Slashdot Log In
MacHeist "Week of Mac Developer" Causes Schism
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Dec 17, 2006 04:28 PM
from the fair-deal dept.
from the fair-deal dept.
ernesto99 writes "MacHeist began selling a software bundle of ten highly sought-after OS X applications last week with the stated goal of raising the profile of Mac shareware developers. 25% of the money brought in goes to charity. The bundle sale will go down as possibly the biggest success in Mac shareware history, as total revenues are approaching $650,000 after only six days. But some observers, including Daring Fireball's John Gruber, have called into question the ethics of MacHeist. MacHeist advertises itself as 'The Week of the Independent Mac Developer,' yet the MacHeist organizers stand to make vastly outsized gains relative to the very developers they have championed. Gruber calculates that MacHeist will record double, if not triple, the profits of all ten participating developers combined. (In fact the promotion has done so well that the promoter-to-developers profit ratio now stands at about four to one.) In an interview, Delicious Library developer Wil Shipley defends his involvement in MacHeist, saying that the publicity and reach of MacHeist has already paid him dividends. The whole affair has created a heated dialogue, resulting in a direct clash among some of the biggest names in the Mac community."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I fail to see why there is any controversy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
20% of lots or 100% of nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:20% of lots or 100% of nothing (Score:5, Informative)
As a developer, I know that there are costs associated with the marketing and sales of my software, but I think 95%+ of the profits is too high a price. It is effectively worse than the mechanism that RIAA uses. I don't believe that RIAA does flat fee contracts for artists music. It may be a tiny percentage, but at least it's a percentage. The difference is that with flat fee, each additional copy sold means the price per copy goes down more and more.
Wil Shipley is probably doing it because DL 1 has been out for quite some time and he's soon to release Delicious Library 2. So this becomes a promo giveaway of the last version, with the hope of some of them upgrading to DL 2. I doubt he would be giving away Delicious Library 2 in this ordeal.
Parent
Re:How many.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, with software there are a LOT of costs in QA and support that simply don't exist for music. I'm sure there is someone somewhere that you can call that will tell you which side of the CD goes down in the CD player but for the most part once a disk is sold, the RIAA is done with it (unless you try to copy it...).
I would venture to say that software companies have significantly higher costs than the RIAA, at least
Re:How many.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) the developers participated willingly in this promotion ( I believe... sorry, didn't RT full FA. )
2) this was an INCREMENTAL distribution channel to what the developers already have in place
3) there is nothing preventing the developers from continuing to sell the software elsewhere, or do other promotions in the future with the SAME content.
4) The developers still own the content and all rights to it.
Try that with anything a musician records on an RIAA-controlled r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I fail to see why there is any controversy (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I fail to see why there is any controversy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not going to be stupid and say software piracy support terrorism or drug use, but to say it hurts no one is a fallacy.
Parent
If the individual developers have agreed..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If the individual developers have agreed..... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. MacHeist makes a lot of money. They obviously win.
2. The developers agreed to participate because they thought it was a good deal. They win too.
3. Customers are buying this package like crazy. They also win.
What's the problem exactly? Yes, it could be "more fair", but as it stands now, all participants are voluntary (in a true sense) which certainly makes it fair in my book.
Parent
Re:If the individual developers have agreed..... (Score:4, Insightful)
It hurts the industry. 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. I bought it before this bundle. It was pricey, but eventually I accepted that the developer really thought it was worth that much. OK, so I paid.
And now I see that he really doesn't think it's worth all that much. I can't see it as being promotional - I think pretty much anybody in his target audience is already aware of it.
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.
I think basically it says that shareware is not really worth what people are asking. And shareware is in a funny position. It's not simply fighting "should I pay or do without," 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If the individual developers have agreed..... (Score:4, Informative)
That's a pretty strong statement, that really requires some proof.
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.
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.
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Otherwise.... yeah pretty much.
M-
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was pricey, but eventually I accepted that the developer really thought it was worth that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It onl sounds like that if you ignore most of what I wrote.
Indeed. I summarized what I thought were the relevant parts of your post. I ignored for example, your comment about how much the developer of TextMate thought his product was worth. There are a number of reasons why a person would change the price of a piece of software. Maybe the author's opinion of the worth TextMate had changed in the meantime. More likely they lowered the price so they could sell a large number of units with this bundled pac
Re:If the individual developers have agreed..... (Score:5, Informative)
The ruckus is that MacHeist's professed goal is to help the Mac shareware community, but in the end MacHeist is taking a far larger share of the profits than the participants, and due to the structure of the deal, the greater the sales, the larger the discrepancy becomes.
