1
8
4
8
5
5
8
Agents
Forums
License trading and bundle splits no more
danco wrote:
WhiteFang wrote:[
It really doesn't matter if you "split up the newspaper" or "tear up the magazine", it's still a single sale divided on several people.Physical loss of sales.
Which is exactly my point
Not necessarily. Guarantees one sale. Without the split, there might have been two sales, but there could easily have been none, with both people deciding that the price was too high for the portion of the newspaper that interested them.
In my book, if you think $49 (or $39 like last MH) is too much, then I think your'e a cheapskate who doesn't deserve what's on offer. ("You" being the proverbial cheapskate that won't buy, not >you< personally :-) )
And since cheapskates like that are also more likely to harass the developer with offensive support demands, I'd think "good riddance" in many cases.
In all, the win is greater than the loss.
(favourite paradox) This page intentionally left blank.
January 11, 2010 11:15 pm
Wasgo wrote:
It's all very easy for John to claim that buyers don't deserve anything for software, or that it's a more difficult market so they shouldn't be able to transfer, but John doesn't get to decide legal rights.
Yeah, and it's all very easy to put words in John's mouth, right? WTF, Wasgo?
izdale wrote:
strangetpwn wrote:I find the timing of this new policy "highly convenient" since it comes nicely after most other bundle organizations have finished their activities but before Macheist holds its flagship event. If trades and bundle splits are ruining the bundle market (the Directorate's analysis not mine), why did they sit back and say nothing while the practice was rampant last month?
It does seem to come at a convenient time, now that other bundles are over and MacHeist is likely the next one...
I meant to call you out for this, izdale, as your recent post was actually one of the things that triggered this policy:
http://www.macheist.com/forums/viewtopi … 66#p354066
We were alerted to the issue in the mod room and I'd say that it was the tipping point. It really does make me feel bad when our motives are questioned like this, when, in reality, we were trying to do the right thing here with this policy.
rpcohen wrote:
Developers should charge $3-$5 for each bundle split license transfer. This would would not only pay for the couple minutes it takes to change a license but would also probably net the developer significantly more than they earned on the original sale of their app in the bundle. Everybody wins.
...except the people who think that even $3-$5 is unfair. I'm sure you'll be getting a bunch of replies disagreeing with this idea. They'll be from the same people who are complaining in this thread.
And I'd like to thank rampancy and pschorr for bringing some sanity back to this thread at least.
John Casasanta
MacHeist Director
tap tap tap chief
January 11, 2010 11:25 pm
Wasgo wrote:
For all physical goods, buyers have the right to sell purchased goods, regardless of the intent of the seller. Similarly, sellers of a copyrighted work, retain the legal ownership of the content when they sell a specific instance, such as a book.
From my understanding though, this doesn't necessarily apply to software because what you're buying isn't a physical good like a book or a music CD; you're not even buying the software itself. You're buying a license to use someone else's software. Different story altogether.
Marathon Forever.
AppShelf: MacHeist 3 Loot
AppShelf: nanoBundle 1
Check Reciept Page for nanoBundle 2 AppShelf Files.
January 11, 2010 11:27 pm
WalrusCP wrote:
I have to admit, there was some really asinine stuff that went on in the thread in question. People wanting to trade invites for $100+ applications, people refusing to purchase apps when they were half-price or better, and the attempts to trade loot applications drove me nuts. Sadly, there were people honestly looking to make legitimate trades, but I don't expect the Directorate to police the forums to facilitate legitimate trading. It's just not why they're in business, and it's their prerogative to shut the thread down. It stinks that they have to do it, but it is what it is.
As for all the discussion on whether developers should or shouldn't allow license transfers, I am of the mind that they need to be explicit about their policies in their licensure agreements. If they don't want the headache, make it part of the agreement from the outset. Otherwise, I think they have to at least entertain such requests, if but to provide customers with quality service: even if it's to politely explain to a license holder that they won't perform the transfer (just draft a form email and send it on out as needed). I think developers at least owe that much to a customer. But I don't think they "owe" someone who purchases a license the right to transfer. I just think it's wise for developers to spell out their policy in the license agreement or at least on their site.
I agree with you on both accounts. I am thinking of becoming a full-time application developer, and I would gladly transfer licenses for people who want me to. They paid for my app, so I give them customer service. But then again, that's just me, and it is the developers decision.
Anyway, can't you guys just stop debating this???
An Apple a day keeps Windows away.
Get free Dropbox space!
January 12, 2010 12:27 am
johnred wrote:
izdale wrote:strangetpwn wrote:I find the timing of this new policy "highly convenient" since it comes nicely after most other bundle organizations have finished their activities but before Macheist holds its flagship event. If trades and bundle splits are ruining the bundle market (the Directorate's analysis not mine), why did they sit back and say nothing while the practice was rampant last month?
It does seem to come at a convenient time, now that other bundles are over and MacHeist is likely the next one...
I meant to call you out for this, izdale, as your recent post was actually one of the things that triggered this policy:
http://www.macheist.com/forums/viewtopi … 66#p354066
We were alerted to the issue in the mod room and I'd say that it was the tipping point. It really does make me feel bad when our motives are questioned like this, when, in reality, we were trying to do the right thing here with this policy.
