No! Bad! I specifically asked for WindowShadeX for Christmas because I thought MIP would be included shortly! I can't pay for it, I'm a poor high school student not making enough as it is. Please?

Posted by: Nick Peshek on June 18, 2003 11:39 PM

c'mon you can't pay 9 bucks? if not, then you don't WANT it bad enough, and you certainly dont NEED it bad enough.

Posted by: Jon Maddox on June 18, 2003 11:49 PM

Well shit... I just saw WSX 3.0 preview came out, downloaded it and registered it without even thinking twice, as I had promised I would the moment I got MIP.

I hope I don't need to pay for the upgrade. :(

Either way, thank you guys!!

Posted by: Etan on June 19, 2003 12:00 AM

hmmm. Unsanity raised the prices from $7 to $10 and everyone seemed ok with it.

Unsanity has always stated (with every release) that upgrades would always be free.

I think it would be a mistake to charge upgrade prices and I have paid for FruitMenu, Labels X, Mighty Mouse, Silk, WSX, and Xounds. I also use a bunch of unsanity freeware. I know that if I thought I would have to pay for upgrades then I definately wouldn't of purchased silk, labels x, or xounds. But since they were so cheap, I figured "what the hell. It's only $7. And they may be cool in the future". I figured with future enhancements I would get more use for them later but they would be kinda cool to have now.

If you want to raise the price for new users then I think many people would be upset but not nearly as many if you started charging upgrades.

Posted by: David on June 19, 2003 12:31 AM

WOW, man I love you all! MIP looks so smooth, and the animation is slick.

One comment though, coudl we have the preference of where the minimized icon actualyl gets placed in relation to the original window? like centered, upper left, lower..yeah ahh you get the idea

also on hover could you make it possible to do the same, choosing where the title pops up liek i'd prefer it were center on the icon and not above it, but ust a thought. would love to see this sort of customizability

btw your products are well worth the money, of course after saying that don't go raising them any higher our oyu're out of the impulse buy area :-)

Posted by: Mike on June 19, 2003 12:36 AM

Oh man. I just bought Windowshade less than 2 weeks ago. Shoot. Please don't charge for the upgrade! ;)

Posted by: brian w on June 19, 2003 12:38 AM

I'm torn. I definitely would like to support Unsanity -- but at the same time, I'd really prefer not to pay an upgrade fee. Do you folks need the cash? :-)

Posted by: WCityMike on June 19, 2003 12:58 AM

There's a small inconsistency with standard minimized windows. If I minimize an application's only window to the dock and then click the application's dock icon, the window becomes unminimized. If the window is minimized in place, this does not happen.

Posted by: josh on June 19, 2003 1:22 AM

Oh, and since I assume the upgrade fee would be less than the full price, sure, I'll toss you a few bucks for it.

Posted by: josh on June 19, 2003 1:24 AM

regarding the upgrade fee questions - we don't want to charge per se, it just becomes hard to continue developing a product without charging an upgrade fee.

Basically we're learning the hard way why most companies charge an upgrade fee. It is basically the only way you have a chance at long term success. Charging a fee allows us to continue to support development on that product and also gives us possible opportunities to develop other products and grow as a company. We'd like to think that is beneficial for both us and the users. ;)

Regardless of how WSX 3 turns out, it's basically a given that recent/future products will have an upgrade fee at some point. We do plan on only charging with what we feel are very significant upgrades. (WSX has had somewhere in the neighborhood of 9 versions since 1.0 for free)

Anyway, as always, we appreciate our users and your honesty. We love being connected well with you and hearing how it is from your end of the deal.

Now I wonder what sort of hacks slava and rosyna are going to come up with tonight.... ;)

Posted by: brian on June 19, 2003 1:24 AM

I have a problem with the upgrade fee mainly because I purchased my Unsanity applications with the downright declaration that every upgrade would be a free one. It sounded a bit out of the ordinary for a company to do this, but this is what you sold, and that is what I bought. If you charge an upgrade fee, many will pay it, but many will also feel betrayed. Trust has always played a significant part in the Macintosh community, and you will have breached it fee by going back on your word.

If this becomes a policy for future products, I would understand Unsanity's decision to implement it; however, charging fees that you said would be free not only is wrong but also seems illegal.

Just my two cents.

