1
7
7
0
7
6
0
Agents
Forums
An open letter to Mac developers
I'm going to keep this very short & sweet...
It seems like every week I'm hearing of yet another bundle offering popping-up around the 'net. Today being no exception (I won't link the new one because I don't feel that they deserve the free publicity). While competition is good, I want to emphasize that our annual bundles are special events because of the quality of the software that we include in them.
So while there are the various memes and myths that constantly get propagated about bundles, I'm going to make it 100% clear that we don't include repeats of other software in our annual bundles and this means both our past bundles and any other bundles. If you're a Mac developer and you consider your software to be top-notch, you're forfeiting your chances to be included in a future MacHeist bundle if you include your software in another promotion.
Propagate this fact to Mac developers, Mac journalists, etc, and help keep the MacHeist bundles exceptional...
P.S. It'll be easy to look at this as some way of monopolizing on Mac bundles but the reality is that our goals are to bring you the best bundles ever, while helping top developers earn the most they can in these types of promotions, and also raising a lot of money for charity.
John Casasanta
MacHeist Director
tap tap tap chief
July 4, 2009 1:30 am
This seems unnecessary. It sounds a lot less like "we value the quality" and a lot more like "you're either with us or against us". This might not be your intent, but that's the way it's coming off. "Certain other bundles" can't hold a candle to MacHeist as it is, because they can't hold the quality that MacHeist does.
What's said is said, but it didn't need to be. Developers already know this. It only fuels certain blogs and people that want to rant on about the various evils of MacHeist, informed options or not. Generally "not".
Oh, and please. People. In advance I request you don't mention WireTap, iClip, or the Retail Box as mentions of "repeats". They aren't. Not of the yearly bundles as above mentioned. Just wanted to pound another nail into that coffin.
P.S. Methinks you used the wrong pronoun. I don't think "it" qualifies as a "they".
䷟䷽䷏䷁ — Dying of the Light.
July 4, 2009 4:41 am
Sorry I have to say that this does indeed sound like something you would hear in kindergarten or similar places e.g.
If you play with Bob today you can't try my Nintendo anymore...
I am not an agent in real life, only on weekends!
July 4, 2009 6:03 am
by refusing to feature exceptionaly high quality software used to be featured 1-2 times in a non bundle promo or an unsuccessful small scale bundle, you might ended up in with some fillers rather than high quality softwares
I considered some software in MacHeist 3 are top notch even though I'll never use them; But a few are ridiculous (be it poor customer support, unremoveable self advertising in the app's output, or released/updated aeons ago, etc) if you read reviews on the internet
Thanks a Lot
July 4, 2009 6:11 am
Hi John,
I think it's good that you roll-out the rules so that everyone knows them. Thanks for that.
I also think that the idea behind this rule is a good one, as it will give us unique bundles with unique software. And at the end of the day, this is one of the reasons why we buy the MacHeist bundles.
Over the last years however, I learned one thing in regards of rules and processes. They all need to have exceptions, otherwise they will not work. So as long as you guys won't act by the rule only, but in exceptional cases maybe even brake it if there is a good reason for it, I think this should be fine for everyone.
German Mac Twittering | Dropbox - Free online storage
Green Monkeys, the only true monkeys
July 4, 2009 8:39 am
To be honest I am not sure the "no repeat applications" is THAT big of a deal... MacHeist is good because of the community and the games - not especially the bundle.
I think that if you continue to work by that rule you will eventually narrow down the amount of applications to choose from and in the end we will be left with some strange bundles with only odd niche programs that only 0.1% of the buyers will be using regularly.
This year we already saw a taste of that with Boinx and Kinematic. While they might be expensive and good, they are not really aimed at this market. Would hate to see 10 applications this special, no matter if the bundle value would be $3000.
I agree that repeat bundles with "Caboodle", "Chameleon", "Koingo Utility" etc. would kill the sale, but on the other hand I could easily find 15 repeat applications I would rather see in a MH bundle compared to Boinx, Kinematic and similar strange programs.
