Products
Reviews, prices, trial software
15/09/08 13:06
While we appreciate all the wonderful feedback that we have received via the appstore reviews, I do want to pick a nit or two. First, in my opinion it’s entirely unfair and inappropriate to write a review with a poor rating if you haven’t even tried the product. Typically this is done by two kinds of folks: “firsters” and “too expensivites.”
The first type of person is exemplified by the “first!” review. Someone sees a piece of software with no reviews and decides to get his dubious three minutes of fame.
This is of no value to anyone.
The second is the “i won’t buy this because it costs too much.” First, if it costs too much, feel free not to buy it. But your view of “too much” is not necessarily the same as anyone else’s. And your “review” doesn’t actually review the software on the merits. Perhaps if you actually tried it you’d find that it is amazing software, well worth the $5 the developer asks for.
Of course, we understand that without “trial” versions it is hard for you to judge whether to spend your money on these programs; this is one of the reasons reviews are so important, by the way. Unfortunately, Apple makes it very difficult to produce trial versions; it requires maintaining two different code bases, and negotiating two sets of product approvals from Apple, etc. This is not a cheap proposition for independent software developers.
Because of this, software developers have been forced to lower their prices substantially, so that hesitant buyers will give their software a try. Although we are all now used to iPhone software prices in the single digits, in comparison to every other platform this is a huge bargain. For example, a leading Hearts game on Palm OS and Windows Mobile costs $15. Note that developers are not getting rich at the $4 price point; we’d much rather give away a free version with limited functionality, and then sell copies of the full software at $10 each, with the hope that you’ll find the software worth it.
Now, I’m not saying that complaints about price are always uncalled for; indeed, if you’ve actually tried the software and found it not worth the price, that’s important information for other potential customers. We just ask that everyone refrain from complaining about the price while assigning 1-star when they haven’t even tried the software. If you want the developer to know that the price is too high, go ahead and email them.
And, remember, you can always ask Apple to refund your money if you find our software (or anyone else’s) not worth your hard earned money! We don’t want any unhappy customers!
The first type of person is exemplified by the “first!” review. Someone sees a piece of software with no reviews and decides to get his dubious three minutes of fame.
This is of no value to anyone.
The second is the “i won’t buy this because it costs too much.” First, if it costs too much, feel free not to buy it. But your view of “too much” is not necessarily the same as anyone else’s. And your “review” doesn’t actually review the software on the merits. Perhaps if you actually tried it you’d find that it is amazing software, well worth the $5 the developer asks for.
Of course, we understand that without “trial” versions it is hard for you to judge whether to spend your money on these programs; this is one of the reasons reviews are so important, by the way. Unfortunately, Apple makes it very difficult to produce trial versions; it requires maintaining two different code bases, and negotiating two sets of product approvals from Apple, etc. This is not a cheap proposition for independent software developers.
Because of this, software developers have been forced to lower their prices substantially, so that hesitant buyers will give their software a try. Although we are all now used to iPhone software prices in the single digits, in comparison to every other platform this is a huge bargain. For example, a leading Hearts game on Palm OS and Windows Mobile costs $15. Note that developers are not getting rich at the $4 price point; we’d much rather give away a free version with limited functionality, and then sell copies of the full software at $10 each, with the hope that you’ll find the software worth it.
Now, I’m not saying that complaints about price are always uncalled for; indeed, if you’ve actually tried the software and found it not worth the price, that’s important information for other potential customers. We just ask that everyone refrain from complaining about the price while assigning 1-star when they haven’t even tried the software. If you want the developer to know that the price is too high, go ahead and email them.
And, remember, you can always ask Apple to refund your money if you find our software (or anyone else’s) not worth your hard earned money! We don’t want any unhappy customers!
Welcome!
15/09/08 12:59
Welcome! I’ve added this section to our website as a way of keeping our customers informed as to future product plans, product update plans, and other issues affecting our software and your potential enjoyment of our software.
In this first entry, I want to let you know some things about Hearts, and about another product coming soon.
First, we are aware that a small number of customers are having problems with Hearts; these seem to boil down to reaching a game state where the human player has fewer cards than the other players. I think I’ve found the source of the problem, and I will be submitting the fix in version 1.4. Version 1.3 has already been submitted to Apple, which usually takes about a week to approve an update. However, Apple seems to have recently changed the rules, so there may be additional delays.
Version 1.4 also adds persistent pass direction indicators, cleans up the messages that get displayed, adds a “take remaining cards” button to the options screen, and adds other new features (see “Version Information” for more details).
Several people have requested a “jack of diamonds” option. This option is easy to implement from the player’s perspective, but raises wrinkles in the AI. Each computer opponent now has every decision affected by the possibility of grabbing the jack of diamonds, either during the current trick, or later in the hand. Therefore, we will hold off on implementing this feature until we feel the AI is in better shape. While the AI plays pretty well most of the time, it still makes mistakes. We don’t find that acceptable, and we are adding new decision-making modules and improving the AI all the time.
We’ve also added a new feature that enables you to send us useful information about the program’s datastructures - this should help us determine the source of any future problems.
Also, I wanted to let you know that Spades is coming! I submitted it to the Apple store about a week ago, so it should be approved shortly.
In this first entry, I want to let you know some things about Hearts, and about another product coming soon.
First, we are aware that a small number of customers are having problems with Hearts; these seem to boil down to reaching a game state where the human player has fewer cards than the other players. I think I’ve found the source of the problem, and I will be submitting the fix in version 1.4. Version 1.3 has already been submitted to Apple, which usually takes about a week to approve an update. However, Apple seems to have recently changed the rules, so there may be additional delays.
Version 1.4 also adds persistent pass direction indicators, cleans up the messages that get displayed, adds a “take remaining cards” button to the options screen, and adds other new features (see “Version Information” for more details).
Several people have requested a “jack of diamonds” option. This option is easy to implement from the player’s perspective, but raises wrinkles in the AI. Each computer opponent now has every decision affected by the possibility of grabbing the jack of diamonds, either during the current trick, or later in the hand. Therefore, we will hold off on implementing this feature until we feel the AI is in better shape. While the AI plays pretty well most of the time, it still makes mistakes. We don’t find that acceptable, and we are adding new decision-making modules and improving the AI all the time.
We’ve also added a new feature that enables you to send us useful information about the program’s datastructures - this should help us determine the source of any future problems.
Also, I wanted to let you know that Spades is coming! I submitted it to the Apple store about a week ago, so it should be approved shortly.