Oh, I had forgotten that this new policy came right after I started that discussion. I was getting tired of people entering giveaways for stuff they already had, just so they had more to trade. To me, that was even beyond trading loot apps. I also feel some responsibility for starting the trade thread in the first place, though trading was already happening and I just made a thread for it. So does that mean I did the right thing twice? Organizing something that was already going on, and then helping to end it when it became a problem? 
But I do want to take back that statement about the timing. Now that you brought up that other discussion, plus the rate at which the problem was rising; those were the cause of the timing, and as I have said twice before, this is most definitely the right thing to do by closing these things down in the MacHeist forums.
agg23 wrote:
Anyway, can't you guys just stop debating this???
This is a large and very important issue. That's what forums are for, discussion. You don't have it read it 
And in my experience here, discussions like this one get ended once they stop progressing, so it won't go on forever.
Find deals on Mac apps at Mac App Deals
January 12, 2010 12:38 am
rampancy wrote:
Wasgo wrote:For all physical goods, buyers have the right to sell purchased goods, regardless of the intent of the seller. Similarly, sellers of a copyrighted work, retain the legal ownership of the content when they sell a specific instance, such as a book.
From my understanding though, this doesn't necessarily apply to software because what you're buying isn't a physical good like a book or a music CD; you're not even buying the software itself. You're buying a license to use someone else's software. Different story altogether.
That's a very hot potatoe.
See, it very much depends on the location of both the buyer and the seller. The rules (license, term of sale etc) put forth ny the seller may be illegal or invalid in the location of the buyer.
Normally courts allow for a few errors in contracts, but a substantial amount of errors (or invalidations if you will) may invalidate the contract as whole.
And depending on the basic laws about terms of sale, copyrights, licenses and ownership, either one of the buyer or seller may well be SOL.
This however I think is well outside the scope of what good you guys are trying to accomplish with the new rules, right ? :-)
One example - Apple requires that I agree to no reverse engineering or modification of their software. The law here (a right which, incidentally, I'm not allowed to by another law to give up) dictates that I have all rights to reverse engineering and modifications of any software I bought, if I'm increasing or adding interoperability with other existing systems. This in turn invalidates the modification clause of Apples EULA - for my countrymen.
EULA wrote:
You may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original. Except as and only to the extent expressly permitted in this License or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof. THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.
Alþingi Íslendinga wrote:
[42. gr. a.]1) [Sá sem hefur rétt til að nota tölvuforrit hefur heimild til að gera þær breytingar á forritinu sem nauðsyn ber til vegna nýtingar þeirrar sem heimil er.]2)
[Einnig er heimil afritun forrits og þýðing eða afþýðing þess þegar slíkt er óhjákvæmilegt til öflunar upplýsinga sem þörf er á til að ná fram rekstrarsamhæfni sjálfstæðs forrits við önnur forrit að fullnægðum eftirgreindum skilyrðum:
1. að sú aðgerð sé framkvæmd af þeim aðila sem aflað hefur sér með lögmætum hætti heimildar til notkunar forritsins,
2. að slíkar upplýsingar hafi ekki verið tiltækar aðilum sem um getur í 1. tölul. með greiðum hætti,
3. að aðgerðirnar takmarkist við þann hluta hins upphaflega forrits sem nauðsynlegar eru til þess að ná fram rekstrarsamhæfni.
Upplýsingar, sem aflað hefur verið með heimild í grein þessari, verða aðeins notaðar til að auðvelda rekstrarsamhæfni við önnur forrit, en ekki á neinn þann hátt er raski lögmætum hagsmunum hins upprunalega forritshöfundar til eðlilegrar hagnýtingar þess né brjóti gegn höfundarétti hans á annan hátt.
Ekki er heimilt að víkja frá ákvæðum greinar þessarar með samningum.]3)
(quick translation) 1) He who has the right to use a computer program is allowed to make any modifications on the program neccessary for the use which has been allowed.
2) It is also permitted to make a copy of the program, disassemble or reassemble when inavoidable to acquire information that may be needed to produce compatibility of the independent program with other programs, fulfilling the following requirements:
1. The procedure is performed by an individual that has legitimately acquired rights to use the program
2. The information hasn't been available to the parties mentioned in pt.1 by any means
3. The procedure is limited to the part of the original program neccessary to produce the interoperability required.
Information acquired by rights of this section will only be used to simplify/enable interoperability with other programs and will not interfere with the copyrights of the author in any other way.
This section is not dismissable by contract.
(quick translation ends)
See, things do get complicated when once starts discussing rights, law and contracts, since there's no guarantee that any of it holds until taken before court - and even then you aren't safe, since my court may interpret things differently than your court.
(favourite paradox) This page intentionally left blank.
January 12, 2010 12:56 am
This thread annoys me, I don't know how to explain it. People keep posting their opinions and stuff, but it doesn't matter. Everyone whips out their 20 inch wiener of intellect and starts some crazy debate. The things people are debating are sometimes true, but it doesn't matter because MacHeist doesn't have to do anything.
I don't support taking down the thread or keeping it up; it doesn't matter... they made the decision, we'll have to live with it.
January 12, 2010 1:20 am
ciaravino wrote:
This thread annoys me, I don't know how to explain it. People keep posting their opinions and stuff, but it doesn't matter. Everyone whips out their 20 inch wiener of intellect and starts some crazy debate. The things people are debating are sometimes true, but it doesn't matter because MacHeist doesn't have to do anything.
