Put the knife down and take a green herb, dude. (c) Ruffin Bailey 2001-2021

VueScan is a powerful, easy to use program that:
* works with 750 flatbed and film scanners
* runs on Mac OS X, Windows and Linux
* has been downloaded more than 5 million times

Well, I've got a Canon CanoScan FB 620U scanner, which, as far as I'm aware, has never had Mac OS X drivers. It was given to me as a gift by someone who knew I, at that point, used Macs almost exclusively at home. Yes, I got the message. Thuh-ainks, buddy.

Recently, I noticed that my Mac compatible scanner went to storage and never made it back out. Nor could I find it easily when I rolled back the door to the storage garage. *sigh* We were able to put a finger on the CanoScan, and I've been happily using it with my Vista Vostro, even though the scanner didn't, I don't believe, have Vista-specific drivers.

Of course I recently left my laptop when returning from an out of town trip. *sigh again* Having seen the VueScan site before and Googling it up again, I finally bit.

That's a long intro to say that not only is VueScan a fine, functional piece of software that made my scanner work, no problem, with my Macs, it's also precisely the kind of software I'd like to write. That is, this guy has a niche market covered, at times, better than the hardware's own manufacturers. Other similar niche-happy applications are GraphicConverter, Transmit, and Ultra-Edit, all three of which I really enjoy and two of which I've registered (more on that later).

One large difference for VueScan is how well it pushes you towards registration. Instead of a self-promoting watermark on the scans' output, for my 8.5"x11" scan, it put four rows of 2-3 dollar signs ($) in a decently large font on the page, a snippet I've included, above (Note: This image was created by downsampling a cutting from VueScan in GraphicCoverter). Imagining what my recipients might think when I send a copy of my bill along with my payment but with giant dollar signs all over it, I went ahead and registered. If the watermark said, "Please register VueScan" or "This was created with an unregistered version of VueScan" or the like, I couldn't care less. I'm cheap enough I would have lived with that. But why did I put dollar signs all over a copy of my bill? That causes too many questions for me to feel comfortable. And from Hamrick's point of view, what's the real advantage? How many people who read scans are serious customers? Better to force someone who is already trying the app to fork over dough than to get three more nonpaying customers. At least I'm over the edge and my $40 (dang!) is on the way.

Another thing that these four apps have in common is that they all cost a heck of a lot in fields where there are cheap or F/free alternatives performing the same functions. $40 for a scanner driver is nearly enough to be half of the way to purchasing a Mac compatible new scanner. Filezilla is a decent, cross-platform ftp client. Still, the shareware apps are all written well, and VueScan in particular worked for me without a single hitch, no installation needed past copying an application into my Applications folder. I enjoy supporting something so well written -- not fancy, not beautifully intuitive like iLife, but perfectly solid at what it does. These four shareware applications, in the end, are solid enough to be worth the cash. It's as simple as that; as much as I might want to resist, the apps are enough better than their cheaper or free competition that they're worth their prices.

So one final comment before closing: Why haven't I registered one of these apps, namely GraphicCoverter? It's the one I've used the longest, and I've used it for years. Two reasons: First, there's nothing about an unregistered version of GraphicConverter that's annoying enough to make me register, not even a watermark on the files it creates or a feature I need that's disabled, ever. Secondly, it begs me not to register, with a quote from what's ostensibly a user on its site saying that she liked GraphicConverter because she didn't register for years, iirc. I'm getting close to breaking down and finally paying Mr. Lemke for his fine work, work good enough I find that I've never quite made the switch to The Gimp. But he makes it just a touch too easy not to, and that should be a lesson for programmers. I'm of the opinion that the nearly complete lack of registration motivation might have helped GraphicConverter be so ubiquitous on Macs that its sheer popularity has created some registrations (think WinZip in the 90s), but not sure that that necessarily produced more profit.

Labels: business, graphicConverter, shareware

I've blamed Google for not allowing users access to more than one edition of some books online, effectively erasing access to those old versions in a 1984 style that would make Orwell proud. Well, now Softonic, apparently one of Europe's analogs for download.com or versiontracker.com, has pulled a fast one in the opposite direction.

