not the most rigorous one, I know. I noticed that we did use the word 'program' in this definition, and we should probably remove the use. Nickmalik (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
See Program. (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop Deleting My Edits Without Explanation![edit]

I am becoming quite upset that my edits that I believe are adding to the article are being rolled back. If your going to roll back my edits at the very least give an explanation!!!--"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates, Ancient Greek philosopher in Athens, Greece (469 BC - 399 BC) (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits in this article are inconsistent with the style of most wikipedia articles. Although, there's no rule in the style guide that says all articles must be consistent, I find that inconsistency between articles often gets reverted just because most editors don't like to see it. I don't like many of the styles favored on wikipedia either. But it's easier to conform than to risk getting banned for edit warring over something as trivial as presentation style. Content is much more important. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You should explain better than that, and be more specific on what edits violate what styles. In general rolling back is not the recommended way if the edits add facts, only if the edits are disruptive such as vandalism. Instead the edits that have an improper style, should be properized by supportive edits instead of being rolled back. Changes should as often as possible be discussed in the talk page in order to seek consensus. Just as a general principle. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

yoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Yoo", to you too! Happy surfing! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


This page of application software is very usefull as for assignment, Thanks what is applications-- (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)-- (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is all "Enterprise infrastructure software" 'application software'[edit]

Enterprise infrastructure software provides common capabilities needed to support enterprise software systems. (Examples include Databases, Email servers, and Network and Security Management)

So, should we not include entries in the example section for DNS management software, Router software, Firewall (computing) software, web server software and/or Intrusion prevention software? Personal firewalls are certainly application software... Seeking consensus here. It's often been said, for example, that Cisco is a software company disguised as a hardware company. Our article doesn't make clear which of these count as 'application software'.--Elvey (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A narrower interpretation of "application software" is more useful, because it helps distinguish the application-specific layer (invoked by the user) from whatever application-agnostic services the first layer uses. That sort of separation plays nicely with software engineering issues like identity, state management and n-tier/ distributed/cloud execution. I agree this interpretation doesn't offer an unambiguous cut-off point (e.g. systems like Lotus and Exchange straddle the boundary), but by this approach proxy servers, routers and firewalls wouldn't be "applications", would they? Actually, I doubt that a database system (or at least the core like the SQLite dll) could be called an application either, but I'm open to discussion on that. - Pointillist (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct my understanding of 'apps'[edit]

Have never knowingly used an app, but the idea of them that I have is an app is designed and written for a specific device - an 'app' to run on a cellphone but it won't run an a tablet - enlighten me please. Dumarest (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "App" is just a contraction of the word "Application". It is only used by people too lazy to say "Application" or who think the use of fashionable words makes them sound clever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we swap the screenshot with a LibreOffice one?[edit]

I just think it might be a good idea, considering it could make some people scratch their heads, when they install a discontinued "popular" office suite some years from now, because of this article.

Just a recap, was discontinued in favour of LibreOffice. A minor detail, but I feel it may help to keep this article up-to-date. The Tangmeister (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This user is incorrect. is still in active development by the Apache Software Foundation. LibreOffice is a forked spin-off project developed by the Document Foundation. Nothing was discontinued. What sort of nonsense is this? -- (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


WHAT IS APPLICATION SOFTWARE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The intro is indeed poor. Perhaps the analogy can be improved, for example by changing the lightbulb and generator to a railway and train or a shopping mall and a retail shop. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Bantz2808 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Mobile apps?[edit]

Seems like whenever people use the word "app", they're referring to small, one-trick pony type programs developed for specific mobile OSes like Android or iOS (and by extension, Chrome and other ), not traditional software suites developed for desktop OSes. Can someone elaborate on this relatively unexplored connotation? (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - I'd also like to add my $0.02 about "app" vs "application". Please, let's restrict usage of the term "app" to mobile devices, and "applications" to traditional computers. Use of "app" for applications is laziness, and this Wikipedia entry should not be encouraging that usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbeens (talkcontribs) 11:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


I believe that the introductory part of section "Terminology" is misleading at all. The word "application" should be simple presented as a computer program. Please make reference to the following definition of linux:

"Linux is, in simplest terms, an operating system. It is the software on a computer that enables applications and the computer operator to access the devices on the computer to perform desired functions. The operating system (OS) relays instructions from an application to, for instance, the computer's processor. The processor performs the instructed task, then sends the results back to the application via the operating system" (retrieved from "").