I don't support taking down the forums or keeping them up; it doesn't matter... they made the decision, we'll have to live with it.
Um... the forumst aren't being taken down, so relax It's only the gray-area dealing with software that is being outlawed from the forums, and mostly people seem to agree with the decision, even if some want to justify their stance or share an opinion on the matter.
This is after all, a forum. If the mods or directorate decide that this thread has derailed, they'll probably lock it, but otherwise, people are generally free to discuss the matter at hand (in a civiliced manner ).
Freedom of speech pal (with the kind permission of upper management 
)
(favourite paradox) This page intentionally left blank.
January 12, 2010 1:39 am
agg23 wrote:
I agree with you on both accounts. I am thinking of becoming a full-time application developer, and I would gladly transfer licenses for people who want me to. They paid for my app, so I give them customer service. But then again, that's just me, and it is the developers decision.
I do question...
Your intentions are no doubt highly sincere - to transfer licenses. However, if you become a developer and you do end up transferring licenses, then take a good hard look at the process and resources involved for each request:
1) Email of request for transfer received.
2) Time to read it.
3) Time to look up the previous owner's serial number in your database.
4) Generate new serial & manually revise the database.
5) Send out email to new licensee with the revised info.
So, how long will that take? 10 minutes? 15 minutes per transfer? Imagine how many of these you would get after including your app in a bundle. All of a sudden your receiving 50? 100 request? 250 requests?
Let's do some math on a best-case scenario:
10 minutes per change X 50 requests = 8.33 hours
Let's do some math on a worst-case scenario:
10 minutes per change X 200 requests = 33.3 hours
What is your own personal chargeable rate? $25/hour? $50/hour?
How much would a dev. pay someone to do this for them? $10/hour? $15/hour?
Remember your doing this for money, not for charity and certainly not to give up a weekend with the family or significant other to make all of these license changes. Nor are you going to pay someone to make all of these changes because that has a direct negative impact on your cash flow as a small developer.
Also consider, based on the talk on here, people quite obviously become highly vocal when licenses do not occur within a 24 hour period so you have to make these changes chop suey (fast).
Keep in mind you're earning a minimal amount of money per sale, and now you have this potentially HUGE amount of manual work just to support the cheap licenses that went out. Anyone who has ever owned or managed a business knows this very well, how frustrating it is to expend great amounts of resources to tasks which DO NOT directly contribute to an original sale.
Please note, I like low cost software no doubt about that. But I also believe the low cost to the consumer may be too high of a cost for the guys/gals who created the actual piece of software with the additional un-budgeted service required for license transfers.
And finally, I learned some things when I was putting together some deals (on here). Many people were sincerely appreciative of the incredible low prices for 1st-rate software which was offered to them. And a few others who wanted more of a deal because half-price was still "too high" of a price to pay - well in our parts, we call 'em "Cheap Bastards" and then appropriately - we ignore them.
(I apologize in advance if my "usual rant" is too abstract)
Use Denny's DropBox Link > CLICK HERE! Because I need extra some space - The Final Frontier!
January 12, 2010 1:40 am
WhiteFang wrote:
ciaravino wrote:This thread annoys me, I don't know how to explain it. People keep posting their opinions and stuff, but it doesn't matter. Everyone whips out their 20 inch wiener of intellect and starts some crazy debate. The things people are debating are sometimes true, but it doesn't matter because MacHeist doesn't have to do anything.
I don't support taking down the forums or keeping them up; it doesn't matter... they made the decision, we'll have to live with it.
Um... the forumst aren't being taken down, so relax
This is after all, a forum. If the mods or directorate decide that this thread has derailed, they'll probably lock it, but otherwise, people are generally free to discuss the matter at hand (in a civiliced manner
Freedom of speech pal
Sorry, I meant the thread, not forums 
January 12, 2010 1:48 am
January 12, 2010 3:38 am
Scandalous wrote:
Geez, friends, don't you have anything better to do? Go ahead, but it's highly unlikely you will change anyone's opinion. And the policy isn't going to go away.
/carryon
Very true...
An Apple a day keeps Windows away.
Get free Dropbox space!
January 12, 2010 3:57 am
It won't change my way of looking at bundles. If it has enough value for me, then I buy, if not, no sale. So far, MacHeist has been a really good deal. And tons of fun!
Go MacHeist! • Get Dropbox • free online backup space: Mac, PC, Unix & iPhone friendly -- using my link gets you & me extra space, thanks for clicking.
January 12, 2010 4:47 am
johnred wrote:
rpcohen wrote:Developers should charge $3-$5 for each bundle split license transfer. This would would not only pay for the couple minutes it takes to change a license but would also probably net the developer significantly more than they earned on the original sale of their app in the bundle. Everybody wins.
...except the people who think that even $3-$5 is unfair. I'm sure you'll be getting a bunch of replies disagreeing with this idea. They'll be from the same people who are complaining in this thread.
If it is known in advance that a developer charges $3 to re-register a de-bundled app then the $3 will simply be included in its selling price. If the price is right then someone will gladly pay it and the developer gets paid for their trouble. If not, then the app remains registered to the original bundle purchaser. As long as any re-registration fees are clearly posted in advance a bundle sale there's really nothing to complain about.