Parent
Re:If the individual developers have agreed..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I bought one of these, and now have copies of software I've never even heard of before.
When it comes time to update to the next version, who's getting the cash? Macheist? No.
People are just pissed off that they aren't sharing the profits as a percentage of the gross income. That's stupid and short-sighted.
Maybe it was the simplest arrangement to deal with in the long term? Maybe there was no guarantee that they would sell ANY of these packages, but still had to pay the devs the cash, regardless? Maybe they took all the risk for the sales/marketing? Maybe they didn't want to deal with the headaches of any future royalty payments for upgrades, etc?
How about the fact that the developers entered into the agreement and THEY seem to be happy with it, so everyone else mind their own business and quit making a stink where there isn't one?
Parent
Re:If the individual developers have agreed..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because someone makes a stupid decision, all of free will, doesn't mean they have not been wronged.
I co-owned a company that does the occasional software development that got involved (not of my doing) of something entirely similar to this. All in all, the partners thought it was a GREAT idea and pulled enough votes to get past my normal roadblock. 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. Come to think about it, I think that was why the business went under.
As for folks being wronged, from what I get, the developers were told they were all getting exactly the same deal -- yet were told not to discuss the details with anyone else. Turns out, they were all getting different 'equal' deals...or so some of the developers have hinted. Sounds a bit like fraud to me if this is true.
Having said this, I picked up a bundle. Sounds like crap to the developers, but you know what -- their ain't no law to stop people from making bad deals (nor should there be).
Parent
Re:If the individual developers have agreed..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of all this, only two things are really known:
1. MacHeist bundled a bunch of apps, made a bunch of hype, paid out a flat fee to developers, and gets to keep everything else.
2. Some people are very vocal that this is a bad model to follow.
Most of the Pro-MacHeist defense comes to, "Who loses?" I think this is disingenuous because the best answer is, "We don't entirely know yet." This is not a reason to stop talking about it. In fact, that's a only a good reason to continue talking about it.
And that's the other half of what makes this newsworthy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've read most of the articles and threads about the controversy and I think it's great. Yeah, I think the controversy is great, not the 'success' of MacHeist. I think it's great because many of the purchasers are now aware of how poorly the developers were compensated, and (while defending their purchase) will demand more equitable compensation for the creators next time.
Many people who bought the bundle initially felt good about supporting independ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'd wanted to "demand more equitable compensation for the creators" I would have bought from them directly, at the increased price.
promotion is hard (Score:3, Insightful)
TFA is highly misguided.
But this deal is much BETTER than that. First, promotion is hard. The idea that promotion bringing much greater sales isn't worth anything implies the speaker doesn't know anything about business. I bet there's NO product where you couldn't spent 100,000 in advertisi
MacHeist made me spend money (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, I would not have bothered to download and try each of these sharewares individually, because I hate using crippleware. I don't think crippleware (unpaid for shareware) really gives me a good idea whether I'll use it or not. In fact, normally I won't use crippleware because it is annoying.
I bought the bundle and I'm very glad. It was clearly worth it for me.
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.
Re:MacHeist made me spend money (Score:4, Informative)
Your terminology needs help.
Freeware: "Here's a program."
Shareware: "Here's a program. If you like it, pay me."
Sponsorware*: "Here's a program. It wants you to buy a new Lexus."
Postcardware: "Here's a program. If you like it, send me a postcard from your home town/state/province/country".
Crippleware: "Here's half a program. Pay me and I"ll give you the other half."
Nagware: "Here's a program. Pay me. Pay me. Pay me now. Have you paid me yet? If you pay me I'l shut up."
Expireware: "Here's a program. If you don't pay me, I'll take it back in a week."
Now, true shareware is virtually extinct; most of it is now nagware, crippleware, or expireware. But please don't confuse the issue any more than it already is.
*This used to be "adware," but "adware" has mutated since then.
Parent
The dominant middle man (Score:2)
Compared to retail sales it's likely very fair (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ask these developers what they expect to make in a typical week, and it's less than $5-8K then the fact is, they are increasing their cash flow.
Which may increase their sales in the next Upgrade cycle.
