 |
      
|
I’m still unsure how best to write the plural of “To Do.” But either way, I’m glad to announce that “SimpleTask,” my concept for my dream GTD/To-Do application, is becoming a reality.
Check out the splash page now, and put yourself on the mailing list for updates when we get the blog rolling and get betas out!
There has been a lot of insane blabbering about MacHeist yet again this year; it’s a favorite stomping ground for those who like to find injustices in the world. There are somehow still complaints that MacHeist is unfair to developers and that by buying the Bundle, we are supporting this vile conspiracy.
From Simone Manganelli:
Fundamentally, what it comes down to is that those consumers who are participating in the MacHeist bundle are tightwads. Even if you’re only interested in one of the apps in the bundle, it’s likely that only a little more than one of your dollars is going to the actual developer of that app. And you’re doing it all because you can get that app for a really cheap price, especially if you’re looking to get BoinxTV or Kinemac, which normally cost $200 or $300, respectively.
This sums up the attitude of his post: MacHeist is ripping off developers, developers are devaluing their own apps, and anyone who buys it is cheap.
Let’s say the bundle didn’t exist or the developers of App X didn’t participate. Right off the bat, that’s [insert number of bundles sold here] licenses not sold. Also consider the promotion and name recognition lost by not taking part in the bundle.
Manganelli would have a point if it was black and white: you either bought the app at the bundle price or you bought it at retail price. Of course in that case, the developer would be crazy to participate in MacHeist. But the fact is, if they didn’t participate in the bundle, none of those potential customers exist, and the amount of money made by selling a few licenses at retail price would be far less than selling at a heavy discount in heavy volume.
Keep in mind also that this is software we’re talking about. Past initial development, it doesn’t cost the developer to make more. The time and money spent on developing the app and licensing it to three people is the same time and money spent licensing it to three thousand. The only place where the amount sold factors in is with support, which most companies have user-run forums for.
MacHeist is not forcing these developers to participate. It doesn’t cost the developers anything to participate. They gain exposure, name recognition, a much larger user base, and quite a bit of money. They lose nothing.
Truth be told, if the MacHeist bundle didn’t exist, not one of the apps in it would be installed on my computer right now, and it’s likely the same situation for many others who bought. And that’s a lot of lost money.
NOTE: This was originally written for Appletell, and did not get published. I republish it here as it has some design-related value, and pisses me off as well, so that’s a plus.
Anyone who has ever used Adobe apps knows the constant struggle between the fact that they are the best (and really only) in the business, and the fact that they often behave in stupid and unnecessary ways. One website, Adobe UI Gripes, collects user submitted instances of Adobe’s weird and often downright perplexing UI decisions: faked drop down menus, Flash-based interfaces, useless error messages (including one with a placeholder “fill me in” as the message,) etc.
The issue that comes up most on the Mac is Adobe’s “faked windows.” In essence, the palettes are not one window to itself. The controls are laid on top of a bright background, laid on top of a transparent background. It isn’t a problem in general use, but with Apple’s built in system functions like Exposé, and much worse with Leopard’s introduction of Spaces, these “faked” windows become extremely annoying.
Here’s what Facebook overlooked when they decided to be influenced heavily by Twitter for their new homepage: Twitter is all tweets. Facebook is tons of different things. Making them all look the same is a horrible idea.
Over the past week or so, I’ve written a couple articles on Safari 4, mostly regarding its interface. I received many comments, many agreeing, some disagreeing, and some that raised points I’d like to address. Here they are, in no particular order, with my responses below.
“Safari 4 is a Google Chrome Ripoff”
Safari 4 is just an Apple version of Google Chrome. Tabs on top… toy-like appearance… they even have the “most-visited pages” thing when you open the browser, they just made it prettier.
Safari 4 was already in far into development when Chrome was released. Due to time between Chrome and Safari, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Apple changed the tabs to compete with Chrome. As a side note, Opera was first with both “tabs on top” and “Speed Dial,” or most visited pages.
Safari 3 is a billion times better and Safari 4 needs more customizability before a real release.
I don’t know what qualifies better, but Safari 4 is a ton faster. I also don’t know what customizability is expected, as Safari 4 is just as customizable as Safari 3 was.
Let us decide what buttons we want where we want them and whether we want tabs on top or in the normal place and people will stop b***hing. Also, why would they remove the progress bar? It’s useful, intuitive, and unobtrusive. The wheel thingy doesn’t tell you anything about what Safari’s doing.
I generally agree here, though I don’t think Apple needs to make tabs on top an option as much as re-think how it works (i.e. get the tabs out of the title bar, but keep them on top.)
“Everyone hates Safari 4 because they hate change!”
Man, why is everything in computerworld a religious war. Yes, it takes some getting used to. One has to retrain your muscle memory. Some things are somewhat lame, like the “addbookmark button. But even somepeople like that. And I can live with it. All in all, I find it a refreshing change. I think most of the dislike comes from the dislike of change. But what do I know, I’m no expert.
The only reason this is in here is because it’s an invalid argument that many people are posing. Change is fine (speaking for myself), but when the change requires redefining a feature’s behavior, it’s not good change. Tabs on top makes sense in that the tab is the window, but in placing them directly in the title bar, both the function of the title bar and the function of the tabs is somewhat lost in an awkward compromise. Plus, the (over)implementation of clickthrough just sucks. I direct you to Daring Fireball for John Gruber’s explanation of that.
So Let’s Clarify…
I don’t hate Safari 4. Not by far. I’ll never go back to Safari 3. In fact, I haven’t even implemented the Terminal hacks to change the tabs back to Safari 3 style, or to restore the progress bar. If, at Safari 4’s final release, these features haven’t been thought out more, I will reconsider (and definitely re-institute the progress bar.) For now, as a beta product, Safari 4 is great, and the tabs on top is simply a flawed implementation of a sound idea. With a few tweaks, I would rather tabs on top any day.
|