January 12, 2010 5:38 am
denny_crane wrote:
agg23 wrote:I agree with you on both accounts. I am thinking of becoming a full-time application developer, and I would gladly transfer licenses for people who want me to. They paid for my app, so I give them customer service. But then again, that's just me, and it is the developers decision.
I do question...
Your intentions are no doubt highly sincere - to transfer licenses. However, if you become a developer and you do end up transferring licenses, then take a good hard look at the process and resources involved for each request:
1) Email of request for transfer received.
2) Time to read it.
3) Time to look up the previous owner's serial number in your database.
4) Generate new serial & manually revise the database.
5) Send out email to new licensee with the revised info.So, how long will that take? 10 minutes? 15 minutes per transfer? Imagine how many of these you would get after including your app in a bundle. All of a sudden your receiving 50? 100 request? 250 requests?
Let's do some math on a best-case scenario:
Assuming he's inclined to be a good developer, one of the first things he'd do is write a program to do this for him as soon as feasible if he feels it takes too much of his time. This is how programmer's think - automating things so they don't have to do manual chores repeatedly. Great programmers are supposed to think lazy and make the computer do things for them!!!
denny_crane wrote:
Keep in mind you're earning a minimal amount of money per sale, and now you have this potentially HUGE amount of manual work just to support the cheap licenses that went out. Anyone who has ever owned or managed a business knows this very well, how frustrating it is to expend great amounts of resources to tasks which DO NOT directly contribute to an original sale.
This depends on who you ask. As some others have said, anyone who ever owned or managed a business knows that there is a potential of getting upgrade sales if licenses were transferred to users who would actually use the app and value it, as compared to ones who'd just forget about the app since they don't find it useful. One time small income vs. steady stream. So a blanket statement cannot be made about this. Many developers participate in bundles for two reasons - 1) selling license on the cheap helps them make a good chunk of cash one time (ignoring the number of licenses sold for a moment); 2) the potential sale of upgrade licenses in the future for a percentage of this customer base. They are taking a chance, and I'd presume they do know that.
SpiderOak - get an additional 1GB space for free when you sign up from this link. I'm late to the SpiderOak referral party.
January 12, 2010 6:06 am
denny_crane wrote:
agg23 wrote:I agree with you on both accounts. I am thinking of becoming a full-time application developer, and I would gladly transfer licenses for people who want me to. They paid for my app, so I give them customer service. But then again, that's just me, and it is the developers decision.
I do question...
Your intentions are no doubt highly sincere - to transfer licenses. However, if you become a developer and you do end up transferring licenses, then take a good hard look at the process and resources involved for each request:
1) Email of request for transfer received.
2) Time to read it.
3) Time to look up the previous owner's serial number in your database.
4) Generate new serial & manually revise the database.
5) Send out email to new licensee with the revised info.So, how long will that take? 10 minutes? 15 minutes per transfer? Imagine how many of these you would get after including your app in a bundle. All of a sudden your receiving 50? 100 request? 250 requests?
Let's do some math on a best-case scenario:
Assuming he's inclined to be a good developer, one of the first things he'd do is write a program to do this for him as soon as feasible if he feels it takes too much of his time. This is how programmer's think - automating things so they don't have to do manual chores repeatedly. Great programmers are supposed to think lazy and make the computer do things for them!!!
denny_crane wrote:
Keep in mind you're earning a minimal amount of money per sale, and now you have this potentially HUGE amount of manual work just to support the cheap licenses that went out. Anyone who has ever owned or managed a business knows this very well, how frustrating it is to expend great amounts of resources to tasks which DO NOT directly contribute to an original sale.
This depends on who you ask. As some others have said, anyone who ever owned or managed a business knows that there is a potential of getting upgrade sales if licenses were transferred to users who would actually use the app and value it, as compared to ones who'd just forget about the app since they don't find it useful. One time small income vs. steady stream. So a blanket statement cannot be made about this. Many developers participate in bundles for two reasons - 1) selling licenses on the cheap with a potential to make a good chunk of cash one time (ignoring the number of licenses sold for a moment); 2) the potential sale of upgrade licenses in the future for a percentage of this customer base. They are taking a chance, and I'd presume they do know that.
agg23 wrote:
Scandalous wrote:Geez, friends, don't you have anything better to do? Go ahead, but it's highly unlikely you will change anyone's opinion. And the policy isn't going to go away.
/carryon
Very true...
Very, very, very true! But it's hard to resist arguing online, isn't it.
SpiderOak - get an additional 1GB space for free when you sign up from this link. I'm late to the SpiderOak referral party.
January 12, 2010 6:07 am
mil wrote:
Assuming he's inclined to be a good developer, one of the first things he'd do is write a program to do this for him as soon as feasible if he feels it takes too much of his time. This is how programmer's think - automating things so they don't have to do manual chores repeatedly.
Not if it's a chore that would be very very infrequent (or should be). Programmers that spend a moderate amount of time to automate something that would seldomly be used is a developer spend too thinnly across too many things.
Besides, few developers beside Ambrosia (who don't allow transfers anyway, incidentally) actually make their own serialization systems. Most people use a third party library and so don't understand all the fine details associated.
mil wrote:
This depends on who you ask. As some others have said, anyone who ever owned or managed a business knows that there is a potential of getting upgrade sales if licenses were transferred to users who would actually use the app and value it, as compared to ones who'd just forget about the app since they don't find it useful.
That is, if you have an upgrade program like this. Even if you do, you're looking at pissing off a lot of people anyway. See for reference: Acorn.
