MacHeist

So in layman's terms, If a developer's software was in another bundle, you will not consider having that same software in your bundle, Am I Right?

Warbrain wrote:

I wouldn't mind repeats if it has been long enough that we get a significant update.

Ditto. Especially for time- or upgrade-limited software. (Or just software where there's been a significant enough upgrade for there to be significant cost.)

butterflyc wrote:

Warbrain wrote:

I wouldn't mind repeats if it has been long enough that we get a significant update.

Ditto. Especially for time- or upgrade-limited software. (Or just software where there's been a significant enough upgrade for there to be significant cost.)

Considering that many of the apps in the first bundle had limited upgrade paths and there's been a huge amount of new users since MH1 it would be prudent to include those apps as upgrades to those who have been here from the start as well as to those who wish to get those apps but missed out.

No repeats sounds great to me. And I have no complaints about the delivery here. Seems straight forward and to the point, done with the right attitude.

JakeyR wrote:

I like the "don't beat the dead horse" policy.

Add the repeat bundlers to the free loot instead

Which would work except for those apps that are too valuable to be included in the Loot.

henryjones wrote:

johnred wrote:

butterflyc wrote:

Ditto. Especially for time- or upgrade-limited software. (Or just software where there's been a significant enough upgrade for there to be significant cost.)

Delicious Library 2 in the TweetBlast was a good example of this.

This, then, would seem to indicate a change of attitude by the Directorate in regard to repeats of new versions. This is what John posted on December 16th last year:

johnred wrote:

LordZog wrote:

Are newer versions considered to be different from earlier ones that appeared in bundles? e.g. Would Delicious Library v2 be considered a repeat because DL1 was in an earlier bundle?

In this case, it's considered the same app so no-go. On the other hand, for something like a game where we had the first version of it in the bundle and the company came out with the next one, which is a whole new game, that would be ok.

Keep in mind that this is just hypothetical and we don't have anything like that in MH3.

On the strength of this I purchased an upgrade to Delicious Library 2 only to discover that it was included as part of the TweetBlast. I was happy to have given some money to a brilliant Mac developer but did feel very confused about MacHeist's no repeat policy, particularly as Delicious Library had been explicitly mentioned by the Directorate.

Perhaps a clear statement for developers and potential customers would be a good idea. It seems from this thread that new versions of applications that have featured in previous MacHeist bundles could be 'repeated' if the newer versions are significantly improved.

What, then, is MacHeist's policy in regard to an 'older' application that has been featured as part of another bundle but has been significantly upgraded? Could this be considered for inclusion in a MacHeist bundle?

I'm deliberately playing Devil's advocate because I still feel this 'no repeat' policy is a little grey. As I suggest above, a really clear statement for customers would be fantastic.

Thanks again for MacHeist bundles 1, 2 and 3. I can't wait to see what is in 4!

- Henry

I would say that, and this is just me talking and not the Directorate, that if the app were included in another bundle and it had a significant upgrade than it's up to that other bundle to provide that upgrade path for users, not MacHeist.  If it was previously included in MacHeist then it could happen.

You'll find that a lot of the policies here are gray.

Ideveloperz wrote:

Hey im having problems with my app i got to the part where you have the toolbar and the + button and i added a UITabel and when you click the button a AlertView pops up with a UITextfield You can type in the text field but how do i get what you type in in the textfield of the alert view to add the text in the UITable... a bit like the my basket app

i cant show you my code because i have to be more active

You do realize that you're spamming the forums a bit, right?  You already made a thread about this and now you hijacked this thread.

Warbrain wrote:

Ideveloperz wrote:

Hey im having problems with my app i got to the part where you have the toolbar and the + button and i added a UITabel and when you click the button a AlertView pops up with a UITextfield You can type in the text field but how do i get what you type in in the textfield of the alert view to add the text in the UITable... a bit like the my basket app

i cant show you my code because i have to be more active

You do realize that you're spamming the forums a bit, right?  You already made a thread about this and now you hijacked this thread.

SORRY im new

ok i r like be good

...chicken told you didnt he

oh and your avatar is scary N/O

Last edited by Ideveloperz (July 6, 2009 3:00 pm)

henryjones wrote:

johnred wrote:

butterflyc wrote:

Ditto. Especially for time- or upgrade-limited software. (Or just software where there's been a significant enough upgrade for there to be significant cost.)

Delicious Library 2 in the TweetBlast was a good example of this.

This, then, would seem to indicate a change of attitude by the Directorate in regard to repeats of new versions. This is what John posted on December 16th last year:

johnred wrote:

LordZog wrote:

Are newer versions considered to be different from earlier ones that appeared in bundles? e.g. Would Delicious Library v2 be considered a repeat because DL1 was in an earlier bundle?

In this case, it's considered the same app so no-go. On the other hand, for something like a game where we had the first version of it in the bundle and the company came out with the next one, which is a whole new game, that would be ok.

Keep in mind that this is just hypothetical and we don't have anything like that in MH3.

On the strength of this I purchased an upgrade to Delicious Library 2 only to discover that it was included as part of the TweetBlast. I was happy to have given some money to a brilliant Mac developer but did feel very confused about MacHeist's no repeat policy, particularly as Delicious Library had been explicitly mentioned by the Directorate.

Perhaps a clear statement for developers and potential customers would be a good idea. It seems from this thread that new versions of applications that have featured in previous MacHeist bundles could be 'repeated' if the newer versions are significantly improved.

What, then, is MacHeist's policy in regard to an 'older' application that has been featured as part of another bundle but has been significantly upgraded? Could this be considered for inclusion in a MacHeist bundle?

I'm deliberately playing Devil's advocate because I still feel this 'no repeat' policy is a little grey. As I suggest above, a really clear statement for customers would be fantastic.

Thanks again for MacHeist bundles 1, 2 and 3. I can't wait to see what is in 4!

- Henry

Apologies for quoting the whole thing but I didn't want to lose context.

Technically, the TweetBlast apps weren't part of the bundle.

Many publishers have more than one app.  I've seen plenty of apps featured in separate bundles and I don't think it's really a "you're with us or not" issue, but improves diversity of applications and publishers involved.  For instance, RealMac software bundled with MacUpdate (RapidWeaver) before bundling a different app with MacHeist (Little Snapper), so to clarify (what appears to be) the position here, it's no repeats of apps and not developers

Last edited by mtaylor (July 6, 2009 10:48 pm)

Miah wrote:

Incidentally, RapidWeaver also went through MacHeist. But before it went though MU.

I stand corrected.