And the more I read your post John I really see it as a way to kill the competition in a monopoly way, something that does not suit my thoughts about the Mac software community as I have always seen this as a very friendly, special and open environment.
I am not an agent in real life, only on weekends!
July 4, 2009 9:41 am
which parts of macheist are meant to be exceptional here ? all of it ?
July 4, 2009 9:43 am
Miah wrote:
This seems unnecessary. It sounds a lot less like "we value the quality" and a lot more like "you're either with us or against us".
MintCreation wrote:
If you play with Bob today you can't try my Nintendo anymore...
Agreed
FREE Dropbox Storage Use link for EXTRA space for you and me. 
15.4" 2.5GHz 4GB MacBook Pro, 32GB iPhone 3GS
July 4, 2009 10:39 am
Miah wrote:
This seems unnecessary. It sounds a lot less like "we value the quality" and a lot more like "you're either with us or against us".
MintCreation wrote:
If you play with Bob today you can't try my Nintendo anymore...
Yes, and I skipped some bundles that featured quality apps simply because there were too many fillers included. I'd love to see repeats in these cases.
Edit:
And as a customer, I read it this way: All the occasional fantastic apps that are sold in otherwise average or uninteresting bundles won't be included in MH4. That makes me sad. We should start an MH4 exclusion list.
July 4, 2009 11:22 am
Miah wrote:
What's said is said, but it didn't need to be. Developers already know this. It only fuels certain blogs and people that want to rant on about the various evils of MacHeist, informed options or not. Generally "not".
That's actually not the case at all. We constantly get inquiries by prominent developers and we have to turn them away because of our no-repeat policy.
When Phill and I were scouring the floor at Macworld last January, we found many, many top-notch developers that never even heard of MacHeist, let alone our no-repeats policy.
And this is why I feel it makes sense to explicitly state our policy here, in the first forum, in a stickied thread... since the policy has usually just been scattered around in the middle of threads that are well under the radar.
MintCreation wrote:
To be honest I am not sure the "no repeat applications" is THAT big of a deal... MacHeist is good because of the community and the games - not especially the bundle.
And even if you look at how we do the missions, we're very adamant about not repeating puzzles either.
It's pretty much like this with all aspects of MacHeist... we even go so far as to change the website design each year. We basically try very hard to make everything we do here feel fresh and exciting. The bundle is one big part of the whole thing... so again, I feel it's important to have our policy stated very clearly up-front.
John Casasanta
MacHeist Director
tap tap tap chief
July 4, 2009 11:40 am
July 4, 2009 2:54 pm
Okay you have decided "no repate" in MacHeist bundle. That's your decision and I have no reason to question it
Then there are developer who don't know about MacHeist and/or your policy. You want to communicate it and that's fine
So to your open letter. I must agree I also find it as a childish threat. Why talk about the other bundles as bad or talk about them as all? Remembering from PR and advertisement classes is that talking, esp bad, about competitors is a sign of weakness and will seldon be a success. One of the few who talked about their competitors (not as being bad) and made a good thing about was Avis in their "Being number two" ad.
Why not promote yourself and your bundle? Saying that you now are in the last part of creating the next bundle and as there seems to developer who don't know your policy "no repate" you want to explain why as it can be important for them when if/when they want to be part in a bundle.
July 4, 2009 4:03 pm
macwitty wrote:
Okay you have decided "no repate" in MacHeist bundle. That's your decision and I have no reason to question it
Then there are developer who don't know about MacHeist and/or your policy. You want to communicate it and that's fine
So to your open letter. I must agree I also find it as a childish threat. Why talk about the other bundles as bad or talk about them as all? Remembering from PR and advertisement classes is that talking, esp bad, about competitors is a sign of weakness and will seldon be a success. One of the few who talked about their competitors (not as being bad) and made a good thing about was Avis in their "Being number two" ad.