In other words computer program can be regarded as part of two macro-categories: "operating system" which performs the task of dealinf with the hardware components and "application". I do no see any reason to compare an application to a "utility". The comparison with the language program is a non sense at all since an application is a sequence of instruction written in a programming language...The difference between an application and the program language is the same between a book and the alphabet or a car and the material substance used to build it — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a somewhat simplistic definition, and is really tailored to explaining Linux to newcomers. Having utilities as a distinct category from applications is very old, although clearly there's overlap. Same for programming languages, although this could be clearer in describing implementations of programming languages, rather than the languages themselves (IOW, we’re talking about the installed C compiler, not the C language itself). But both utilities (which you might consider applications for managing the system, rather than performing a task the user actually wants) and programming language implementations (application that are used to develop programs), are applications from the OS's perspective. So it's a somewhat flexible term. Rwessel (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the above definition is not simplistic since it is often present in a lot of books regarding the operating system. I can remember that Abraham Silberschatz, which may be deemed a "guru" on the field of the Computer Science gave a similar definition. In any case the "programming language" expression is really misleading since it may read in the sense that a programming language i.e, the way you use to write instructions, is the same than the instructions themself. Can you fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the "programming language" reference. Rwessel (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
When Rwessel says that this definition is simplistic, he does not mean that it is inappropriate. He means that it basically ignores utility programs in order to avoid muddying the discussion.Chappell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem with definition and suggested new definition[edit]

I find the given "definition" of application software quite poor and not concise: "Application software [...] is computer software designed to help the user to perform specific tasks". Well, isn't all software made for that? I would say that all system software is designed to help the user perform specific tasks. The file system of a computer, for instance, has as its sole purpose to help users perform specific tasks. It wouldn't exist if it didn't help the user. But I wouldn't call a file system "application software". So something is wrong with the definition – it is simply illogical (being so wide that it doesn't say anything and therefore cannot be a real definition).

I am not sure, though, what a more logical definition could be. Where is the boundary actually between application software and other software? What is the real defining difference?

Is it that application software has a user interface? If so, any command line tool would also be an application (the user interface is of course the command line). And in the end, all software has some kind of user interface, for instance an API accessible for programmers, otherwise it would not be usable.

Where is the real boundary? What is the clear, logical test you can apply to a piece of software to determine whether it is application software or not? The definition might include something that is hard to determine, but the test should at least make some logical sense, as opposed to the currently used definition.

I have seen a definition talk about "end users" as the defining difference: "[software] designed for end users" ([1]). In that case it depends on what is meant by "end users". Again, a command line tool would be application software if "end users" are seen as computer engineers, but not application software if "end users" are defined as persons that are not computer engineers, i.e. "normal people"; for them command line tools would probably be "system software" if the programs they use depend on these command line tools. So it is still not a clear definition, but it does make more sense than the currently used definition in this Wikipedia article.

So I actually find the definition "software designed for end users" better, with the given link to the Wikipedia article User (computing).

Any clever thoughts on this, including other suggestions for definitions that would actually make sense?

--Jhertel (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure a bright-line definition exists, and often the context depends on the user in question. But applications are generally more focused on a task an end user might want to perform than system software, thus Oracle sells a database we'd generally consider system software, and also applications that do (for example) accounting built on top of that database. The end user not really wanting a database, but rather wanting an accounting package. Something like a backup package would be much more ambiguous. Rwessel (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting comment with good thoughts on the subject, Rwessel – thanks! --Jhertel (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The question of what software is application software is much easier to grasp when we realize that application is from the word "apply". Application software *applies* the computer to a task such as writing letters, composing music, playing movies, viewing documents, or retouching photographs. If it would make sense to say "I want a computer to do X" (where X is not learning about computers), then the program which one would use while doing X on a computer is an application program. Thus word processors, media players, web browsers, and Adobe Photoshop are clearly application programs. Virus scanners, defragmenters, and backup programs clearly are not. You can argue about whether database engines are application software or not. Chappell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Line #2: 'For example: MS Word, MS Excel, console game, library management system, billing system, etc. [1]': what is this an example of?[edit]

In line #2: 'For example: MS Word, MS Excel, console game, library management system, billing system, etc. [1]': what is this an example of? In other words, are MS Word, MS Excel, console game, library management system, billing systems, examples of application software or examples of applications?

and: line #7: 'Examples include accounting software, enterprise software, graphics software, media players, and office suites.' Examples of what?