- Matt

Posted by: Matt Martinez on June 19, 2003 2:21 AM

Woohoo!. Nice update. One thing I would love to see, however, is an option to send the minimised windows to a specific place on the screen. Oh, and I've had some weirdness with konfabulator - the menu bar icon disappears unless I add an exclusion to WSX (which is fine as WSX is no use with Konfab - mebbe add a default exclusion for it?)

BTW I have no problem with an upgrade fee - whatever was said in the past. Quit griping, people - programmers have to eat too! *GRIN*

Thanks again folks - great little UI enhancments at a terrific price.

Posted by: tersono on June 19, 2003 4:00 AM

Gee, it's the .mac thing all over again. "You said it would be free forever!"

I thought this at first in regards to .mac, and this as well, though as a software company, I understand the need for it. If you keep giving things out for free, it's hardly good for business.

As long as you don't pull a Jaguar and charge full price for the upgrade, I'm for it. :P

Posted by: Michael Salbato on June 19, 2003 4:03 AM

i don't think you should charge an upgrade fee.

the only unsanity product i own is WSX. i've thought about purchasing Labels & Fruit Menu, and i'd be less likely to buy them if unsanity starts charging for upgrades.

my two cents.

Posted by: petey on June 19, 2003 4:14 AM

I am a registered user of three Unsanity haxies (all purchased back in the $7 days), and I strongly believe that you should not charge for the upgrade.

I think it will be perceived negatively by all those who have read that upgrades will always be free. (I am not sure whether this was stated in black-and-white by Unsanity, or whether I merely interpreted it this way. But I distinctly got the impression that all upgrades would be free.)

YazSoft just had a very damaging Speed Download 2 release when they broke their promise to provide free upgrades (made especially worse in their case because they wouldn't even offer discounted upgrade prices at first! Since then, they've backed down and rushed out another release so as to push the negative Versiontracker reviews out of view).

As such, I would advise you to do this: when you release 3.0, declare that from that point on, all newly purchased licenses will not necessarily come with free upgrades. But you really should abide by your promise made to holders of previously purchased licenses.

Sure, you could get away with breaking the promises, but I don't think it's right to do. People will perceive it as greedy.

Posted by: Wincent Colaiuta on June 19, 2003 4:27 AM

From a business perspective, sure, you should be charging for upgrades.

But as a matter of principle, you should keep your promises.

So, if you made a bad business decision in the past (by promising perpetual free upgrades) you should stick with your promise and consider it a lesson learnt. And don't promise free upgrades to those who purchase from this point on.

I am sure you're not near saturation point anyway. You'll still make a lot of money from WSX3. There are millions of Mac users out there. Millions. And I am sure lots of them haven't bought WSX yet! If your product is good enough, it will generate an income for you without you having to break your promises and start charging upgrade fees to pre-existing customers.

I am a registered user of WSX. But if you charge an upgrade fee I won't pay the fee. And this is a matter of principal for me.

Posted by: Guy on June 19, 2003 4:36 AM

An effective compromise would be to transition out the ability to purchase upgrade-forever licenses, while maintaining ("grandfathering") the current ones. It's a gift to the users that helped you get to where you're at today, and it allows you to move forward in charging the necessary amounts for your products.

Posted by: Richard Soderberg on June 19, 2003 4:57 AM

Since you're adding so many features to WSX, I'll understand that you may need to charge for an upgrade fee.

So, why not create a new product, say "WindowShade X Pro" that will have all these new features, and charge more for this one, leaving the original WSX with its original features (but with eventually the bugs corrected, if any) at the original price.
Of course, an upgrade from WSX to WSX Pro should be provided

This way, you'll get your new price for the new features, and the original one is still available at the original price, without any upgrade fee.

Just an idea...

Posted by: Stéphane Madrau on June 19, 2003 5:01 AM

I say keep up the great work - I know you put a lot of time into this. Seems a tad bit weird to me though that people who have been using WSX for a looong time, will get a free upgrade - whereas those who just recently bought it will have to pay, umm?

When buying shareware, I like the idea of always having the latest versions - for free. And I like to think of paid upgrades as something belonging in the commercial world. It should not nessecarily be that way though, as you probably put just as much time into what you do, as anyone else.

Still, if you want to charge - how about a half-price $5 upgrade fee? I would hate to shell out $10 again (even though that is not a whole lot, and I definetely could afford it, even as a "poor student" :)

Posted by: Andreas Tellefsen on June 19, 2003 5:48 AM

I'm cool with an upgrade price, provided you fix these issues :)

1. The minimized window/icon should remember its position if it's moved. This is how Apple's MIP works (or worked). If you minimize, move the minimized window, unminimize, the window should minimize to where it was previously moved. Your implementation currently just minimizes towards the center of the window's title bar. So if the minimized window is moved, then unminimized, then minimized again, it doesn't minimize to the location it was moved to earlier.