Why not promote yourself and your bundle? Saying that you now are in the last part of creating the next bundle and as there seems to developer who don't know your policy "no repate" you want to explain why as it can be important for them when if/when they want to be part in a bundle.
Sounds like a good idea!
No mention of other bundles, just the "no repeats" part e.g. the developers need to think for them selves and decide what to do.
I am not an agent in real life, only on weekends!
July 4, 2009 5:58 pm
johnred wrote:
And this is why I feel it makes sense to explicitly state our policy here, in the first forum, in a stickied thread... since the policy has usually just been scattered around in the middle of threads that are well under the radar.
It still feels like the wrong outlet. If I was planning to have one of my products offered though MacHeist, and I was new to this, then the first place I would look with be here, followed by here, then I would email you. I would not consider even looking in these forums. Why? Because forums aren't meant to replace about pages.
It would do a lot better to have an about page specifically for devs with questions. Just post a link at the top of the "What's MacHeist?" page saying "Interested in selling your product through MacHeist? Please read our policies first".
䷟䷽䷏䷁ — Dying of the Light.
July 4, 2009 7:48 pm
Miah wrote:
It still feels like the wrong outlet. If I was planning to have one of my products offered though MacHeist, and I was new to this, then the first place I would look with be here, followed by here, then I would email you. I would not consider even looking in these forums. Why? Because forums aren't meant to replace about pages.
It would do a lot better to have an about page specifically for devs with questions. Just post a link at the top of the "What's MacHeist?" page saying "Interested in selling your product through MacHeist? Please read our policies first".
And that's definitely planned. We have a zillion things on our to-do lists and forum post = easy so I decided to go this route for now. Plus, repetition never hurts. Like repeating things over and over. Or saying them many times, but in a slightly different way. 
John Casasanta
MacHeist Director
tap tap tap chief
July 4, 2009 9:23 pm
Nothing says developers can't do MH first, and then go to another bundle, anyway.
A lot of bundles are springing up due to MH paving the way.
If 50% of an MH bundle was had by people buying most every bundle out there, it's 50% less likelihood said people would find the next MH bundle appealing.
Makes sense to me, and not just from a "kill the competition" standpoint. It's more like not letting the lesser competition (or even previous MH bundles) spoil the future MH bundles.
http://www.twitter.com/frigginjoe
F everyone. Scribbles is neat!
July 5, 2009 1:26 am
It makes sense, yes. What it was that I objected to the the matter of the delivery. It wasn't exactly eloquent.
And, as an aside to John: If you're having issues getting things done due to a lack of resources, I can certainly chip in. I'm sure you've seen the bulkload of copy I can write in a single sitting. Writing an FAQ for developers would actually be somewhat interesting to me.
Oh, and as a further aside, one thing that annoyed me in some bundles is the use of programs with insane "protection" schemes. iSale comes to the mind of most, but the Pangea Software game from the first bundle also struck a nerve when I opened the app to find that, though the support pages say that it's "incompatible" with Little Snitch, that incompatibly was deliberately written it by Pangea. If anything, apps like these will turn me away before anything else does (Perhaps I should revisit the megarant I started in January 2008 along these lines).
Hmm... That reminds me. I'm overdue for my next rant. Excuse me... *runs off to find a camera*
䷟䷽䷏䷁ — Dying of the Light.
July 5, 2009 2:05 am
I give eloquence a pass, because it doesn't feel right.
All signs point to johnred being an actual viking.
http://www.twitter.com/frigginjoe
F everyone. Scribbles is neat!
July 5, 2009 2:10 am
frigginjoe wrote:
I give eloquence a pass, because it doesn't feel right.
All signs point to johnred being an actual viking.
I could never live up to him, though.
John Casasanta
MacHeist Director
tap tap tap chief
July 5, 2009 7:03 am
The no-repeats policy ensures that the idea works again and again - here's to MH4 and beyond!
All I'll say about the *other* bundle is that macheist has always been quite a bit more complex than just "good software at an good price".