I would just like to add to further aid denny's explaination that five minutes to do a transfer is really a worse case senario (and a lot less time to process multiples), so the time taken wouldn't be too much off. That said however, people tend to resent being expected to work for something they aren't going to make any money from. Put yourself in their shoes for this. If you had a list of feature requests and bug reports and a license transfer request came in, where would you stick the priority of the transfer request? For someone that clearly didn't pay list price and probably has no intention of doing so if you charge for upgrades? Either way, it's a lost potential sale.
䷟䷽䷏䷁ — Dying of the Light.
January 12, 2010 6:19 am
Miah wrote:
I would just like to add to further aid denny's explaination that five minutes to do a transfer is really a worse case senario (and a lot less time to process multiples), so the time taken wouldn't be too much off. That said however, people tend to resent being expected to work for something they aren't going to make any money from.
If developers charged a modest fee ($3-$5) for re-licensing de-bundled apps it would not only pay for the few minutes it took but also net them an additional payment for the bundled app they had already been paid for.
Miah wrote:
Put yourself in their shoes for this. If you had a list of feature requests and bug reports and a license transfer request came in, where would you stick the priority of the transfer request? For someone that clearly didn't pay list price and probably has no intention of doing so if you charge for upgrades? Either way, it's a lost potential sale.
A person who buys an app from a bundle split is probably far more likely to purchase a future upgrade then a bundle purchaser with no use for that particular app.
January 12, 2010 7:14 am
rpcohen wrote:
If developers charged a modest fee ($3-$5) for re-licensing de-bundled apps it would not only pay for the few minutes it took but also net them an additional payment for the bundled app they had already been paid for.
No argument here, but I guarantee you that there would be a lot of people crying foul over it.
rpcohen wrote:
A person who buys an app from a bundle split is probably far more likely to purchase a future upgrade then a bundle purchaser with no use for that particular app.
Quite so, but I would have to say that they're far less likely to purchase a future upgrade than someone that paid full price for it (bear in mind that I'm not considering bundle apps; a fair portion of trades didn't come from bundles to begin with). It's not like the people that actually want the solution that a program provides can't test out the said programs. That's the whole point of shareware, a time trial try-before-you-buy senario. It's either worth its price to you or it isn't.
Incidentally, I have three coding applications: TextMate, Espresso and Coda. Two of those I got on heavy discount (via bundles), and one of them I paid full price for. Guess which one I actually use. Same for my SQL manager. I got Stor for a song, but I instead use Navicat which I paid close to full price for. There's a number of programs I have like this and I have to imagine that most people that genuinely need a certain function will pay for it rather than wait and hope for a deal.
What of the rest of you? How many apps do you have that you got for a song that you still use today? I'll tell you how many it was for me: One. Pixelmator, which today I would gladly pay full price for. I suppose Snapz and WireTap as well, but I actually paid full price for those before I got them in bundles.
䷟䷽䷏䷁ — Dying of the Light.
January 12, 2010 7:58 am
denny_crane wrote:
I do question...
[snip snip]
(I apologize in advance if my "usual rant" is too abstract)
Denny, you make too many assumptions.
Take a look at Propellerheads. ( http://www.propellerheads.se ). They make the awesome Reason and Record. I admit, Reason requires you to have the media at hand, but said media could be copied with Disk Utility, and Record comes with a licensing dongle (which simplifies license transfers). Reason does however not come with a dongle, and Record can be used in "online authentication mode" without a dongle.
Propellerhead lets users take care of license transfers themselves. They created a web-page where the registered user (who has a login on the props site) can transfer a single, some or all of his licenses to another registered user.
So it's perfectly doable without any "extra cost", if done right at the beginning.
Admittedly, installing Reason is a bit more cumbersome than installing f.ex. Pixelmator....
(favourite paradox) This page intentionally left blank.
January 12, 2010 8:12 am
WhiteFang wrote:
danco wrote:Without the split, there might have been two sales, but there could easily have been none, with both people deciding that the price was too high for the portion of the newspaper that interested them.
In my book, if you think $49 (or $39 like last MH) is too much, then I think your'e a cheapskate who doesn't deserve what's on offer. ("You" being the proverbial cheapskate that won't buy, not >you< personally :-) )
And since cheapskates like that are also more likely to harass the developer with offensive support demands, I'd think "good riddance" in many cases.
In all, the win is greater than the loss.
Partly I was arguing the general principle.
But, yes, $40 is probably too much for one application one wants plus another that might come in useful, and a whole bunch of others of no interest. And that really is likely to be the situation, it isn't a matter of $40 for five (or more) programs of interest.
There are individual programs I would gladly pay $30 or more for, but the only times I have seen these in a bundle they have been programs I already have.
Daniel
January 12, 2010 8:32 am
@WhiteFang - Post #121
Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that all developers had access & budgets for auto-licensing systems such as the one you pointed out Reason uses.
My bad.
Use Denny's DropBox Link > CLICK HERE! Because I need extra some space - The Final Frontier!
January 12, 2010 8:48 am
denny_crane wrote:
@WhiteFang - Post #121
Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that all developers had access & budgets for auto-licensing systems such as the one you pointed out Reason uses.My bad.