Softonic places themselves between users' access to the files they'd like to donate, and end users to download. It's skillfully arranged. Let's say I release version 1.0 of my software for free, and choose to make it available on Softonic. Now let's say that I release version 2.0 and want to charge, I don't know, $4.99. I pull down all my copies of 1.0 and update my listings online.

Versiontracker.com, as an example, links directly to your site. They serve as a clearinghouse of links. Users search, hopefully (if you're versiontracker) click a few ads, and download directly from the site without ever going there. This seems like a pleasant enough tradeoff. Versiontracker allows you to find my software, and for that they get first crack at showing ads. I can easily halt access to the file since Versiontracker is not mirroring it; it's only on my server.

Softonic never takes down version 1.0. The links to your "mirrors" of the software are gone, but they still have an accessible copy. If 1.0 does a decent job, will people shell out $5 to get the update from you, or will they download from Softonic?

Now, a la used books, you're competing in large part with yourself. Bad? Not necessarily, but it is a pretty clear paradigmatic disconnect. I've often wondered about the potential harm of releasing a to-be-shareware app as a free demo first. You'd likely pick up a few users, and certainly later versions would be sharper, less buggy, and contain more features, but you'd always have to worry about competing with your historical selves. With a digital release, you've essentially created the possibility of there being limitless, all but free, copies of your "old edition."

Taking down your copies solved the Versiontracker issue. But there will always be a few people hosting your file on some wacky ftp site, somewhere. You can't eliminate the production of the old edition; you can only seek to make it more difficult to find -- and therefore, a la the iTunes Music Store where it's often worth $0.99 a track not to have search for a song or worry about viruses, scarity means you'll have more people willing to pay.

Okay, so here's the deal with Softonic. Softonic continues to mirror your file even after you've taken it down. Great. They charge a dollar for a user to download from their mirror. Less great. If you've taken down your old file from your site and done a good job getting it removed from other hosts, you're now in competition directly with Softonic-as-host. They are selling your software for a dollar when you're charging five. Is your upgrade worth the extra dough? If not, and especially in a case like this where the application doesn't offer a demo, Softonic's easily found mirror is awfully tempting.

I'm not sure how I ultimately feel about hosting what were released as freely distributable files. Perhaps in this case it's the PodTube designer's fault for letting out a free 1.0. Though I can't say s/he should've known better, s/he could've, and that's the way the system runs, better or worse. I know I have zero sympathy for those who try to limit the sale of used books, and am against Google's remediation of books into a closely monitored, digital rare book room style end run around copyright. Softonic is doing precisely what I hope Google doesn't, but fear they will.

Softonic is able to [and Google is increasingly putting itself in a position where it could]...

1.) limit access to files in ways we can assume the original author did not intend.
2.) directly profit from this ability to control access
3.) leverage its position from [ad supported] information clearinghouse to information broker.

Perhaps this simply means I'm not for having a new medium influence the distribution of a legacy medium when such a change would benefit predominantly the proverbial fat cats. Regardless, it's an important distunction to make.

title: Put the knife down and take a green herb, dude.	descrip: One feller's views on the state of everyday computer science & its application (and now, OTHER STUFF) who isn't rich enough to shell out for www.myfreakinfirst-andlast-name.com Using 89% of the same design the blog had in 2001.
FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY!!! Back-up your data and, when you bike, always wear white. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Affiliate links in green.
x MarkUpDown is the best Markdown editor for professionals on Windows 10. It includes two-pane live preview, in-app uploads to imgur for image hosting, and MultiMarkdown table support. Features you won't find anywhere else include... MarkUpDown Multiline Table & Bootstrap Grid support. Beautiful Easy Actions that keep the Markdown flowing. HTML paste to paste HTML source into your documents. You've wasted more than $15 of your time looking for a great Markdown editor. Stop looking. MarkUpDown is the app you're looking for. Learn more or head over to the 'Store now!

