You have got to be kidding. Is this what you get out of what I say? Where, in any of my posts have I alluded to this? Where?!
Where you say that my choices are affecting your freedom. When you get condescending and say I have to "wake up" and stop being a child.
I have taken no steps in telling you what to do, merely pointed out that what you currently do AFFECTS ME. That is where I ended my argument.
No, you also said that proprietary software companies were trying to tell you and me how to think. Given your above objection, perhaps you can give some examples of this? Where has Apple tried to force you to do or think something?
Right, your source is someone who did not participate and does not know the final terms of the deal. Oh there's these other "more explicit" developers, you just can't remember who they were. Yeah right. It's so obvious "what the MacHeist deal was, but you can't give a single confirmed figure, or terms of the contract?
That's like saying Linux users are your average software user. You are much more likely to have an informed approach to software if you belong to one of these groups. By definition, you have made the decidion not to just go and buy what you see on the shelves of the local computer store. This makes the chances of forming a rational, informed opinion on software much higher than with the public at large.
The problem is when you attempt to A) hide the bias and B) give equal credence to bias that has no basis in any kind of evidence. Paid shills do A and B. Unpaid shills might do B, but that's easier to point out and notice when reading an article.
What's to stop unpaid advocates from doing A and hiding their bias? They do it all the time.
When it comes to any discussion involving the real world, those three basis are presented in order of relevance, and by that I mean the first is "very relevant" (given reasonable controls) and the last is "completely irrelevant".
By that logic, the FSF would have no place in public reporting, as their agenda is a matter of faith and philosophy - not one of fact or empirical evidence.
No, religion and politics make money. People give the churches and politicians money to be comforted with lies. Science costs significant amounts of money, which is usually only recouped over the long-term, and often not by the people who did the research. Religion and politics are direct profit centers.
http://www.fsf.org/about [fsf.org] describes the FSF's "worldwide mission to preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software, and to defend the rights of all free software users". Is that what you were alluding to? It's the closest I can find, but it doesn't say anything about eradication.
That's where the lies and manipulation comes in. They publicly state that they are all about freedom, but their agenda runs much deeper than that. So, the NYT can quote that they are all about freedom, while neglecting to mention that most of them also want to eradicate proprietary software.
I'm not so sure. I heard reports of the "Defective by Design" campaign all over the media, including mainstream sources. It wasn't until a recent slashdot article that I discovered that the FSF was behind that campaign. I don't think these groups are beyond manipulating the media.
More people agreeing with a point of view can be obtained most cheaply by being honest and correct.
Uhhh, no. Look at how popular religion is. Look at how many people believe political lies, and distrust scientific fact. Look at how many people believe common myths. Being honest or correct does not guarantee popularity. In fact, it usually means less popularity.
They have old-school instincts and corruption, which contrast with the fresh feel of new media sources.
yeah, you'd never get bias or an agenda in a blog. They always report impartially on the facts, and always thoroughly do their research and cite all sources.
They're just looking for new stunts by which to sideswipe the market in an attempt to keep themselves relevant.
Yeah, trying to improve the standards of their tech reporting is such a stunt. It's sure to be glitzy and appeal to the lowest-common-denominator, and not cost a single cent in extra work.
Based your argument, the 20% of lots assertion can be questioned as well.
Sure. Although I don't recall anyone arguing that it would be 20%. That wouldn't make a lot of sense, as there are 10 applications, so 20% to each developer would add up to 200% of income.
My estimate is based on the offer to Gus Mueller that WAS made public and the fairly public acknowledgment by another that the offer was similar.
But Gus did not participate - the deal may have changed, and it may be different for different developers. For example - the "unlocking" of Newsfire and TextMate.
Because he didn't get this cheap; he paid full price, and then saw it being sold at a far, far lower price elsewhere. Now his reasoning is: why bother paying full price for a piece of software, when it may be available "on special" later?
But that's not sound reasoning. that's just emotional reaction.
It's still the same product you were happy with before you saw it cheaper, so you haven't been ripped off or cheated in any way.
Yeah, so what? When did I say that coding was the only cost of selling an application? I reiterate my point - you must be doing pretty badly not to be able to cover the cost of a Mac port (coding and otherwise) with the increased sales. Unless you are making some software that has no purpose on a Mac.