2. Clicking a minimized window should highlight the window similarly to what happens to icons, to show that the click on the window was registered. So a minimized window should be dark while it's being dragged or when right-clicked or control-clicked.

3. Please add Close to the context menu below Maximize. Preferably slap in a menu separator between Maximize and Close.

4. This might fall into the wishful thinking category, but a way to set a screen edge to be a "magnetic" minimized window storage area would be cool. In other words:
- Let the user send minimized windows to a screen edge, side-by-side. In other words, similar to the minimized window area in the Dock, except outside the Dock.
- Let the user move minimized windows away from the edge. Remember the new location for future minimizations (see issue #1).
- When a minimized window is dragged back to the edge, have it snap to the edge (and automatically clean up the minimized windows so that they're not on top of each other).

Posted by: Lauri Kieksi on June 19, 2003 6:18 AM

Upgrade fees from Unsanity? Oh no! What is the world coming to? Oh yeah, that's right, this is the real world and you guys need money too. It's too bad you made that "promise" of free upgrades for life. But, opinions on whether upgrade fees are good or bad are split pretty evenly. So, what to do? One post suggests "grangfathering" everyone who has registered up to now, and making future registrations subject to required upgrade fees. I like this idea, but would also like to see you add a voluntary upgrade fee for those of us who want to pay the upgrade, even if it's not required. This way you won't alienate the half of your user base who oppose going back on your "promise", and you'll be able to raise some cash from us folks who want to continue supporting Unsanity. Win-win? I think so.

Posted by: Brian Dorman on June 19, 2003 7:40 AM

You just need to restate your policy. It's a bad policy to offer upgrades always for free. Major upgrades are hard work for you and cost money to develop. We SHOULD have to pay for those otherwise where is the motivation to continue development.

I'll gladly pay for an update.

Posted by: Court Kizer on June 19, 2003 8:13 AM

It doesn't seem very fair charging full price for an upgrade, maybe you should state clearly FOR ALL NEW PURCHASES this policy, I didn't buy this software thinking it would cost me every time a new upgrade came out. If at all, I would hope that the upgrade cost would be far less than the purchase price, say, $2 or so.

Posted by: David Fabian on June 19, 2003 8:17 AM

I'm a registered user of multiple Unsanity products. I would feel like you were going back on your word if you charged me for updates that you told me would be free when I originally purchased them from you. I understand the need to make money, being a software developer myself; but just keep in mind if you go back on your word, you will likely lose customer loyalty, and lose money as a result.

I liked the suggestion to "grandfather" all _existing_ customers, honoring your free upgrade policy for those who purchased your products while that policy was in place. I think it's perfectly legitimate and fine for you to remove the free upgrade policy for all _new_ purchases.

Note: Personally, I don't like the idea of splitting products up into standard and professional versions. But if you do decide to do that, please be sure not to penalize users of standard versions by failing to provide Mac OS X compatibility updates!

Most of your software has close enough ties to Mac OS X that I'm sure there will be times in the future when you will have to make changes to your code to maintain compatibility with minor OS releases (say, from 10.3 to 10.3.1, for instance). I think it would be a mistake for you to charge upgrade fees for minor updates that mostly just maintain compatibility with Apple's minor OS releases. Charging for major updates to maintain compatibility with major Mac OS X releases would be acceptable, because major Mac OS X releases often include changes that can have big effects on haxies.

Posted by: monoclast on June 19, 2003 9:52 AM

I always thought it was kinda weird not to charge for updates and say so up-front, but now that you've done it, you should adhere to that at least vis à vis the persons you've promised it to. make two different license versions: one including free lifetime updates (maybe for 25 bucks or something) and one not including updates. convert all existing licenses to "free update"-licenses.

I'm not really sure how long you can continue adding features to apps like window shade x. I mean, its functions are pretty well-defined. there's not a whole lot you can add to it, so after some time, it'll be all bug-fix-updates anyway.

I can totally understand your wanting to charge for updates, and before you go broke, please do so even if you piss off existing customers, but remember that you've promised them free updates, and you should keep that promise as long as possible.