I think I smell a hint of sarcasm in there ;-)
Actually such a system is rather simple to implement. See, the crown jewel of Reason is that it has very few updates in its lifecycle, and each release is tested until deemed "better than good". Thus, is a license key is stolen, it will count as piracy, but is won't affect the owner (who hopefully registered his software) nor the rights of the same (only the registered owner can upgrade the software to a newer major version).
The machanics behind such a solution is no more complex than the mechanics behind a basic application like the hit list. There's even more innovation in THL than in the Props licensing scheme.
What they are essentially protecting is the upgrade sales and ownership. And they do so well.
(favourite paradox) This page intentionally left blank.
January 12, 2010 10:05 am
Miah wrote:
What of the rest of you? How many apps do you have that you got for a song that you still use today? I'll tell you how many it was for me: One. Pixelmator, which today I would gladly pay full price for. I suppose Snapz and WireTap as well, but I actually paid full price for those before I got them in bundles.
My best apps definitely came from bundles. The ones that I typically buy at full price are things like Typinator, KeyCue, xGestures, and other little utilities that I use without even thinking of. I just don't need that many applications for my work, so the really nice applications like pixelmator are just for play and casual use.
avatar is from Penfield & Jasper, 1954
January 12, 2010 4:18 pm
tech wrote:
I'm be curious if those stating "what developers should do if they're good" are actually developers themselves.
I'd be willing to wager that they're not. It reminds me of people complaining about apps being Leopard or Snow Leopard only, saying things like "Developer X should come out with a version for people on 10.4. It should be easy for them to do it!"-while at the same time having no knowledge of just how much work would go into that.
Marathon Forever.
AppShelf: MacHeist 3 Loot
AppShelf: nanoBundle 1
Check Reciept Page for nanoBundle 2 AppShelf Files.
January 12, 2010 4:28 pm
I think there are alot of users who like bundles for their "wants" which is for casual use or play. In some cases it's also the hot, pretty much fashionable, app to have and I think MH plays to that crowd quite a bit. For others there are apps that are needed. Sure, there are some users who "need" certain apps but only want to pay bundle or MacZOT/MUPromo prices for them but that need is obviously not too immediate.
For me I find myself using more apps that I paid full or MacZOT/MUPromo prices for. Most of my bundle apps really don't get much use but for the bundles I've picked up I certainly get $39-$49 worth of use out of them even if they're just fun to play with something different for awhile. I don't buy into every single bundle though...I might wonder if others are starting to realize that they're not getting their money's worth out of the bundles in terms of use and that might have impacted why the last MUPromo bundle seemed to fail and why the demand for splits were gaining ground.
<insert out-dated referral link here>
January 12, 2010 4:37 pm
Miah wrote:
That said however, people tend to resent being expected to work for something they aren't going to make any money from. Put yourself in their shoes for this. If you had a list of feature requests and bug reports and a license transfer request came in, where would you stick the priority of the transfer request?
Depends. Prioritizing tasks is not something that can be generalized. The exact decision would come only after looking at everything and seeing not just the cost/benefit ratio but also the relative ease of doing certain things. So the final answer is, it depends.
Miah wrote:
For someone that clearly didn't pay list price and probably has no intention of doing so if you charge for upgrades? Either way, it's a lost potential sale.
The first part has already been answered a few times. There's no way to tell for sure for all cases whether a full price buyer would upgrade or if a bundle (split) buyer would upgrade (or vice versa). Just because someone desperately wanted to save money by going for a bundle or a bundle split or a trade, it does not imply that they're less likely to buy a proper upgrade ever. There are a lot of people who like bargains and "sales" but would still pay up for value in the future (that's the basic premise for all bundle sales).
There is also no easy way to measure the impact of word-of-mouth from end users. The ignored cheapskate who bought the app at a low price could be the one who might bring in upgrade sales as well as more new buyers (you just have to look around on these forums for evidence of cheapskates who bought MH bundles or other discounted sales and are recommending and applauding for several apps). This is the reason I italicized the word "potential" in every case I wrote about in my earlier post. Making blanket assumptions about end users based on what price they buy an app at may not really help.
Also, keeping track of the price the user bought an app while looking at a request/support request is no better than cursing oneself of underselling by participating in bundles and dreaming about all the piles of cash that would've come if the same number of licenses were sold at retail.
SpiderOak - get an additional 1GB space for free when you sign up from this link. I'm late to the SpiderOak referral party.
January 12, 2010 5:15 pm
Miah wrote:
Incidentally, not all developers have the access and budgets for such an extensive QA either. That's why it's a crown jewel and not cubic zirconia.
Actually, a developer that doesn't value his QA doesn't care about the customer. Why should one wish to support such a developer ?
We have plenty of examples of such scenarios...
(favourite paradox) This page intentionally left blank.
January 12, 2010 5:52 pm
rampancy wrote:
I'd be willing to wager that they're not. It reminds me of people complaining about apps being Leopard or Snow Leopard only, saying things like "Developer X should come out with a version for people on 10.4. It should be easy for them to do it!"-while at the same time having no knowledge of just how much work would go into that.
Note: I was one of those people bitching for Tiger compatibility. Building for Tiger is really easy assuming you haven't locked yourself into any of the newer APIs.
January 12, 2010 7:46 pm
WhiteFang wrote:
Miah wrote:Incidentally, not all developers have the access and budgets for such an extensive QA either. That's why it's a crown jewel and not cubic zirconia.