It's simply narrow-minded thinking that makes businesses assume that the Mac is not a worthwhile market, backed with years of prejudice. I think most businesses don't even bother doing the research, running the figures. they just dismiss the Mac without even thinking. Look at the slashdot interview with the Warhammer developers for an example of this. Not even a reason given. Just "we don't have plans." Not "we've investigated and found it would not be worthwhile."
Alas, you indeed do not understand the reprucussions of your choices and the mere fact that they indeed affect me. It is your refusal to choose freedom that feeds and fuels the likes of Microsoft,
But I am choosing freedom. I use applications that give me the most freedom for my purposes. Why should I restrict my freedom for your priorities? And I do use F/OSS in addition to proprietary software. And I'm not sure how my choosing MacOS and proprietary software (mostly from small developers) fuels the likes of of Microsoft, because I don't buy software from people who act like Microsoft.
And if you are so concerned about freedom, then why do you use a PC comprised of proprietary hardware, that funds large companies? Why does only the software matter, and not the hardware?
who in turn do anything within their power, using your money, to force *every*one into their view of reality.
Wheras you want to do everything in your power to force everyone to your view of reality. Perhaps not using money, but using whatever resources are at your disposal. I'm not forced to do anything. If some company starts forcing me to do things I don't want, then I stop using them.
Wake up, child.
How mature, and not at all condescending. I am not child, and I am perfectly awake, thank you very much. Why do you need childish insults to try and make your point? Does it make you feel better about yourself?
That's a pretty strong statement, that really requires some proof.
For one, it reveals how much those developers who participated really value their work. I was rather disappointed to see TextMate in there. It is an extraordinary editor, and the "retail" price of it is higher than the price of the entire bundle.
Why? The value of something, and its price of it are not related. This would mean that all F/OSS and freeware is worthless, and that Microsoft products are the pinnacle of software quality. I would suggest you are the one devaluing the software, if you only think of it as a price tag, and can't appreciate the developers' work independent of how much it costs.
And the developers who chose not to participate - who think their product is worth more - will be hurt. I will be a lot more hesitant to pay full price for something else. Because I will remember the foolish feeling of having paid full price when I saw this bundle.
That doesn't make much sense. Why would getting this cheap stop you from paying full price elsewhere? To my way of thinking, it gives me more money to spend on other shareware. Example: when downloading one of applications from the Macheist bundle, I saw a link for an interesting product (from a different developer) on their website, - so I went and bought that as well. That developer happened to be Boinx, and I have been thinking about getting their iStopmotion product for quite a while - and getting a copy of Fotomagico in the bundle makes me think more of them, so I will probably go and buy iStopmotion as a gift for someone.
Basically, this is the beginning of a shareware spending spree for me. I probably would be buying Playstation games and gaming accessories otherwise, but I decided to spend that money on shareware this week.
but it also struggles against "should I pay or should I find a serial number." The greater the "overpriced" perception, the more like people are to choose the latter.
And this reduces the "overpriced" suggestion by selling for very reasonable prices. So, people are more likely to buy this than steal a serial number, than they normally would. Let's face it, quite a few shareware titles are overpriced. Software developers aren't a charity, they need to compete in the real world with real economics, just like users do.
Ended up devaluing the software to the point folks felt it was only worth a couple bucks and then the piracy rates went up (thats another story). Ended up just licensing the stuff wholesale to someone else and cutting the losses.
That's not "being wronged." That's just "bad luck" or lack of success. Nobody did anything wrong to hurt you, it just didn't work out. Being wronged implies malfeasance.
As for folks being wronged, from what I get, the developers were told they were all getting exactly the same deal
Do you have a source for this? I've heard no speculation by outsiders, but no reliable info from participants.
What BS was Gruber calling? And what is this "discrepancy in Macheist's claims"? I never heard Macheist claim they weren't making any money on the deal. I never heard them state that they were giving royalties or a percentage cut. I've never seen Macheist do anything conrtary to their public statements. If they fail to give the pledged money to charity or something, then we have a problem. But I see no evidence of this. Only speculation that Macheist may be (shock! horror!) making money.
