Gus Mueller, who was asked to participate but did not, was offered a flat fee of 5000 US$ (see comments). FotoMagico dev Oliver Breidenbach implies that his deal was similar in this oreilly thread. In this interview, Will Shipley of Delicious Monster clearly says that he's getting a very low amount of money, but does it for upgrades and publicity.
Other developers came out and were more explicit about how much they were getting or were offered, but I'm not going to search for those right now. I think it's quite obvious what the deal MacHeist offered was.
Not really. We aren't talking about "most people" - we are talking about Mac shareware buyers.
Contrary to popular belief, most Mac shareware buyers are pretty normal, average people. Not all Mac users are homosexual graphic designers snorting coke while drinking starbucks coffee and listening to indy pop on their iPods.
SuperDuper is nice. Personally, I use Synk Backup from decimus. There's also Retrospect for professional backup, and of course, Mac OS X 10.5 will include its own Backup functionality called Time Machine.
There are lots of posts like yours, so I'm just going to reply to one of the better written ones.
You're right, but what you say is pointless. Lots of people think like grandparent. The value of the software sold in that promo is pretty much destroyed in the eyes of these people. Most people aren't going to think about what you write.
And what is this "discrepancy in Macheist's claims"?
Basically, they said "buy these apps to help independent Mac devs" when in fact, buying the apps didn't help the devs, it only helped the MacHeist people. They were misleading buyers. That's all Gruber pointed out.
Well, considering everyone and their grandma has already bought your game during the $3 deal, no.
Not to mention that the perceived worth of your app is now the three bucks people paid for it during that week. Nobody is going to pay 30 bucks for an app that has a perceived worth of 3 bucks.
Like me, I suspect most people who bought the MacHeist bundle would not have bought the software on normal terms. I think that the developers should be glad, since it brings them more revenue without any expense on their part.
Wrong. The fact that you bought these apps did not help these Mac shareware programmers. They do not get more money because you bought it. They get the same flat fee, regardless of whether you buy the apps or not. But now they have to support you, so right now, the fact that you bought these apps hurt them.
Unless you buy an upgrade to one of these apps, your buying of these apps helped them exactly not at all.
It's better to overcome your instinct and joke with the kid a little to get them to cheer up rather than fawning over them.
I'd absolutely agree - if she had fallen down her bike, or hit her head on something, or scraped her knee after stumbling over something. But not if you hit her on hear head as hard as you could. Either you're really weak or really lucky, but hitting a five-year-old on the head as hard as you can can be really dangerous.
That's exactly the opposite of what I've experienced. For examle, in many european countries, it's quasi-legal to smoke pot. In Switzerland, I was once sitting on a park bench smoking a joint. A police officer came over, and we were like "shit, we're screwed now." Not really: he just asked us to move a bit away since that particular park bench was close to a school playground.
America seems so insane that I'm not even travelling there anymore. Some friends went to the USA on a holiday, and they actually took their fingerprints when they entered the country. WTF?
You don't seem to understand how much freedom you've lost since 9/11.
Wow, that got modded "funny"? If you really did "whack" a five year old on the back of her head "nearly as hard as [you] could," you should take her to a doctor, not make fun of it, even if she doesn't show any symptoms.
Part of the whole plan is to actually make XBLA developer friendly
See, that's part of the problem. Microsoft makes a games console for developers, a music player for music labels, a video player for movie studios when in fact, it should make all of these things for its customers.
I think some applications allow option-clicking to maximise. But for the love of me, I can't see how anyone could find that useful. It's probably just something people are used to, but coming from a Mac, the maximising behaviour of Windows windows always struck me as an odd workaround for those crappy windows-within-windows-applications. It's simply not needed on Macs.
So what you're saying is that you don't believe the offical numbers, but you do believe a study conducted by people with an agenda, in which they asked people about how they used guns. Come on.
Well, I concede that it is possible that you will infect your PC by downloading stuff from reputable sources. I think it's unlikely, but it seems to be possible. It has never happened to me (although I did infect my PC by through an ad from a domain forwarding service - this attack vector just seems better suited for virus designers than getting your app on download.com and convincing people to install it).
As for why it's not a problem on Macs, I never claimed that the low market share was not a cause. There is, however, no reason to believe that it is the main, or "domiating," factor, since if that were the case, Mac OS X would have a virus count similar to Mac OS 9 and older versions, and it doesn't. There's absolutely no reason why virus writers would prefer Windows for its market share, unless it was for monetary gain - some viruses are, but certainly not 100% of them.
Finally, I would like to reiterate that if the market share was the main reason, that would actually be a good thing. Mac OS X market share is highly unlikely to rise considerably during the foreseeable future, so Mac OS X will remain virus-free.
Based on the fact that we have roughtly 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt),
From your Link:
On the basis of
data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data,
one would conclude that defensive uses are rare
indeed, about 108,000 per year
Try google. This brings up sites like this one. Of course, that doesn't matter, since you probably don't believe in "statistics" - the quotes show that pretty well. You're convinced that you're right, and gosh darned, you're not going to let facts influence you!