4th time lucky... come on graphic converter & vmware... I can dream, can't I?
July 5, 2009 1:38 pm
I agree that many developers may have no idea of this policy (which I think is a good policy for those of us who buy bundles). I think that a one time spam email/TweetBlast directed at every developer you know would probably do a lot more to raise awareness of this policy.
If you are a Dexter fan, check out The Dexter Cast podcast - iTunes or www.thedextercast.com
Dropbox referral - We each get an extra 500MB
July 5, 2009 11:33 pm
So in layman's terms, If a developer's software was in another bundle, you will not consider having that same software in your bundle, Am I Right?
I agree: childhood should be a time of innocence, and Bambi's mother shouldn't die, and lap dances should be complementary after the fifth cocktail, but that's not the world we live in
-Charlie Harper
July 6, 2009 1:28 am
Warbrain wrote:
I wouldn't mind repeats if it has been long enough that we get a significant update.
Ditto. Especially for time- or upgrade-limited software. (Or just software where there's been a significant enough upgrade for there to be significant cost.)
Purple is purty...
Biology prof -- feel free to PM with college-y questions!
Thanks to those who bought using my referral code!
July 6, 2009 2:23 am
butterflyc wrote:
Warbrain wrote:I wouldn't mind repeats if it has been long enough that we get a significant update.
Ditto. Especially for time- or upgrade-limited software. (Or just software where there's been a significant enough upgrade for there to be significant cost.)
Delicious Library 2 in the TweetBlast was a good example of this.
John Casasanta
MacHeist Director
tap tap tap chief
July 6, 2009 2:39 am
butterflyc wrote:
Warbrain wrote:I wouldn't mind repeats if it has been long enough that we get a significant update.
Ditto. Especially for time- or upgrade-limited software. (Or just software where there's been a significant enough upgrade for there to be significant cost.)
Considering that many of the apps in the first bundle had limited upgrade paths and there's been a huge amount of new users since MH1 it would be prudent to include those apps as upgrades to those who have been here from the start as well as to those who wish to get those apps but missed out.
July 6, 2009 2:39 am
johnred wrote:
butterflyc wrote:Warbrain wrote:I wouldn't mind repeats if it has been long enough that we get a significant update.
Ditto. Especially for time- or upgrade-limited software. (Or just software where there's been a significant enough upgrade for there to be significant cost.)
Delicious Library 2 in the TweetBlast was a good example of this.
Exactly.
If done correctly for apps that are from the previous MH bundles then repeats will not be a problem. It just has to be done right.
July 6, 2009 2:50 am
July 6, 2009 3:40 am
johnred wrote:
butterflyc wrote:Warbrain wrote:I wouldn't mind repeats if it has been long enough that we get a significant update.
Ditto. Especially for time- or upgrade-limited software. (Or just software where there's been a significant enough upgrade for there to be significant cost.)
Delicious Library 2 in the TweetBlast was a good example of this.
This, then, would seem to indicate a change of attitude by the Directorate in regard to repeats of new versions. This is what John posted on December 16th last year:
johnred wrote:
LordZog wrote:Are newer versions considered to be different from earlier ones that appeared in bundles? e.g. Would Delicious Library v2 be considered a repeat because DL1 was in an earlier bundle?
In this case, it's considered the same app so no-go. On the other hand, for something like a game where we had the first version of it in the bundle and the company came out with the next one, which is a whole new game, that would be ok.
Keep in mind that this is just hypothetical and we don't have anything like that in MH3.
On the strength of this I purchased an upgrade to Delicious Library 2 only to discover that it was included as part of the TweetBlast. I was happy to have given some money to a brilliant Mac developer but did feel very confused about MacHeist's no repeat policy, particularly as Delicious Library had been explicitly mentioned by the Directorate.
Perhaps a clear statement for developers and potential customers would be a good idea. It seems from this thread that new versions of applications that have featured in previous MacHeist bundles could be 'repeated' if the newer versions are significantly improved.