The problem with Gruber and others is the way they bash the developers who took the deal. Not explicitly, but it's the implicit suggestion. What puts Gruber be in a position to criticise? It has nothing to do with him. Why is it such a big problem if someone chooses to take a deal that Gruber doesn't think is good?
I did have a good look at the programs available in it and I really liked two of them - the one I consider to be a fair price (disco) I will be buying and the other (the themeing one)
Wow. Way to pick the two worst apps in the bundle!
You should just go and buy the whole package, then you might discover the real substantive apps - TextMate and DEVONthink as well as the highly entertaining Pangea Arcade. Seems you have gone for the sizzle, and not the steak.
What? I have been talking about MY needs all along. How did I advocate anything other than my own needs? If you need to modify an application, then fine - go use Open Source. But I object to yours and FSF's condescending attitude towards MY choices. You keep telling me that I'm wrong, because I made a different choice to you. Fascism, indeed. How am I stopping you from making your choice, and having your freedoms? I never said YOU should use proprietary software.
I didn't say that you couldn't make a living selling Mac apps. But most of the companies that do so specialize in the Mac marketplace.
I don't think that's true. Apart from shareware, most commercial titles are cross-platform. Adobe and Microsoft make lots of money from the Mac market. As do the big game houses - who often outsource Mac porting.
Remember, it's not enough to just get more customers: you have to get enough customers to justify your extra costs.
You'd have to be doing pretty badly not to cover the costs of porting to Mac. It's a large market that is hungry for software, and in my experience, buys more software while Windows users tend to pirate more. There's also the phenomenon where having a Mac port can increase your Windows sales, because of word-of-mouth and the advantages of being cross-platform.
And a greater percentage of mac personal users are not gamers or at least not non-casual gamers
nonsense. Got any figures to prove it?
Why? Because they bought a fucking mac and you don't buy a mac if you're a gamer. If they're a gamer than they have a windows machine,
Umm, ever heard of a console? Many Mac users own both a console and a Mac. i know tons of gamers who own Macs.
Apparently a lot of companies disagree with you, and honestly I'd trust them much more than I trust a slashdot armchair businessman who provides nothing to back up his logic with (saying "well I believe" doesn't count).
What about the profits being made by Mac game developers, and that fact that some of the most successful developers choose to support the Mac? You don't need to believe me.
Apparently a lot of companies disagree with you and higher cost also lowers potential sales even more.
Not particularly in the Mac market, where users are willing to pay a higher rate for a native Mac game. Again, just look for evidence of this on the shelves of Mac software stores. A lot of companies are really stupid, and don't understand the Mac market.
a) Wouldn't be profitable, if you can't understand that costs may very well not scale linearly with the extra market share than there is little hope of you ever understanding this. If the mac port costs $2 million and you make $1 million from it then it's not profitable.
If it wouldn't be profitable, then why do companies have success making Mac ports? Their game must suck if they can't make a profit from the large Mac market for games. Or they don't have any confidence in their game. Porting is less expensive than designing the game in the first place. I doubt very much the average port would cost anywhere near $2 million. Really, your profits are higher on a Mac port, as you have already developed the game, and get a higher profit margin.
Slashdot Mirror
Adobe hasn't been a Mac-centric company for a very long time. And they haven't been known for making great decisions lately.
Where you say that my choices are affecting your freedom. When you get condescending and say I have to "wake up" and stop being a child.
I have taken no steps in telling you what to do, merely pointed out that what you currently do AFFECTS ME. That is where I ended my argument.No, you also said that proprietary software companies were trying to tell you and me how to think. Given your above objection, perhaps you can give some examples of this? Where has Apple tried to force you to do or think something?
Right, your source is someone who did not participate and does not know the final terms of the deal. Oh there's these other "more explicit" developers, you just can't remember who they were. Yeah right. It's so obvious "what the MacHeist deal was, but you can't give a single confirmed figure, or terms of the contract?
That's like saying Linux users are your average software user. You are much more likely to have an informed approach to software if you belong to one of these groups. By definition, you have made the decidion not to just go and buy what you see on the shelves of the local computer store. This makes the chances of forming a rational, informed opinion on software much higher than with the public at large.
What's to stop unpaid advocates from doing A and hiding their bias? They do it all the time.