In the end, it's quite simple. A gun is a potential danger. It's a potential help in certain situations, but these situations are so rare that most people will never experience them. In the end, the negative effects are bigger than the positive effects, which nets us a net negative effect. You're less secure with a gun, not more secure.
In addition to that, your neighbours get all the negative effects and none of the positive effects, so even though there might be a cause for you to own a gun, there's a definite cause for me to make you not own a gun. Frankly, I don't care if you feel insecure without your gun.
I own over 20 guns and have been shooting and hunting since childhood. I've fired off well over 10,000 rounds of ammunition in my lifetime and never have I shot you, an innocent neighbor, or any other person. That's because I'm not afraid of a tool that you see a some mysterious evil device.
Allow me to laugh: HAHAHA.
Okay, you're just about missing every point you could possibly miss. First, I've done military service. I've received training on everything from hand guns to assault rifles. I'm not afraid of guns.
Second, sure. You didn't shoot anyone. Doesn't matter one bit. The statistics speak a clear language: People who own guns put themselves and their friends at danger. Let me repeat this: Statistically, you are way more likely to accidentally shoot your wife than you are to shoot some imaginary criminal while he's trying to rape your wife.
Maybe you're different. Maybe you aren't quite as stupid as the average gun-wielding idiot running around my neighborhood. But since I don't actually trust your evaluation of your own skills, I'd prefer if you did not try to shoot abovementioned criminals.
I wanted to know what security the Mac offered that let users download and run arbitrary programs without worrying about malware. (...) Seems to me that all the ingredients are there for Mac users to experience the same misery as Windows users
No, because PC users' fear of downloading apps is somewhat irrational. If you randomly download apps from P2P networks, sure, there's a certain danger (which, while smaller, also exists for Macs, since as you say, writing Trojans is easy on pretty much every OS). But if you go to download.com or any other somewhat reputable source of apps, your Windows PC won't get infected (of course, there's also the crappy quality of most Windows software, which quite often does infect your PC with DLLs and autostart items and traybar icons and whatnot, so that might discourage downloading on the PC side).
So, back to the original question. Why are PC users afraid of downloading apps, while Mac users aren't? Because PC users are scared of their PCs. They are constantly afraid that they'll do something wrong, and they're constantly hearing horror stories involving viruses and trojans and whatnot. So they don't download stuff.
In reality, you don't get infected by downloading stuff. You get infected by mails containing viruses, or by chat messages containing viruses, or directly through open ports and buggy software.
So the security of the Mac (and the general quality of Mac apps, and the intolerance of Mac users for crappy apps) is the reason why Mac users aren't afraid of downloading stuff.
Dude, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to tell me, but I'm not going to accidentially shoot you because, even though I actually did receive a handgun during military service - which I was allowed to keep - I voluntarily handed it back afterwards.
Slashdot Mirror
Gus Mueller, who was asked to participate but did not, was offered a flat fee of 5000 US$ (see comments). FotoMagico dev Oliver Breidenbach implies that his deal was similar in this oreilly thread. In this interview, Will Shipley of Delicious Monster clearly says that he's getting a very low amount of money, but does it for upgrades and publicity.
Other developers came out and were more explicit about how much they were getting or were offered, but I'm not going to search for those right now. I think it's quite obvious what the deal MacHeist offered was.
Contrary to popular belief, most Mac shareware buyers are pretty normal, average people. Not all Mac users are homosexual graphic designers snorting coke while drinking starbucks coffee and listening to indy pop on their iPods.
SuperDuper is nice. Personally, I use Synk Backup from decimus. There's also Retrospect for professional backup, and of course, Mac OS X 10.5 will include its own Backup functionality called Time Machine.
Avoid Apple's current Backkup app, as it sucks.
There are lots of posts like yours, so I'm just going to reply to one of the better written ones.
You're right, but what you say is pointless. Lots of people think like grandparent. The value of the software sold in that promo is pretty much destroyed in the eyes of these people. Most people aren't going to think about what you write.
Basically, they said "buy these apps to help independent Mac devs" when in fact, buying the apps didn't help the devs, it only helped the MacHeist people. They were misleading buyers. That's all Gruber pointed out.
Nobody bashes the devs who took the deal.
Not to mention that the perceived worth of your app is now the three bucks people paid for it during that week. Nobody is going to pay 30 bucks for an app that has a perceived worth of 3 bucks.
Wrong. The fact that you bought these apps did not help these Mac shareware programmers. They do not get more money because you bought it. They get the same flat fee, regardless of whether you buy the apps or not. But now they have to support you, so right now, the fact that you bought these apps hurt them.
Unless you buy an upgrade to one of these apps, your buying of these apps helped them exactly not at all.
I think you have mis-read Gruber's post.
So, in other words, it's reasonable to assume that most people will react similarly.
Except that some developers actually have announced the terms.
I'd absolutely agree - if she had fallen down her bike, or hit her head on something, or scraped her knee after stumbling over something. But not if you hit her on hear head as hard as you could. Either you're really weak or really lucky, but hitting a five-year-old on the head as hard as you can can be really dangerous.
