April 8, 2009
I’ve been a happy paid user of CSSEdit 2 for well over two years now. So when MacRabbit released Espresso it seemed only logical for me to try it out. I used it for about a week until I deemed it fit for purchase. I sauntered on over to the MacRabbit online store and discovered (as pretty much expected) that there was a discount purchase option for current CSSEdit 2 owners (at 49.95€ rather than the full 59.95€). To qualify one has to enter a valid CSSEdit 2 license code, so I dutifully looked mine up in my e-mail archives, copied it, and pasted it into the appropriate text field.
But instead of allowing me to complete the order I was greeted by a message stating that my license code “is not a valid CSSEdit 2 code.” Of course, I knew this claim to be false since this is the same code that works just fine in my still functioning copy of CSSEdit. Just to be sure though I headed on over to the MacRabbit support page where I hoped the license code lookup form would offer some kind of resolution. I entered my e-mail address (which I double-checked in my mail archives to be the one I originally used to register CSSEdit) to have my code sent to me. That didn’t quite work:
“Couldn’t find anything with this e-mail address! Are you sure it is correct?”
The next step was to shoot off an e-mail to the support people:
Subject: Espresso discount for CSSEdit 2 owners
Date: March 24, 2009 22:43:36 EDT
Hi,
I am trying to purchase Espresso via the CSSEdit 2 discount option.
The form, however, is not accepting my license code:
Name: Brian Christensen
Code: (redacted)
It claims this is not a valid CSSEdit 2 license code. Furthermore, I
don’t appear to be in your lost code lookup database either.
Thanks.
Indeed, I sent this on March 24th. Somewhere around three weeks later I was left wondering if MacRabbit even has any support people. But just to be sure, I sent a follow-up on April 6th.
Subject: Re: Espresso discount for CSSEdit 2 owners
Date: April 6, 2009 18:17:59 EDT
A reply would be most appreciated as there are only 2 more days left in
the trial period.
Since I have fit Espresso nicely into my workflow for several projects and its trial period is not of infinite duration, I had to make a choice. Either I could buy it at the full price of 59.95€ and be done with it, or I could partake of the MacHeist 3 bundle to get a license for considerably less than even the discount option I was initially trying to use. I wasn’t originally looking to get the MacHeist bundle since I would rather just directly pay the authors of the one application I actually need. Quality software development is hard work and developing a good application can take an inordinate amount of time, so I don’t mind rewarding such effort by paying a fair price.
Alas, quality software is a package deal. If I am going to pay a quality price I expect a certain basic level of support. It is rather difficult to justify paying full price for a piece of software when the support part of it is not being handled very well (or, seemingly, not being handled at all). Therefore, I went with the MacHeist bundle. The outcome is quite favorable for me as I can continue using Espresso to get work done. I can’t say it is nearly as favorable for MacRabbit’s cashflow.
It is certainly not my intent to bludgeon MacRabbit with this. They make fine software. But they do need to tighten up ship a bit, for their own sake.
Comments Off
March 31, 2009
For several years now I have been using Cyndicate as my RSS feed reader. It is an excellent piece of software, but I have come to realize that I really don’t use any of the features that make the application so unique among its competition. I don’t use any filters, I don’t use ratings, and though I was taking advantage of its persistent architecture by filing interesting articles into various folders for future reference, it is a very rare occasion that I ever go into these archives to re-read anything I put there.
The most important thing I have been wanting for some time is something Cyndicate doesn’t offer right now. And that is the ability to synchronize across multiple devices. In particular I want to be able to check my feeds on my iPhone or MacBook Pro when I am away from my desktop machine. Sometimes I’d like to skim or even read read posts while standing in line.
In short, I have decided to switch to Google Reader for all of my subscriptions. Not content with using the web interface, however, I am trying out EventBox on the Mac side of this; for the iPhone it is Byline. Neither of these applications is really a terribly impressive fit and I will definitely miss Cyndicate’s persistence and overall polish. But for now this looks like a trade-off I am willing to deal with.