BogwhistleBogwhistle (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Shouldn't this page be titled "Application (software)"? I've been a programmer for decades and this is the first time I've read "application software"... just now, when I was looking for Wikipedia's page on applications and ran into this article. I have heard of "software applications", "applications", "apps", but never of "application software". Shouldn't this be "Application (software)" per WP:COMMONNAME or whatever? I've literally never met anyone ever that said "What kind of application software did you install?" or whatever. People use "applications" or "apps", not "application software". Just because System software exists doesn't mean this article needs to be named "Application software", just to make it consistent. -- (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe "Application (computing)", like Context (computing) and Server (computing) and Mouse (computing) and such. -- (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been programming for decades as well, and "application software" is a pretty old and common term in my experience (if a bit redundant). Just try Googling it (with quotes). Rwessel (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the move to Application (software) and with the claim that the move is supported by WP:COMMONNAME. I also have been programming for decades and agree with Rwessel that "application software" is a common term, distinguished from system software. If you wish to pursue this, it should be submitted to an actual WP:RM discussion. Msnicki (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
To repeat myself (since it's been a couple of months), I'd still prefer Application software. Rwessel (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

A set of computer programs?[edit]

The lead sentence is confusing "is a set of computer programs designed to permit the user to perform a group of coordinated functions, tasks, or activities."

What does "a set computer programs" mean? All possible programs that run on top of an operating system? It reads like an application suite, but I think it's intended as more general than that. And what does "coordinated" mean?

Dgpop (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dgpop
It is clearly a grammatical error but I don't find it confusing. "Software" means "a set of computer programs", therefore "application software" means "a set of computer program designed [...]". I find it annoying to no end. Basically, why on earth should on try to define both "software" and "application software" at the same time, and so clumsily? The more annoying word is "permit". The whole "permit the user to" must be dropped. So, overall, I'd say:

Application software is a group of software designed to perform a group of coordinated functions, tasks, or activities.

Now I myself don't find "coordinated" problematic at all. It means "not haphazard and purposeless" but "interrelated as a group". e.g., a user types a piece of text and prints it. Typing a piece of text and doing nothing with it or printing a random set of characters would not be coordinated.
If you agree so far, can I apply it? (Or if you don't agree yet, but believe this is a definite improvement.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not 100% sure who the audience is for this article, but your changes are a step in the right direction--thank you.
Dgpop (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have an audience mandate although Good Articles (GA) and Featured Articles (FA) do: GAs must have a rather broad audience. FAs must cater to either everyone or a very large subset of everyone. The terms "broad" and "a very large subset of everyone" are loosely defined. In case of GA, the purpose is to encourage editors to improve the quality of articles without giving said editors a very hard time. In case of FA, the purpose is to give the editors a hard time! (I myself have helped bring one article to the FA status!) This article is not GA yet. So, any help to make understandable to as broad an audience as possible is appreciated. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately "a group of software" is even worse. While (say) MS Word *is* software, one would never say it is "a software", but it *is* "a program". I agree that the "set of" thing is silly. Something like "Application software (an application) is a computer program designed to...". While “computer program” can refer to a single source module or executable, it can also refer to a group of related executables comprising a system. Rwessel (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Position of sister project links[edit]

Codename Lisa I don't really care too much where these go, but having them in separate section was wrong. However, I'm apparently not reading MOS:LAYOUT the same way you are. Since these were box-type links before, I believe the part that applies is "More precisely, box-type templates such as {{Commons}} shown at right have to be put at the beginning of the last section of the article (which is not necessarily the "External links" section) so that boxes will appear next to, rather than below, the list items. Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates." So I'm not really sure the boxes were misplaced. Now that they've been changed to inline links, a separate external links section seems reasonable. OTOH, the following paragraph, "If box-type templates are not good, either because they result in a long sequence of right-aligned boxes hanging off the bottom of the article, or because there are no external links except sister project ones, then consider using "inline" templates, such as {{Commons-inline}} in the "External links" section, so that links to sister projects appear as list items, like this:..." suggests that the box links are preferred, although the bit about the lack of an external links sections appears at least partially in conflict with the prior paragraph. Rwessel (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

When you read the part that say "If box-type templates are not good", did you check whether they are or not? Do it now: Adjust your web browser into a tablet size like 576×1024 or 600×900 and look at your own revision. IMHO, it definitely doesn't look good. In fact, I rarely find putting anything floating in the references section not causing any trouble.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

See also: Advantages[edit]

Why is the Advantages article listed in the "See also" section? I don't see any relation to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Expanding the definition of "application"[edit]


Today, 28 February 2017, User:JustSomeGuy made a bold edit which I found contentious; as such, I contested them with a revert. (For the record: That's the standard procedure in Wikipedia.) The change was so contentious that a full edit summary would have easily surpassed the edit summary limitation.