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
RealBasic Extends -- Hello, kludgey I'm going out of my mind with stuff to do, which usually means I take on yet another project, if only to make sure I take a little time for myself. This time, that's a personal budgeting application made in RealBasic, and boy, does RealBasic have some pokey edges. One is the way that you can extend UI objects. It's insane. You can't make up your own object type, like in Java where MyFancyFrame might extend JFrame and provide a few new methods. Instead, you can extend the objects by creating new methods that act like the belong to the UI object from the start, but, and this is the important part, you can't actually put the methods on the UI objects themselves. Instead, you have to declare the methods in a stand-alone module and ensure that the first parameter is the type of object that it should act, but only act, like it's attached to. So if I want to override the way a cell's rendered in a Listbox (as partially described in this thread and this thread before it, I have to create a module -- let's call it mdlExtensions -- insert the method I want to tack onto the Listbox -- we'll call that PopUpCellChoices -- and have a line like this for params: `extends lb As Listbox, row As Integer, column As Integer, astrChoices() As String` When I actually call the method, which is, again, sitting in its own module, as I might from my Listbox's CellClick event handler, I do it like this: `bOut = me.PopUpCellChoices(row, column, astrChoices)` That's right... it's not mdlExtensions.PopUpCellChoices, but Me., though the method is nowhere near me. In that method, however, "Me" is gone. It's all lb. All I did was obfuscate that I sent "Me" in as lb the Listbox. Why don't I just call `mdlExtensions.PopUpCellChoices(Me, row, column, astrChoices)` I have no idea. In other news, RealBasic's POP3Socket's MIME parsing ability is exactly zero when it comes to UTF-8, which sorta stink0rz. Still, I think I'll shell out for the Personal edition this time. I've been testing RealBasic for years, since OS 9 (maybe before?), and there really isn't any way to create a crossplatform codebase that acts native and has an embedded, SQL-literate database as quickly. Java's great, but I've finally given up on its being a good way to make a app for the masses. RealBasic can apparently even make it to the Mac App Store, so I think I'm going to code up one The Wrong Way (not ugly, just not up to my normal standards of overengineering) and see how difficult it'll be to publish. Should be [mostly] fun, anyhow. Labels: apple, java, rdbms, realbasic, shareware posted by ruffin at 6/22/2011 04:29:00 PM

Thursday, March 18, 2010
Finally forked over for VIm After using VIm for years as my primary professional text editor for web development and programming, I finally made a donation to ICCF Holland for ole Bram. The next day, I received a very nice email thank you in reply. Even if (and I assume so) it's a computer generated email, the note was appreciated. The only application I've paid for in my current at-home development suite (and I've paid for it twice! OS 9 and now X) is Transmit, a rock solid ftp client for OS X that does an excellent job syncing edits in VIm to web servers. It's been well worth the $30 I spent, and is a much better solution than Filezilla or whatever that Duck app is that I've tried on OS X several times. (Can't say I care a whit for Coda, though. Perhaps if they integrated VIm in the same way...) In the past, I've shelled out for Ultra-Edit, Visual SourceSafe, and the VB 6 IDE, though the last two at greatly reduced prices during (legitimate) promotions. I suppose you could include OSes, but that's pushing it. Pretty sure I would have bought those either way. ;^) Soon, I'll shell out for Versions, an OS X svn client that was nearly as intuitive as Visual SourceSafe, something I can't say for any other svn client I've tried. Version control is a key tool in any developer's bag of tricks, and in the long run the $53 I'll spend there will unfortunately pay for itself a few times -- unfortunate because if you're benefitting from version control it's because you would've lost edits without it. /me guilty Otherwise, when doing PHP/MySQL work, all I need is MAMP, which is being supported once again and kicks the doors off of XAMMP, at least on OS X. That's free. For Java, I'm still using Eclipse. Free. And for VB.NET the Express version plus sharpDevelop are just enough to get me by. Both free. So after pulling down as much as I have coding, it was about time to pay up for VIm. If Bram M. wants to send that cash on to Uganda, more power to him. I'm nearly embarrassed to admit I read through much of their literature before donating. I sure didn't ask Panic (the Transmit people) where they were putting their cash before I sent it. I hope the VIm money is headed to Kibaale, but seriously, that's up to Bram. It's a great app, and I'm happy he's helped keep the app up. Labels: ethics, F/free, hats of money, shareware, vim posted by ruffin at 3/18/2010 03:57:00 PM