Posted by: LKM on June 19, 2003 11:17 AM

Just registered this tonight . It got so annoying coming up whenever I launched a program so i thought what the hey i'll register this one as well (Silk+WSX) .

I found a bug =) Open several windows in the finder and do a option double click minimize in place . Bye bye mister finder . Unsure if it does this in other programs as well

You guys need a bug tracker !!!

Posted by: Hone Melgren on June 19, 2003 11:25 AM

I'm a registered user of all haxies exept Silk. Upgrade fees? I'll be blunt ...

I'll pay it, but not be overjoyed about it.

I'll pay it because I do feel that I've gotten my $7 out of WSX, and then some.

I won't be overjoyed because it honestly seems like every single time I start my Mac, somebody reaches into my wallet and takes out some money.

Charge for your updates if you must. If you want me to pay, here are some things I beg you to consider:

Only charge for updates that introduce significant new features.

NEVER charge for bug fixes. EVER. Bugs in prior versions should be fixed before new versions are released. That way if MIP means nothing to me, I can continue using WSX 2.whatever and not worry about it. If I ever see "WSX 3.0.2 fixes a bug that in some circumstances could erase history. $3", forget it.

Do not charge for compatibility updates. If Panther breaks a haxie, don't expect me to pay just to have it fixed, and don't add some lame "feature" just to make it sound like a cool new version.

I had to sound so grouchy, but with the current state of the OS X software, I am sick to death of paying for "upgrades" based on what bugs they fix, or how badly Jaguar mangled them.

Posted by: ScottW on June 19, 2003 12:14 PM

Ok, I feel like I need to chime in here... too many people bitch about this sort of shit all the time and it really bugs me... and I'm not even a developer!

There's a balancing act that the developer needs to do... realistically, you can't say you won't ever charge for new versions - you'll go out of business. So you need to make the customer feel like they're getting their monies worth, while still allowing you to stay in business to provide the new features and bug fixes over the years. If you're not there in the future, it really doesn't matter in the end, does it?

To do this, you need to make it clear from the get go, that all bug fixes and maybe small new features for a particular version will be free forever. These are the point releases.

However, new features that require a lot of coding to get working and necessitate a version change, will incur an upgrade fee for existing owners.

As for your current (and sometimes whiny) customers, I guess I like the suggestion that you just take your current list of registered users and grandfather them, and ask for a small upgrade fee when you feel it's necessary.

-Heath

Posted by: Heath on June 19, 2003 12:30 PM

Nice upgrade. Just have one feature request: add an option to command/control/etc click the minimize button as one of the settings. I would like to be able to click the minimize button to MIP and command-click it to minimize to the Dock and vise versa.

Keep up the great work.

Posted by: VGZ on June 19, 2003 3:24 PM

I found a bug:

If you minimize in place and then command-m the window, it moves to the dock but the MIP window still exists. If you click the MIP window it disappears.

Posted by: Etan on June 19, 2003 4:08 PM

Can you smooth out the minimized window as well? The built-in version looked nicer. And the animation that occurs when you hover over the icon isn't very good.

Other than that, looking good. Just let us specify where to put the windows and make them remember their positions and some more options and it'll be great. Whether it has an upgrade fee or not.

BTW.. how can we find out when we bought WindowShade X? I could have sworn I bought it in January 2001. Maybe I'm wrong.

Posted by: Jason Anderson on June 19, 2003 5:53 PM

Would like to see more options for MIP so that you son't need a key + click (if double click is already taken by WS) how about a few hot spots along the bar (minmize button is too small).
Also how about making an aplication switcher a la OS9 the excellent Sora Tile could be improved upon
http://skyblue.ne.nu/soft/soratile/index.htm

Posted by: K.C on June 20, 2003 5:43 AM

Can you make a Minimize-In-Placed window play QuickTime videos like in the Dock? Right now, they pause at one frame.

Posted by: Matt Martinez on June 24, 2003 6:10 PM

Thank's for a great product.

There's a slight problem with MIP. I use a Wacom tablet, which means the mouse pointer trembles slightly due to the trembling of my hand. Clicking on a MIPed window won't work with a slightly trembling mouse pointer, it'll move the window. Could you perhaps allow slight movements go by as clicks?

Posted by: Simon on June 25, 2003 10:11 PM

No matter how hard I tried,
I could find no reason for people to create software and then give it out for free.
It costs hell of time to develop something, why not sell it?
There must be some reason.
Brian

Posted by: Brian on April 10, 2004 4:51 PM