If you can't see the difference between a girl hitting her head, and her parent whacking her on the head as hard as he can, you shouldn't have kids.
Huh? Flauschig is a quite literal translation of fluffy. Which word describes steel, flauschig or fluffy?
That's exactly the opposite of what I've experienced. For examle, in many european countries, it's quasi-legal to smoke pot. In Switzerland, I was once sitting on a park bench smoking a joint. A police officer came over, and we were like "shit, we're screwed now." Not really: he just asked us to move a bit away since that particular park bench was close to a school playground.
America seems so insane that I'm not even travelling there anymore. Some friends went to the USA on a holiday, and they actually took their fingerprints when they entered the country. WTF?
You don't seem to understand how much freedom you've lost since 9/11.
Wow, that got modded "funny"? If you really did "whack" a five year old on the back of her head "nearly as hard as [you] could," you should take her to a doctor, not make fun of it, even if she doesn't show any symptoms.
See, that's part of the problem. Microsoft makes a games console for developers, a music player for music labels, a video player for movie studios when in fact, it should make all of these things for its customers.
I think some applications allow option-clicking to maximise. But for the love of me, I can't see how anyone could find that useful. It's probably just something people are used to, but coming from a Mac, the maximising behaviour of Windows windows always struck me as an odd workaround for those crappy windows-within-windows-applications. It's simply not needed on Macs.
So what you're saying is that you don't believe the offical numbers, but you do believe a study conducted by people with an agenda, in which they asked people about how they used guns. Come on.
Well, I concede that it is possible that you will infect your PC by downloading stuff from reputable sources. I think it's unlikely, but it seems to be possible. It has never happened to me (although I did infect my PC by through an ad from a domain forwarding service - this attack vector just seems better suited for virus designers than getting your app on download.com and convincing people to install it).
As for why it's not a problem on Macs, I never claimed that the low market share was not a cause. There is, however, no reason to believe that it is the main, or "domiating," factor, since if that were the case, Mac OS X would have a virus count similar to Mac OS 9 and older versions, and it doesn't. There's absolutely no reason why virus writers would prefer Windows for its market share, unless it was for monetary gain - some viruses are, but certainly not 100% of them.
Finally, I would like to reiterate that if the market share was the main reason, that would actually be a good thing. Mac OS X market share is highly unlikely to rise considerably during the foreseeable future, so Mac OS X will remain virus-free.
From your Link:
Try google. This brings up sites like this one. Of course, that doesn't matter, since you probably don't believe in "statistics" - the quotes show that pretty well. You're convinced that you're right, and gosh darned, you're not going to let facts influence you!
In the end, it's quite simple. A gun is a potential danger. It's a potential help in certain situations, but these situations are so rare that most people will never experience them. In the end, the negative effects are bigger than the positive effects, which nets us a net negative effect. You're less secure with a gun, not more secure.
In addition to that, your neighbours get all the negative effects and none of the positive effects, so even though there might be a cause for you to own a gun, there's a definite cause for me to make you not own a gun. Frankly, I don't care if you feel insecure without your gun.
Allow me to laugh: HAHAHA.
Okay, you're just about missing every point you could possibly miss. First, I've done military service. I've received training on everything from hand guns to assault rifles. I'm not afraid of guns.
Second, sure. You didn't shoot anyone. Doesn't matter one bit. The statistics speak a clear language: People who own guns put themselves and their friends at danger. Let me repeat this: Statistically, you are way more likely to accidentally shoot your wife than you are to shoot some imaginary criminal while he's trying to rape your wife.
Maybe you're different. Maybe you aren't quite as stupid as the average gun-wielding idiot running around my neighborhood. But since I don't actually trust your evaluation of your own skills, I'd prefer if you did not try to shoot abovementioned criminals.
No, because PC users' fear of downloading apps is somewhat irrational. If you randomly download apps from P2P networks, sure, there's a certain danger (which, while smaller, also exists for Macs, since as you say, writing Trojans is easy on pretty much every OS). But if you go to download.com or any other somewhat reputable source of apps, your Windows PC won't get infected (of course, there's also the crappy quality of most Windows software, which quite often does infect your PC with DLLs and autostart items and traybar icons and whatnot, so that might discourage downloading on the PC side).
So, back to the original question. Why are PC users afraid of downloading apps, while Mac users aren't? Because PC users are scared of their PCs. They are constantly afraid that they'll do something wrong, and they're constantly hearing horror stories involving viruses and trojans and whatnot. So they don't download stuff.
In reality, you don't get infected by downloading stuff. You get infected by mails containing viruses, or by chat messages containing viruses, or directly through open ports and buggy software.
So the security of the Mac (and the general quality of Mac apps, and the intolerance of Mac users for crappy apps) is the reason why Mac users aren't afraid of downloading stuff.
Forrester Confirms: iTunes Sales NOT plummeting. It's just slowing growth.
Geez.
Dude, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to tell me, but I'm not going to accidentially shoot you because, even though I actually did receive a handgun during military service - which I was allowed to keep - I voluntarily handed it back afterwards.