Sunday, May 11, 2008
Scanning on a Mac, and software the right way VueScan Scanning Software: VueScan is a powerful, easy to use program that: * works with 750 flatbed and film scanners * runs on Mac OS X, Windows and Linux * has been downloaded more than 5 million times Well, I've got a Canon CanoScan FB 620U scanner, which, as far as I'm aware, has never had Mac OS X drivers. It was given to me as a gift by someone who knew I, at that point, used Macs almost exclusively at home. Yes, I got the message. Thuh-ainks, buddy. Recently, I noticed that my Mac compatible scanner went to storage and never made it back out. Nor could I find it easily when I rolled back the door to the storage garage. sigh We were able to put a finger on the CanoScan, and I've been happily using it with my Vista Vostro, even though the scanner didn't, I don't believe, have Vista-specific drivers. Of course I recently left my laptop when returning from an out of town trip. sigh again Having seen the VueScan site before and Googling it up again, I finally bit. That's a long intro to say that not only is VueScan a fine, functional piece of software that made my scanner work, no problem, with my Macs, it's also precisely the kind of software I'd like to write. That is, this guy has a niche market covered, at times, better than the hardware's own manufacturers. Other similar niche-happy applications are GraphicConverter, Transmit, and Ultra-Edit, all three of which I really enjoy and two of which I've registered (more on that later). One large difference for VueScan is how well it pushes you towards registration. Instead of a self-promoting watermark on the scans' output, for my 8.5"x11" scan, it put four rows of 2-3 dollar signs ($) in a decently large font on the page, a snippet I've included, above (Note: This image was created by downsampling a cutting from VueScan in GraphicCoverter). Imagining what my recipients might think when I send a copy of my bill along with my payment but with giant dollar signs all over it, I went ahead and registered. If the watermark said, "Please register VueScan" or "This was created with an unregistered version of VueScan" or the like, I couldn't care less. I'm cheap enough I would have lived with that. But why did I put dollar signs all over a copy of my bill? That causes too many questions for me to feel comfortable. And from Hamrick's point of view, what's the real advantage? How many people who read scans are serious customers? Better to force someone who is already trying the app to fork over dough than to get three more nonpaying customers. At least I'm over the edge and my $40 (dang!) is on the way. Another thing that these four apps have in common is that they all cost a heck of a lot in fields where there are cheap or F/free alternatives performing the same functions. $40 for a scanner driver is nearly enough to be half of the way to purchasing a Mac compatible new scanner. Filezilla is a decent, cross-platform ftp client. Still, the shareware apps are all written well, and VueScan in particular worked for me without a single hitch, no installation needed past copying an application into my Applications folder. I enjoy supporting something so well written -- not fancy, not beautifully intuitive like iLife, but perfectly solid at what it does. These four shareware applications, in the end, are solid enough to be worth the cash. It's as simple as that; as much as I might want to resist, the apps are enough better than their cheaper or free competition that they're worth their prices. So one final comment before closing: Why haven't I registered one of these apps, namely GraphicCoverter? It's the one I've used the longest, and I've used it for years. Two reasons: First, there's nothing about an unregistered version of GraphicConverter that's annoying enough to make me register, not even a watermark on the files it creates or a feature I need that's disabled, ever. Secondly, it begs me not to register, with a quote from what's ostensibly a user on its site saying that she liked GraphicConverter because she didn't register for years, iirc. I'm getting close to breaking down and finally paying Mr. Lemke for his fine work, work good enough I find that I've never quite made the switch to The Gimp. But he makes it just a touch too easy not to, and that should be a lesson for programmers. I'm of the opinion that the nearly complete lack of registration motivation might have helped GraphicConverter be so ubiquitous on Macs that its sheer popularity has created some registrations (think WinZip in the 90s), but not sure that that necessarily produced more profit. Labels: business, graphicConverter, shareware posted by ruffin at 5/11/2008 05:42:00 PM