Actually, a developer that doesn't value his QA doesn't care about the customer. Why should one wish to support such a developer ?
We have plenty of examples of such scenarios...
I think there is a big difference between having the budget for the QA required to institute automated license transfers and simply valuing QA. The first is putting potentially significant resources into satisfying what is essentially a very small minority of customers; the second is making sure your product works as intended. The lack of the first does not imply the absence of the second.
January 12, 2010 9:02 pm
Miah wrote:
rpcohen wrote:If developers charged a modest fee ($3-$5) for re-licensing de-bundled apps it would not only pay for the few minutes it took but also net them an additional payment for the bundled app they had already been paid for.
No argument here, but I guarantee you that there would be a lot of people crying foul over it.
Sure, a couple people may cry foul but the vast majority will have no problem with such a setup because they'll still be getting a great bargain which is why they purchase a de-bundled app in the first place.
Miah wrote:
rpcohen wrote:A person who buys an app from a bundle split is probably far more likely to purchase a future upgrade then a bundle purchaser with no use for that particular app.
Quite so, but I would have to say that they're far less likely to purchase a future upgrade than someone that paid full price for it.
I've often found myself paying as much or more for an upgrade than I did for the original purchase of an app gotten on sale through MacZOT! or MacUpdate. If an app proves itself of value to me and the upgrade offers something of value then I purchase it and appreciate the fact that I got a good deal on the original purchase.
Miah wrote:
It's not like the people that actually want the solution that a program provides can't test out the said programs. That's the whole point of shareware, a time trial try-before-you-buy senario. It's either worth its price to you or it isn't.
I'll try out an app that performs a function I currently use a different app for specifically because it is on sale and thus affordable should I find it happens to be superior to my current app. Had it not been on sale then I wouldn't have had any incentive to try it out in the first place.
Miah wrote:
What of the rest of you? How many apps do you have that you got for a song that you still use today?
Lots. Here are some I use that I've gotten from bundles: GraphicConverterX, TechTool Pro, Little Snitch, Cocktail, Pixelmator, WriteRoom, PopCharX, LightZone, DEVONagent, DriveGenius, RapidWeaver, Default FolderX, WhatSize, Acorn, CSSEdit, SnapzPro. Of course they represent only a small fraction of the total numbers of apps included in all the bundles and so when you do the math, it turns out they maybe weren't purchased 'for a song' after all.
January 12, 2010 9:21 pm
Call me corny, but I prefer giving the full price to author of an app I find myself using a lot, and will also take part in a bundle if it has an app I'm a fan of and want a second copy for a different computer.
Assuming the normal price is reasonable, which in the Mac mid-range software world, is very common. There are very few tools I can imagine that I needed enough to fish the forums for, yet could do without for that long before "caving" in and paying the $10 - $100 or whatever to own it and put it to use.
That said, this forums's shown me some great deals that struck the perfect compromise of supporting the developers and doing it cheaper.
License trading being removed isn't hurting the place one bit.
Thinking at length about the matter (more than 6 seconds), it occurs to me that promotional items that last a certain period are perhaps when these cheaply or freely-gotten licenses should be used and distributed.
The developers come here or brace themselves for an influx of support requests and know when it's coming, or consider a temporary spike in a crazy support:dollars ratio for the sake of promotion. Months or even years later, having new users that inherited an app's promotional or non-existent price come out of the woodwork for support or license transfers is just work the developer has to do that's not anticipated and likely not part of the deal as far as they are concerned.
I made a couple small games, alone, and a single support request can throw you out of your project. Some of the nicest software is made by small developers and this is an impact to them. Even a simple request.
I guess good for developers vs bad for developers varies by the developer on a case by case basis, as far as license swapping. It's the call of the individuals who provide this software, not MacHeist, but it's MacHeist's call to put a stop a practice that is likely an annoyance to at least some of the past or future bundle participants.
There's a good chance MH4 will be that much stronger if potential partners have a better feeling about what's going on with the software they include in the bundle. Or at least getting the impression their apps will be tried while they want it exposed and not held for future bartering.
http://www.twitter.com/frigginjoe
F everyone. Scribbles is neat!
January 12, 2010 9:56 pm
Jeff_R wrote:
WhiteFang wrote:Miah wrote:Incidentally, not all developers have the access and budgets for such an extensive QA either. That's why it's a crown jewel and not cubic zirconia.
Actually, a developer that doesn't value his QA doesn't care about the customer. Why should one wish to support such a developer ?
We have plenty of examples of such scenarios...
I think there is a big difference between having the budget for the QA required to institute automated license transfers and simply valuing QA. The first is putting potentially significant resources into satisfying what is essentially a very small minority of customers; the second is making sure your product works as intended. The lack of the first does not imply the absence of the second.
Exactly.
John Casasanta
MacHeist Director
tap tap tap chief
January 12, 2010 10:02 pm
Talking of what MH might or might not do, there's one thing that happened last time that I hope will be banned, or better still not be offered or made physically impossible next time.
Last time there were extra apps given to anyone who referred a couple of people who bought the bundle. the intention was to introduce new people to MH and its bundle.
What actually happened was that many people (including myself) just touted for people already on MH to buy their bundle through a referral.
This was very much against the spirit of the referral process.Much more so than such matters as bundle splits.
Daniel
January 12, 2010 10:57 pm
johnred wrote:
[snip]
Exactly.