When it comes to any discussion involving the real world, those three basis are presented in order of relevance, and by that I mean the first is "very relevant" (given reasonable controls) and the last is "completely irrelevant".By that logic, the FSF would have no place in public reporting, as their agenda is a matter of faith and philosophy - not one of fact or empirical evidence.
No, religion and politics make money. People give the churches and politicians money to be comforted with lies. Science costs significant amounts of money, which is usually only recouped over the long-term, and often not by the people who did the research. Religion and politics are direct profit centers.
That's where the lies and manipulation comes in. They publicly state that they are all about freedom, but their agenda runs much deeper than that. So, the NYT can quote that they are all about freedom, while neglecting to mention that most of them also want to eradicate proprietary software.
Could you give an example? I haven't seen any participants announce the terms.
Not really. We aren't talking about "most people" - we are talking about Mac shareware buyers.
Why do they have to be paid for bias to become a problem?
I'm not so sure. I heard reports of the "Defective by Design" campaign all over the media, including mainstream sources. It wasn't until a recent slashdot article that I discovered that the FSF was behind that campaign. I don't think these groups are beyond manipulating the media.
Uhhh, no. Look at how popular religion is. Look at how many people believe political lies, and distrust scientific fact. Look at how many people believe common myths. Being honest or correct does not guarantee popularity. In fact, it usually means less popularity.
yeah, you'd never get bias or an agenda in a blog. They always report impartially on the facts, and always thoroughly do their research and cite all sources.
They're just looking for new stunts by which to sideswipe the market in an attempt to keep themselves relevant.Yeah, trying to improve the standards of their tech reporting is such a stunt. It's sure to be glitzy and appeal to the lowest-common-denominator, and not cost a single cent in extra work.
Sure. Although I don't recall anyone arguing that it would be 20%. That wouldn't make a lot of sense, as there are 10 applications, so 20% to each developer would add up to 200% of income.
My estimate is based on the offer to Gus Mueller that WAS made public and the fairly public acknowledgment by another that the offer was similar.But Gus did not participate - the deal may have changed, and it may be different for different developers. For example - the "unlocking" of Newsfire and TextMate.
But that's not sound reasoning. that's just emotional reaction.
It's still the same product you were happy with before you saw it cheaper, so you haven't been ripped off or cheated in any way.Exactly.
It's simply narrow-minded thinking that makes businesses assume that the Mac is not a worthwhile market, backed with years of prejudice. I think most businesses don't even bother doing the research, running the figures. they just dismiss the Mac without even thinking. Look at the slashdot interview with the Warhammer developers for an example of this. Not even a reason given. Just "we don't have plans." Not "we've investigated and found it would not be worthwhile."
But I am choosing freedom. I use applications that give me the most freedom for my purposes. Why should I restrict my freedom for your priorities? And I do use F/OSS in addition to proprietary software. And I'm not sure how my choosing MacOS and proprietary software (mostly from small developers) fuels the likes of of Microsoft, because I don't buy software from people who act like Microsoft.
And if you are so concerned about freedom, then why do you use a PC comprised of proprietary hardware, that funds large companies? Why does only the software matter, and not the hardware?
who in turn do anything within their power, using your money, to force *every*one into their view of reality.Wheras you want to do everything in your power to force everyone to your view of reality. Perhaps not using money, but using whatever resources are at your disposal. I'm not forced to do anything. If some company starts forcing me to do things I don't want, then I stop using them.
Wake up, child.How mature, and not at all condescending. I am not child, and I am perfectly awake, thank you very much. Why do you need childish insults to try and make your point? Does it make you feel better about yourself?
How do you know? The terms of the contract have not been publicly announced.
That's a pretty strong statement, that really requires some proof.
For one, it reveals how much those developers who participated really value their work. I was rather disappointed to see TextMate in there. It is an extraordinary editor, and the "retail" price of it is higher than the price of the entire bundle.Why? The value of something, and its price of it are not related. This would mean that all F/OSS and freeware is worthless, and that Microsoft products are the pinnacle of software quality. I would suggest you are the one devaluing the software, if you only think of it as a price tag, and can't appreciate the developers' work independent of how much it costs.