What, then, is MacHeist's policy in regard to an 'older' application that has been featured as part of another bundle but has been significantly upgraded? Could this be considered for inclusion in a MacHeist bundle?
I'm deliberately playing Devil's advocate because I still feel this 'no repeat' policy is a little grey. As I suggest above, a really clear statement for customers would be fantastic.
Thanks again for MacHeist bundles 1, 2 and 3. I can't wait to see what is in 4! 
- Henry
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
July 6, 2009 3:36 pm
henryjones wrote:
johnred wrote:butterflyc wrote:Ditto. Especially for time- or upgrade-limited software. (Or just software where there's been a significant enough upgrade for there to be significant cost.)
Delicious Library 2 in the TweetBlast was a good example of this.
This, then, would seem to indicate a change of attitude by the Directorate in regard to repeats of new versions. This is what John posted on December 16th last year:
johnred wrote:LordZog wrote:Are newer versions considered to be different from earlier ones that appeared in bundles? e.g. Would Delicious Library v2 be considered a repeat because DL1 was in an earlier bundle?
In this case, it's considered the same app so no-go. On the other hand, for something like a game where we had the first version of it in the bundle and the company came out with the next one, which is a whole new game, that would be ok.
Keep in mind that this is just hypothetical and we don't have anything like that in MH3.
On the strength of this I purchased an upgrade to Delicious Library 2 only to discover that it was included as part of the TweetBlast. I was happy to have given some money to a brilliant Mac developer but did feel very confused about MacHeist's no repeat policy, particularly as Delicious Library had been explicitly mentioned by the Directorate.
Perhaps a clear statement for developers and potential customers would be a good idea. It seems from this thread that new versions of applications that have featured in previous MacHeist bundles could be 'repeated' if the newer versions are significantly improved.
What, then, is MacHeist's policy in regard to an 'older' application that has been featured as part of another bundle but has been significantly upgraded? Could this be considered for inclusion in a MacHeist bundle?
I'm deliberately playing Devil's advocate because I still feel this 'no repeat' policy is a little grey. As I suggest above, a really clear statement for customers would be fantastic.
Thanks again for MacHeist bundles 1, 2 and 3. I can't wait to see what is in 4!
- Henry
I would say that, and this is just me talking and not the Directorate, that if the app were included in another bundle and it had a significant upgrade than it's up to that other bundle to provide that upgrade path for users, not MacHeist. If it was previously included in MacHeist then it could happen.
You'll find that a lot of the policies here are gray.
July 6, 2009 4:35 pm
Hey im having problems with my app i got to the part where you have the toolbar and the + button and i added a UITabel and when you click the button a AlertView pops up with a UITextfield You can type in the text field but how do i get what you type in in the textfield of the alert view to add the text in the UITable... a bit like the my basket app
i cant show you my code because i have to be more active 
love from ideveloperz =]
July 6, 2009 4:37 pm
Ideveloperz wrote:
Hey im having problems with my app i got to the part where you have the toolbar and the + button and i added a UITabel and when you click the button a AlertView pops up with a UITextfield You can type in the text field but how do i get what you type in in the textfield of the alert view to add the text in the UITable... a bit like the my basket app
i cant show you my code because i have to be more active
You do realize that you're spamming the forums a bit, right? You already made a thread about this and now you hijacked this thread.
July 6, 2009 4:48 pm
July 6, 2009 4:49 pm
Warbrain wrote:
Ideveloperz wrote:Hey im having problems with my app i got to the part where you have the toolbar and the + button and i added a UITabel and when you click the button a AlertView pops up with a UITextfield You can type in the text field but how do i get what you type in in the textfield of the alert view to add the text in the UITable... a bit like the my basket app
i cant show you my code because i have to be more active
You do realize that you're spamming the forums a bit, right? You already made a thread about this and now you hijacked this thread.