Comments Off
September 21, 2008
I can’t remember a time when any one of Adobe’s Mac applications had an interface that felt like it truly belonged on my Mac. I don’t recall the problems being as pronounced in the pre-Mac OS X days, but there were always—at best—annoying quirks to be found. At worst, using their software made me feel like punching my computer screen.
But then Adobe brought their suite of applications to Mac OS X, and things got even worse. And ever since, they’ve spent each successive release screwing up their user experience with remarkable consistency. It’s to the point that the thought of punching my screen isn’t even enough. I want to reach into my Mac and beat the living snot out of every piece of the Adobe Creative Suite 3 I can find.
And, predictably, if the Fireworks CS4 beta is an indicator of what’s going to happen to the rest of the suite, Adobe obviously still doesn’t get it. Sadly, if a company has spent this many decades in the business and continues to utterly fail in this respect, it may be safe to bet they never will get it either.
Because when it comes down to it, I don’t need a window whose title bar is lacking a title and has instead been cluttered with a bunch of toolbar icons and a “mode” pop-up menu. In fact, I don’t even want a bunch of confusing interface “modes” to choose from. I don’t particularly care about throwing the palettes and everything else into one gigantic tabbed window. All of that is nothing more than extraneous fluff that’s detracting attention and resources away from what really needs to be fixed.
It is especially ironic that John Nack cites Panic’s Coda as an example of a single window application, because Panic would never ship something this utterly tasteless (not even as an internal beta, much less a public one). If you’re looking to Panic for inspiration, emulate their attention to detail. The suite’s problem isn’t that it needs a revolutionary new interface concept. Quite the opposite, in fact. The focus needs to be on the little things, because they all add up to one big mess of inconsistency and annoyance.
Perhaps Adobe needs to acquire some semblance of taste before worrying about tabbed windows and monkeying with title bars.
Comments Off
September 12, 2008
Daniel Jalkut brings up some interesting points in his analysis of the new Microsoft ads. But I have to disagree with his fundamental assertion that the ad campaign is “genius.”
Far from it, in fact. For those who haven’t seen them yet, there are two spots out already. In the first, Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld go to a shoe store. In the second, the two live in some random family’s house. Neither ad appears to be actively marketing or selling anything. Jalkut counters this criticism by noting that the purpose is to build Microsoft’s image and brand, to “alter the long-term impression of the company that develops and markets the world’s leading desktop computer operating system.”
This would be fine, if it weren’t for the fact that Microsoft’s current perception is a direct result of its incompetently executed product line. The Zune continues to be a relative failure, seemingly everyone hates Vista, and its successor Windows 11 Windows 7 is, predictably, nowhere in sight. Releasing a lofty series of advertising spots with the goal of showing us some kind of kinder and gentler Microsoft will fall flat on its face without the product teeth to back it.
On the bright side, neither spot feels nor looks cheaply made. Bill Gates is better at acting than most people might expect. And the ads do have some funny moments. But the biggest problem isn’t the artistic quality of these clips. The issue is the deep disconnect going on between the “we’re cool” image that Microsoft is trying to push and the reality of what the company actually is.
Maybe this campaign is actually the signal of a Microsoft rebirth. That is, however, unlikely, especially given that Steve Ballmer is still the boss. Fundamental cultural shifts like this don’t usually happen without an executive shakeup, starting at the top. Some people are comparing these TV spots to Apple’s “Think Different” campaign. Yet they seem to conveniently forget that “Think Different” came onto the stage just as Gil Amelio was leaving it, among many other changes at the company’s core.
Until I see something similar happen at Microsoft, I don’t think this is much different than an artistically well-made Soviet government propaganda piece. And just like people found the same old regime hiding behind those, they will see that behind that pleasant, occasionally funny dialogue between Gates and Seinfeld still stands the same old Microsoft.
In the end, no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, you’re still left with a pig.
(1 comment on this post)