The main problem with User:JustSomeGuy's contribution is that it is purely original research, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. It combines the definitions of "app", "application" and "program" in direct contradiction to existing cited sources and without giving a source of his own. One thing I must mention is the precedent: On 4 October 2015, I tried to add "app" as a synonym to the computer program article. In addition to the six existing sources, I provided 25 additional source. The community didn't let me. So, User:JustSomeGuy, if you think I am being a bully here, I have two words for you: Double standards!

As I said in my edit summary, I am concerned that enough attention to metonymy is not given. As I have said before:

The word "application" itself is often used as a metonym for all computer programs. For example an application programming interfaces (APIs), such as Windows API are used to develop all kinds of computer programs not just application software. This is also the case with application server, application virtualization, application lifecycle management and portable application. Also Microsoft Application Verifier and Microsoft Application Compatibility Toolkit, and Adobe Application Manager do not restrict themselves with application software; they apply equally to utilities as well.

That alone does not mean that applications and computer programs are one and the same thing.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa:
Hello, Lisa.
One: I did not add app or application. The current article already defines those terms as application software since, pre‑edit, application software is defined as “all applications simultaneously” which by definition must include all apps and all applications and from that you can infer that application software is also referred to as apps. This is basic English. Furthermore, that vague definition that you restored was already sourced (and is easily re‑sourced since the first non‑Wikipedia Google hit has such a circular definition) and I kept that reference in my edit; you haven’t disputed the validity of the source by removing it from the document.
Two: The section on “metynomy” is not clearly tied to the article and your unsourced, proposed addition of a single sentence doesn’t clarify that issue. I did not edit that section and will not edit that section except to delete it since I don’t believe it belongs on the document. It only seems to be present as an excuse to use unconventional terminology.
And, importantly, I don’t understand how that relates to my edit since I made no assertion that application software is a synonym for “all computer programs”, merely that application software is referred to as programs (which is true). Adobe Photoshop is a program. Grand Theft Auto V is a program. Norton Antivirus is a program. But, hey, go ahead and tell people that they aren’t.
Three: Your personal story is irrelevant to this situation. The computer program article is obviously discussing programs in a general sense and this article is discussing a specific class of computer programs (application software) to the exclusion of other classes of computer programs (system software et al). Or, that is, it would be obvious if the summary wasn’t so vague.
Four: That’s it. I’m abandoning this edit. I’ll leave fixing (or not fixing) the article to you since I apparently can’t restore my edits without your permission. Patrick Dark 20:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Face-smile.svg
"I apparently can’t restore my edits without your permission." Actually, you can and I tell you how. They say Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That's half the truth. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone willing to work as a civilized team can edit. Obviously, neither my preferred version can stay nor yours. Why? Because when you made your edit, you had a concern and when I reverted, I had a concern. That means both version have faults and this discussion aims to establish a totally new version without any of those faults. You can study WP:BRD for more.
"Your personal story is irrelevant to this situation". I am afraid I regret to inform you that according to the Wikipedia:Consensus policy, it is very much relevant. A consensus is established at §1, §2, §3 and §4 and consensus may not be ignored. Yes, consensus can change, but never ignored.
"I made no assertion that application software is a synonym for “all computer programs”, merely that application software is referred to as programs (which is true)." Face-surprise.svg Is that true? Let's see. You wrote:

Application software—also referred to by the terms app [...] and program—is a computer program designed to perform tasks in the context of a software platform, such as the Windows operating system or a browser plug‑in like Adobe Flash.

The boldfaces are yours. According to WP:BOLDTITLE, you use this style to indicate synonyms.
If you wanted to establish hyponymy as you are claiming now, all you had to do was not to include "program". All women are human. All mamals are animals. All trees are plants. But nobody writes "Woman, also referred to as human", "Mammals, also referred to as animals", or "trees, also referred to as plants".
I am no longer concerned that about your awareness of metonymy and its impact because I am no longer sure you knew what you were doing.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Application software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)