Monday, June 04, 2007
*Now that's* sharing: Graphic Converter** If you used Mac OS 9 for anything approaching serious web work, you've bumped into Graphic Converter. It really does everything non-graphic design professionals need from their image manipulation program. You also probably didn't pay for it. Though it's mean enough to lock up your entire box for 30 seconds after you've used it a while, the picture here from Graphic Converter's site shows that you've got quite some time before Mr. Lemke is going to be mad at you for doing it. That's awfully nice, and I suppose is part of the community-buliding motivation that used to go with shareware. As i've posted before, this study/experiment, "Why Do People Register, Does Crippling Work, Does Anybody Really Know?", assuming it's legit, seems to make it pretty clear that such altruism doesn't pay. Though such openness might make you the proverbial industry leader, like it has for GraphicConverter and WinZip, I'm not sure it doesn't lose one money. For GC and WZ, I'm tempted to say the openness worked, but it's a very different model that seems less likely to pay off, short to medium term, and even long term for most developers who don't "share" their way to become an industry standard. Hrm, this is starting to sound a little like my reasoning behind the GNG Manifesto. Labels: crippleware, graphicConverter, os9, shareware posted by ruffin at 6/04/2007 03:44:00 PM

Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Softonic's end run around copyright I've blamed Google for not allowing users access to more than one edition of some books online, effectively erasing access to those old versions in a 1984 style that would make Orwell proud. Well, now Softonic, apparently one of Europe's analogs for download.com or versiontracker.com, has pulled a fast one in the opposite direction. Softonic places themselves between users' access to the files they'd like to donate, and end users to download. It's skillfully arranged. Let's say I release version 1.0 of my software for free, and choose to make it available on Softonic. Now let's say that I release version 2.0 and want to charge, I don't know, $4.99. I pull down all my copies of 1.0 and update my listings online. Versiontracker.com, as an example, links directly to your site. They serve as a clearinghouse of links. Users search, hopefully (if you're versiontracker) click a few ads, and download directly from the site without ever going there. This seems like a pleasant enough tradeoff. Versiontracker allows you to find my software, and for that they get first crack at showing ads. I can easily halt access to the file since Versiontracker is not mirroring it; it's only on my server. Softonic never takes down version 1.0. The links to your "mirrors" of the software are gone, but they still have an accessible copy. If 1.0 does a decent job, will people shell out $5 to get the update from you, or will they download from Softonic? Now, a la used books, you're competing in large part with yourself. Bad? Not necessarily, but it is a pretty clear paradigmatic disconnect. I've often wondered about the potential harm of releasing a to-be-shareware app as a free demo first. You'd likely pick up a few users, and certainly later versions would be sharper, less buggy, and contain more features, but you'd always have to worry about competing with your historical selves. With a digital release, you've essentially created the possibility of there being limitless, all but free, copies of your "old edition." Taking down your copies solved the Versiontracker issue. But there will always be a few people hosting your file on some wacky ftp site, somewhere. You can't eliminate the production of the old edition; you can only seek to make it more difficult to find -- and therefore, a la the iTunes Music Store where it's often worth $0.99 a track not to have search for a song or worry about viruses, scarity means you'll have more people willing to pay. Okay, so here's the deal with Softonic. Softonic continues to mirror your file even after you've taken it down. Great. They charge a dollar for a user to download from their mirror. Less great. If you've taken down your old file from your site and done a good job getting it removed from other hosts, you're now in competition directly with Softonic-as-host. They are selling your software for a dollar when you're charging five. Is your upgrade worth the extra dough? If not, and especially in a case like this where the application doesn't offer a demo, Softonic's easily found mirror is awfully tempting. I'm not sure how I ultimately feel about hosting what were released as freely distributable files. Perhaps in this case it's the PodTube designer's fault for letting out a free 1.0. Though I can't say s/he should've known better, s/he could've, and that's the way the system runs, better or worse. I know I have zero sympathy for those who try to limit the sale of used books, and am against Google's remediation of books into a closely monitored, digital rare book room style end run around copyright. Softonic is doing precisely what I hope Google doesn't, but fear they will. Softonic is able to [and Google is increasingly putting itself in a position where it could]... 1.) limit access to files in ways we can assume the original author did not intend. 2.) directly profit from this ability to control access 3.) leverage its position from [ad supported] information clearinghouse to information broker. Perhaps this simply means I'm not for having a new medium influence the distribution of a legacy medium when such a change would benefit predominantly the proverbial fat cats. Regardless, it's an important distunction to make. Labels: copyright, shareware posted by ruffin at 2/06/2007 02:35:00 PM

<< Older \| Newer >>