SORRY im new
love from ideveloperz =]
July 6, 2009 4:51 pm
Ideveloperz wrote:
Warbrain wrote:Ideveloperz wrote:Hey im having problems with my app i got to the part where you have the toolbar and the + button and i added a UITabel and when you click the button a AlertView pops up with a UITextfield You can type in the text field but how do i get what you type in in the textfield of the alert view to add the text in the UITable... a bit like the my basket app
i cant show you my code because i have to be more active
You do realize that you're spamming the forums a bit, right? You already made a thread about this and now you hijacked this thread.
SORRY im new
And it doesn't give you any reason to spam the forums. I've already been told you're trouble. Watch yourself - I have an eye on you.
July 6, 2009 5:02 pm
ok i r like be good
...chicken told you didnt he
oh and your avatar is scary N/O
love from ideveloperz =]
July 6, 2009 6:59 pm
Warbrain wrote:
Considering that many of the apps in the first bundle had limited upgrade paths and there's been a huge amount of new users since MH1 it would be prudent to include those apps as upgrades to those who have been here from the start as well as to those who wish to get those apps but missed out.
A mini Heist whose loot would be the upgrades to the Apps of previous loot, perhaps? If it's not a confusing statement, it might be a good idea
There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who read binary; and those who don't.
July 6, 2009 10:56 pm
henryjones wrote:
johnred wrote:butterflyc wrote:Ditto. Especially for time- or upgrade-limited software. (Or just software where there's been a significant enough upgrade for there to be significant cost.)
Delicious Library 2 in the TweetBlast was a good example of this.
This, then, would seem to indicate a change of attitude by the Directorate in regard to repeats of new versions. This is what John posted on December 16th last year:
johnred wrote:LordZog wrote:Are newer versions considered to be different from earlier ones that appeared in bundles? e.g. Would Delicious Library v2 be considered a repeat because DL1 was in an earlier bundle?
In this case, it's considered the same app so no-go. On the other hand, for something like a game where we had the first version of it in the bundle and the company came out with the next one, which is a whole new game, that would be ok.
Keep in mind that this is just hypothetical and we don't have anything like that in MH3.
On the strength of this I purchased an upgrade to Delicious Library 2 only to discover that it was included as part of the TweetBlast. I was happy to have given some money to a brilliant Mac developer but did feel very confused about MacHeist's no repeat policy, particularly as Delicious Library had been explicitly mentioned by the Directorate.
Perhaps a clear statement for developers and potential customers would be a good idea. It seems from this thread that new versions of applications that have featured in previous MacHeist bundles could be 'repeated' if the newer versions are significantly improved.
What, then, is MacHeist's policy in regard to an 'older' application that has been featured as part of another bundle but has been significantly upgraded? Could this be considered for inclusion in a MacHeist bundle?
I'm deliberately playing Devil's advocate because I still feel this 'no repeat' policy is a little grey. As I suggest above, a really clear statement for customers would be fantastic.
Thanks again for MacHeist bundles 1, 2 and 3. I can't wait to see what is in 4!
- Henry
Apologies for quoting the whole thing but I didn't want to lose context.
Technically, the TweetBlast apps weren't part of the bundle.
John Casasanta
MacHeist Director
tap tap tap chief
July 6, 2009 10:58 pm
Also, it's worth pointing out that a loot app can graduate to a bundle app if it's good enough and popular enough. We had that happen for MacHeist II but all the apps in MacHeist 3 were new.
John Casasanta
MacHeist Director
tap tap tap chief
July 6, 2009 11:01 pm
Many publishers have more than one app. I've seen plenty of apps featured in separate bundles and I don't think it's really a "you're with us or not" issue, but improves diversity of applications and publishers involved. For instance, RealMac software bundled with MacUpdate (RapidWeaver) before bundling a different app with MacHeist (Little Snapper), so to clarify (what appears to be) the position here, it's no repeats of apps and not developers
In communist russia, the normal force pushes on you!
July 7, 2009 2:48 am
