Filed under: Software, Universal Binary
PithHelmet not going Universal any time soon
The
developer of PithHelmet, an ad blocking addon
for Safari, doesn't have an
Intel Mac and isn't planning on getting one any time soon. Therefore he can't test a Universal version of
PithHelmet.He does say that he would think about getting an Intel Mac if he sold enough registrations of PithHelmet (at ten bucks a pop) to cover the cost.
Consider this a public service notice if you are a big fan of PithHelmet, register it.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jmhandy said 12:24PM on 2-03-2006
why should anyone get a product they don't know about to give some they don't know enough money to buy something they should want if their primary goal is to create future software for a particular machine.
I think they are using Universal as tool to get noticed. To bad not enough people care about his product that he need panhandle using a fancy "Universal" sign.
I haven't had a pop in years (at least two) I use safari's built-in pop-up blocker. No add-on needed!
Reply
Jon Hendry said 12:28PM on 2-03-2006
Lame.
He's in Palo Alto. If he's a Select-level registered developer with ADC, he has access to Apple's compatibility lab, where he could test his app on Intel until the cows come home. Or two times a month, whichever comes first.
If he's not Select-level member, he could be for just $500, which is far less than the cost of a MacBook Pro.
Reply
Dave said 12:50PM on 2-03-2006
CONTRIBUTE!! I did, becuase PH is one of those apps that, until you try it, you don't know what you're missing. Ad-free browsing is a wonderful thing.
Reply
George said 12:53PM on 2-03-2006
I'm perfectly fine using adblock.css in Safari (yet), thanks.
Reply
henrrrik said 1:03PM on 2-03-2006
He did the same thing when Tiger (and Safari 2.0) came out IIRC.
Reply
DanMacMan said 1:22PM on 2-03-2006
Screw that. I use an optimized Camino with the free CamiTools prefpane. Does everything PithHelmet does and more.
Reply
Snowdog said 1:28PM on 2-03-2006
You can check out Safariblock instead.
It does the same thing, easier to use, already a universal binary, and its free.
http://fsb.mackb.net/
Reply
b3studios said 2:39PM on 2-03-2006
PH is something that you don't appreciate until you've used it for a while, then don't.
It took a few days after the last safari upgrade for the new PH to come out, and I thought that I was going crazy with all the ads and crap I saw. CNN and MacRumors looked like different (horrible) sites!
Hey, I've already donated. So I hope he gets that Intel Machine (not that it really matters to me, i've just recently bought a PowerBook, so no need for Universal Binaries for me, for a while at least)
Reply
Patrick Schultz said 2:57PM on 2-03-2006
I use Saft for add blocking - works like a charm and does many many more useful things to your browsing experience.
Reply
Henry said 4:41PM on 2-03-2006
Couldn't he just have XCode compile it as a universal binary, and then let people download it for testing?
Reply
Michael said 9:18PM on 2-03-2006
Who wants to create a universal knock off and teach this lazy developer a lesson?
Reply
GPSNavX said 3:21AM on 2-04-2006
Lame. Developers have had access to development tools for Mac OS X Intel since last summer.
Reply
Peter van Impelen said 5:28AM on 2-04-2006
Info for Panther ( 10.3.9. ) users only :
From mail correspondence with the developer I can confirm that PithHelmet 2.4.2 (v65 ) is not compatible with the latest ( Panther ) Safari upgrade to 1.3.2 and therefore will not work ;(
No compatible version will be released but anyone is encouraged to hack PithHelmet 2.4.2 to make Safari 1.3.2. recognize it. The developer himself now runs Tiger only and is thus unable to test Panther compatibilty ...
Pity, it's my all time favourite Safari plugin, so I've not upgraded my Safari yet.
Besides, Tiger offers absolutely nothing I'm not already able to do with Panther.
Reply
BJ said 8:27AM on 2-04-2006
You people griping at the developer are a real embarrassment to serious Mac users. Here's a guy who does software development in his spare time, who makes a great, useful little tool, and does a good job supporting it. As a hobby, I remind you.
$2000 for new hardware is a lot of money to spend on a hobby...yes, even if you live in Palo Alto, Mr. Hendry. He's under no obligation to make his software Intel-compatible, so all he's done is to lay out his condition for doing so -- that enough people register the product to cover the cost of the hardware required to produce it.