John Gruber/Daring Fireball to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a devoted Mac user and advocate for the platform, this whole affair has shown the worst aspect of the Mac community and why so many people continue to write off the platform (an assembly of particular hardware and software) because of a small percentage of the user base (an assembly of people who use the hardware and software).
Ultimately, though - and I say this as a more-than-daily reader of the Daring Fireball website - John Gruber of Daring Fireball is to blame for this. He is the one that posted the initial exposé [daringfireball.net] of what he perceived the financial situation of the MacHeist promotion to be, even though he admitted multiple times in the article that he didn't have any first-hand knowledge of how the thing was actually structured. John is often a fine voice for the Mac-core community, which is why I read his site, but this is one of those times (and there have been others) where his sharply-worded articles have done much more harm than good.
Ultimately, it benefits no one for developers to be running around calling each other four-letter names because of perceived injustices. Both sides - but especially the anti-MacHeist side - need to stop talking at a volume and profanity level that makes casual observers think somebody is being tortured. Perhaps both sides should just stop talking about it period.
One thing is very clear from this: while the Mac-core constitutes probably fewer than 5% of all Mac users, they continue to give a bad name to the entire assembly of very well-designed and nice-to-use software and hardware. As they've done practically since day one. Am I the only one that thinks they sound like televangelists sometimes?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Has anyone actually claimed that it was structured in a more equitable way?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Both parties involved were happy, and they're the only ones who matter.
If they didn't like it, they didn't have to enter into the agreement.
It's not like anyone forced them to sign up for this promotion.
The interesting thing here (Score:3, Insightful)
margins attract competition (Score:3, Insightful)
Where there's a good margin, competition will follow.
regarding the schism (Score:4, Funny)
Just one thought comes into mind (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Users too (Score:5, Insightful)
Video game consoles sell at a premium when they first come out, and people are willing to pay that premium. Later on, the price goes down, people who wanted it but couldn't afford it before pick it up. The manufacturer still turns a profit, but a smaller one. They still get more product out into the marketplace.
What if he sold at a different price to China, Zimbabwe, and the US? It it still as heinous?
Parent
GPL (Score:3, Informative)
-- a lot to make the first copy of
-- very little / nothing to make additional copies of
-- a lot per copy for support
The obvious places to charge for the good are on support and initial development. A per copy charge is completely irrational given that price structure for production.
Re:GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
Then it still costs a fortune to make, but we're not supposed to charge for that.
Still costs next to nothing to make copies of (disregarding the cost and time of burning to a media or traffic for downloads)
Still costs next to nothing to support.
Where are we supposed to make money?
If our application costs $100,000 to develop, implement and document, and we expect 10,000 users, and expect maybe one percent of our users requirering our support, are we supposed to charge them $1,000 for support, just to break even? Or should we be allowed to charge $20 per copy/licence to make some money?
Charging for support can be profitable I suppose, but I believe it also breeds an artificial need for bad documentation and buggy software. After all, if the documentation is perfect and the software hardly in need of support, where are you supposed to make your money?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll call the WAAAAHbulance. (Score:4, Insightful)
Business as usual. get over it.
Parent
Noooo, that wasn't the crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Motivations. Pure and Otherwise. (Score:5, Insightful)
The MacHeist folks were pushing this bundle as being much more beneficial to the independent developers than it really was. Case in point, several folks have said "Hey, I wouldn't normally buy this -- so they got an extra sale from me and I feel better about supporting the developer." The reality is that independent developer got maybe a $1 (if they're lucky) from the guy and can only pray that they won't have to answer a single support call.
While I don't agree with the terms of the bundle (and would decline the offer myself), I don't have an issue with them making the deal. I *DO* have an issue with them marketing it as benefiting the small independent developers. If they would have left that out -- I think it wouldn't be the issue that it currently is in the community.
Business is business and being dishonest about your motives is being dishonest about your motives. But of course, the whole point of their "Week of the Independent Developer" was to take advantage of the belief that buying this bundle was a way to support the efforts of the developers involved. The facts thus far seem to question whether this is actually the case.
It's not unlike a charity that claims to help some disadvantaged kids/group and it turns out only 5% or less of the contributions ever makes it to those kids/group. Would you be as willing to partake in that charity if you knew that 95% of it went to pay for lofty salaries, corporate perks, and what not?
Parent