So, how much did you buget for the Order-Lookup page QA ?
Essentially, the scheme the Propellerheads use is your order-lookup with the addition of an entry field where I can enter the username of a member of the Propellerheads forums. The action performed is;
if user in listOfUsers:
sql="update serials set owner='"+user+"' where serial='"+serial+"';"
db.executeSql(sql)As I said before - there's even less innovation in license transfers than in the most basic of GUI applications. It all comes down to what developers want to do, not what they are able to.
But, as I said in my first post in this thread - most of all, this discussion comes down to what the MacHeist Directorate and the mods require us to do - and there's no debating that (and as I also said, I'm all for it).
(favourite paradox) This page intentionally left blank.
January 13, 2010 1:40 am
WhiteFang wrote:
johnred wrote:[snip]
Exactly.So, how much did you buget for the Order-Lookup page QA ?
I... uh... What? I sincerly hope you're not trying to correlate a two step process like "press button, recieve bacon" to a desktop app that could have multiple fail points ranging from user error to hardware incompatibility.
䷟䷽䷏䷁ — Dying of the Light.
January 13, 2010 3:55 am
Miah wrote:
WhiteFang wrote:johnred wrote:[snip]
Exactly.So, how much did you buget for the Order-Lookup page QA ?
I... uh... What? I sincerly hope you're not trying to correlate a two step process like "press button, recieve bacon" to a desktop app that could have multiple fail points ranging from user error to hardware incompatibility.
I am a total novice on the topic, but the way it read, it seems that he is talking about making it easier for customers to access the developer's license database, and then presumably to set up a license transaction (the step that is missing in the example).
avatar is from Penfield & Jasper, 1954
January 13, 2010 3:58 am
I totally understand the decision even though I just came to check if somebody offered me something. Well I guess I have to wait for the next bundle. But I don't blame you. When you get 12 apps for $50 it is just normal that you end up with a lot that you don't need. I allways felt that way even though I tried to swap apps here (but never managed to do that)
January 13, 2010 8:47 pm
I finally found a way to "use" the bundle and loot apps that I've never installed: I gave them to my parents when I bought them their first (used) Mac. A lot of those apps are perfect for them for the same reason that I would never use them. For instance, Circus Ponies NoteBook, which I like the idea of, isn't as useful to me as other apps, or would take me too long to adapt to. Instead, I gave the app to my mother, who already has a habit of writing in analog spiral notebooks. Perfect for her. I ended up finding about 15 apps that I owned, but didn't want, to give them.
Not only can I off-load the apps I don't use, I can also off-load the extra licenses of apps I already own. Win-win. Also makes it easier for me to talk myself into buying a bundle if I can see both apps that I will use and apps that my parents can use. With this in mind, I still didn't buy the Mac Friendly or TheMacBundles bundles, so that says something about those offerings.
Anyway, I agree with the new policy. I know people are trying to save a buck these days, but then, some other people are trying to make a living, too. If $50 is too much for the whole bundle, just spend $20 on the one app you really want and will use.
January 14, 2010 3:50 am
January 15, 2010 2:13 pm
Timi wrote:
Selling would be a form of trading.
(trading license for funds)I'm going to say this applies to selling, yes.
I do not however have any idea about giving.
Giving as long as the license is legitimate.
January 15, 2010 6:02 pm
Selling, giving, trading, loaning, ANY transfer of license -- it all boils down to more work for the dev, and general "skeeze". There's no way for us to really be sure that people are legitimately "giving" as opposed to trading, fencing, etc.
I think it's been pretty clear that Phill and John are telling us that none of it goes on here, henceforth.
January 15, 2010 7:39 pm
jpdyson wrote:
Selling, giving, trading, loaning, ANY transfer of license -- it all boils down to more work for the dev, and general "skeeze". There's no way for us to really be sure that people are legitimately "giving" as opposed to trading, fencing, etc.
I think it's been pretty clear that Phill and John are telling us that none of it goes on here, henceforth.
Shouldn't the Giveaway thread in the Lounge be locked then?
Get a 2GB Dropbox account + additional space free for you & me
Just wait until you see the mega unlock goal. (Hint, it involves a lot of dead kittens.) – Phill Ryu
January 15, 2010 8:36 pm
I agree with this whole hearted and was always miffed that people were getting away with it so publicly. I was also concerned that it would either stop bundles from happening or force developers to not get involved so our bundles were less quality. I mean seriously, most bundles work out as a win if you just want one or two apps. Sometimes even one.
You should Follow me at - Sulcalibur 
Dropbox - The best online backup tool. Use this link to get EXTRA space added to your FREE account!
You know it makes sense
January 19, 2010 11:46 pm
Personally I always felt the split process was borderline, but not something I was to bothered about, I can see though how it can go both ways to easily, a good example would be a bundle I've seen that had one app I liked.
Bundel was at 50$ app sold separate 20$ so for me there was zero incentive to even bother with the bundle, if there was an option to split though, it would be more inclined to make me buy the bundle, but its a very grey area, in the end (and this was before the splitting was stopped) I just got the app separately as I felt the time and hassle for just splitting it was not worth it.
It did make me wonder how many bundles now are actually doing well, I see so many that I look at and just think nothing there is really worth my time, and they are becoming very frequent causing the apps offered to be going down in overall quality.
January 25, 2010 11:41 am