First, unless I miss my guess, this is not substantially different from the way most businesses operate. The prospect of future profit must justify current expenditures. If it doesn't, well, it'd be a shame to lose PithHelmet, but you can't expect the guy to drop 2 grand just to make you happy. Maybe you'd like to just create "a universal knock off" instead. Since it's so easy to do.
Second, jmhandy, no one is asking you to buy a product you don't know anything about. All he's asking is that if you use and like PithHelmet, you pay for it. Lots of developers do this. You know, shareware and all. All this guy has done is be explicit about what your registration fees will be used for.
Also, why are you so pissed off about that? For all you know, that copy of Utility X you registered paid for a month's subscription to the Spice Channel. At least here you know what you're getting.
Michael, being unwilling to spend extra money with no prospect of serious return is not "lazy." It might, if you're a rude and uncharitable sort, be called "cheap." I call it "smart." Maybe the guy has bills to pay with the money you're asking him to drop on hardware. GPSNavX, don't be dense...having the development tools is patently not the same as having the hardware to test on. And allowing users to download alphas to test is a poor, poor development plan.
Finally, if you like and use some other tool (which I will guarantee you doesn't have all of PH's functionality, but that's your lookout), fine. Why do you feel the need to come around and berate this guy for laying out very plainly what is needed for him to move his tool forward to Intel? Why do you care? Is your life so empty that it has to be defined by what you detest? Why not spend your energy encouraging the developers of the software you like to add features to make it the half of what PH is?
For the record, I have no dog in this fight. I don't use PH because I don't have the need, though I do recommend it to clients who have a need that it'll solve. IMO, it's a best of breed tool. That said, I think it's sad when a bunch of juvenile ankle-biters take it on themselves to slag off a good developer with good product, just because they feel slighted by a perfectly reasonable request.
Reply
Douglas said 11:19AM on 2-04-2006
The development tools for OS X Intel included the transisition kit. This kit included a preproduction Mac running OS X Intel. $995. So yes there was hardware to test on long ago. And those who stepped up to the plate and purchased the transition kit were rewarded with a new Intel iMac.
Reply
Jacques Lema said 12:38PM on 2-04-2006
You certainly can't force a developer to work for free. That said, if this is a project written using Xcode he could just compile the intel version and see if it works (ask someone with access to an intel mac to check it).
Most of the time cocoa apps just need to be recompiled and it works perfectly. Just change the target SDK to universal, select Intel+PowerPC and rebuild. Since this is kind of a hack on Safari it might be different though...
Reply
None said 7:19PM on 2-04-2006
You people sicken me. If making such an amazing app is so easy, why don't you do it. You develop the app and then justify plunking down $2000. For nothing. Put yourself in this poor guy's shoes for once in your life.
Everyone is an expert.
Reply
BJ said 7:37PM on 2-04-2006
The development tools for OS X Intel included the transisition kit.
Sure. If you're an official Apple Developer. On the other hand, if you're just a guy who writes code, and maybe doesn't use Apple Developer Tools (or :::gasp::: uses the free ones on the Tools CD that Apple sells with the OS), maybe you don't have a grand to drop on a kit you don't need that will later give you a computer you don't need.
Quit trying to blame the developer for making what is essentially a business decision. If you want the product for Intel, register the current version.
Reply
penginkun said 11:20PM on 2-04-2006
"Ad-free browsing is a wonderful thing."
Too true. Using Firefox, AdBlock and the FilterG blocklist, I never have to see an ad or one of those damned sitemeter graphics, much less flash ads and popunders. For FREE.
There are plenty of other Safari plugins that will block ads though. I used to use PithHelmet when it was free (yes, I'm a cheap SOB-so sue me) but when he started charging, I moved to Firefox. Since then I've come to appreciate Firefox's manifold charms. But when I need to use Safari (and there are times when it's handy) I use Safari Stand.
Just go over to http://www.pimpmysafari.com/ and discover the joy of ad-free browsing.
PithHelmet's author is indeed under no obligation to provide a universal binary. At this point in time the number of MacIntels out there is insignificant. Eventually he'll upgrade, and then maybe he'll update PithHelmet-assuming there's any demand for it by that time. What this REALLY looks like is an attempt to get a free computer...
Reply
None said 11:31PM on 2-04-2006
To the above poster: PH is free.
Reply