And the developers who chose not to participate - who think their product is worth more - will be hurt. I will be a lot more hesitant to pay full price for something else. Because I will remember the foolish feeling of having paid full price when I saw this bundle.That doesn't make much sense. Why would getting this cheap stop you from paying full price elsewhere? To my way of thinking, it gives me more money to spend on other shareware. Example: when downloading one of applications from the Macheist bundle, I saw a link for an interesting product (from a different developer) on their website, - so I went and bought that as well. That developer happened to be Boinx, and I have been thinking about getting their iStopmotion product for quite a while - and getting a copy of Fotomagico in the bundle makes me think more of them, so I will probably go and buy iStopmotion as a gift for someone.
Basically, this is the beginning of a shareware spending spree for me. I probably would be buying Playstation games and gaming accessories otherwise, but I decided to spend that money on shareware this week.
but it also struggles against "should I pay or should I find a serial number." The greater the "overpriced" perception, the more like people are to choose the latter.And this reduces the "overpriced" suggestion by selling for very reasonable prices. So, people are more likely to buy this than steal a serial number, than they normally would. Let's face it, quite a few shareware titles are overpriced. Software developers aren't a charity, they need to compete in the real world with real economics, just like users do.
That's not "being wronged." That's just "bad luck" or lack of success. Nobody did anything wrong to hurt you, it just didn't work out. Being wronged implies malfeasance.
As for folks being wronged, from what I get, the developers were told they were all getting exactly the same dealDo you have a source for this? I've heard no speculation by outsiders, but no reliable info from participants.
The problem with Gruber and others is the way they bash the developers who took the deal. Not explicitly, but it's the implicit suggestion. What puts Gruber be in a position to criticise? It has nothing to do with him. Why is it such a big problem if someone chooses to take a deal that Gruber doesn't think is good?
Wow. Way to pick the two worst apps in the bundle!
You should just go and buy the whole package, then you might discover the real substantive apps - TextMate and DEVONthink as well as the highly entertaining Pangea Arcade. Seems you have gone for the sizzle, and not the steak.
What? I have been talking about MY needs all along. How did I advocate anything other than my own needs? If you need to modify an application, then fine - go use Open Source. But I object to yours and FSF's condescending attitude towards MY choices. You keep telling me that I'm wrong, because I made a different choice to you. Fascism, indeed. How am I stopping you from making your choice, and having your freedoms? I never said YOU should use proprietary software.
I don't think that's true. Apart from shareware, most commercial titles are cross-platform. Adobe and Microsoft make lots of money from the Mac market. As do the big game houses - who often outsource Mac porting.
Remember, it's not enough to just get more customers: you have to get enough customers to justify your extra costs.You'd have to be doing pretty badly not to cover the costs of porting to Mac. It's a large market that is hungry for software, and in my experience, buys more software while Windows users tend to pirate more. There's also the phenomenon where having a Mac port can increase your Windows sales, because of word-of-mouth and the advantages of being cross-platform.
nonsense. Got any figures to prove it?
Why? Because they bought a fucking mac and you don't buy a mac if you're a gamer. If they're a gamer than they have a windows machine,Umm, ever heard of a console? Many Mac users own both a console and a Mac. i know tons of gamers who own Macs.
Apparently a lot of companies disagree with you, and honestly I'd trust them much more than I trust a slashdot armchair businessman who provides nothing to back up his logic with (saying "well I believe" doesn't count).What about the profits being made by Mac game developers, and that fact that some of the most successful developers choose to support the Mac? You don't need to believe me.
Apparently a lot of companies disagree with you and higher cost also lowers potential sales even more.Not particularly in the Mac market, where users are willing to pay a higher rate for a native Mac game. Again, just look for evidence of this on the shelves of Mac software stores. A lot of companies are really stupid, and don't understand the Mac market.
a) Wouldn't be profitable, if you can't understand that costs may very well not scale linearly with the extra market share than there is little hope of you ever understanding this. If the mac port costs $2 million and you make $1 million from it then it's not profitable.If it wouldn't be profitable, then why do companies have success making Mac ports? Their game must suck if they can't make a profit from the large Mac market for games. Or they don't have any confidence in their game. Porting is less expensive than designing the game in the first place. I doubt very much the average port would cost anywhere near $2 million. Really, your profits are higher on a Mac port, as you have already developed the game, and get a higher profit margin.