Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Features, Developer
The Speed Download - Macheist saga
A while back we posted on the release of Speed Download 5, and that set off a firestorm in the comments. You see, Speed Download 4 was included in the recent Macheist bundle, but the developer Yazsoft was not offering free upgrades for the Macheist purchasers. This despite the fact that anyone who purchased SD 4 directly from Yazsoft between Jan 01, 2008 and Feb 12, 2008 (during which time Macheist ran) was eligible for the free upgrade. Further, Macheist purchasers were led to believe that they were getting full versions of the software included in the bundle. Yazsoft offered Macheist purchasers the same $15 upgrade price that users of SD4 who purchased before Jan 1 are eligible for.
In the aftermath, Yazsoft has twice offered a rationale for their actions, basically arguing that the Macheist deal was only for SD4 which they continue to support. Yazsoft insists that they only promised free updates (within a version number), not free upgrades (to a new version number). When this didn't work they originally tried to placate the Macheist customers with a 2 for 1 deal offering them two licenses of SD5 for the same $15 upgrade price. The brouhaha also brought a response from MacHeist Director John Casasanta accusing Yazsoft of "malicious intent." Perhaps most surprising of all is that there apparently was no contract between Yazsoft and Macheist, the entire thing being settled in informal emails.
Now I purchased the Macheist bundle with my own money and when SD5 was released I did not feel in any way cheated. I figured that I got a good deal on the bundle; I liked SD4 and did not really see the need to upgrade. However, there are aspects of the entire mess that call for some sort of rectification.
First, the SD5 update was pushed down via the automatic updating system, apparently catching many people by surprise when they discovered it was a paid upgrade. Second, the Macheist site made it very clear that purchasers were getting the full versions of the software they were buying, not time-limited or non-upgradeable versions. That being the case, Yazsoft's chief sin in my mind is not in making SD5 a paid upgrade, but treating those who purchased SD4 from Macheist differently than customers who purchased SD4 directly from Yazsoft on the very same day. That just seems unfair. At the same time, it seems a bit of a leap to accuse them of "malicious intent" (though obviously all the relevant details have not been made public).
In their most recent statement Yazsoft has now offered Macheist owners a free copy of SD6 whenever that ships well in the future. I'd also like to see Yazsoft make available a very easy way to downgrade SD5 back to SD4 for anyone who mistakenly upgraded. The lesson of this entire episode is that it's important for everyone to be clear about what they're selling and for customers to be clear about what they're buying. And for this, I place some of the fault on Macheist as well, as their website did not make the mechanics of the sale entirely obvious, particularly about how the sales thresholds worked. At the same time consumers can't expect to get hundreds of dollars worth of software for cheap and then be surprised when the developers want to recoup costs on paid upgrades.
This entire mess was generated by a lack of transparency on the part all the parties involved. In the end, however, I think the charitable conclusion is that these were honest mistakes. Yazsoft themselves could have avoided the problems just by waiting a little longer to release SD5 and thereby not treating the Macheist customers as second class citizens. It will be interesting to see if this tempest in a teapot ends up scuttling future bundle deals of the sort. That would be a shame, since I do think these bundles provide a genuine service to the Mac software community.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 5)
spinxter said 2:32PM on 2-24-2008
Why is everyone singling out Speed Download? iStopMotion also released a paid upgrade mere weeks after MacHeist. Why is nobody complaining about that?
Reply
techmom said 5:19PM on 2-24-2008
Uh.... because we got the new version? As we did w/ Awaken, CoverSutra, and Cha-Ching? Really - most of the developers who participated in MacHeist have been stellar and I will happily purchase their upgrades and other products and steer friends to their apps.
Yazsoft did not treat us as equal customers and I believe MH made it clear to Yazsoft that that was what was expected. So now I don't like Yazsoft. That's all.
spinxter said 5:43PM on 2-24-2008
Ummm... holy crap. Upon further investigation I see that you are correct. I didn't realize they had pushed the upgrade to me. I was just going by the email they sent me offering to sell me the upgrade. My bad.
Now if I could just get the invite to my1password I was promised...
Luis said 2:44PM on 2-24-2008
just want to clarify.. will the free upgrade to SD6 require SD4(MacHeist Bundle) to make the purchased upgrade to SD5 or will it be a from SD4 to SD6 free upgrade?
Reply
kva said 2:48PM on 2-24-2008
Uh, am I the only person who actually read the receipt for the Macheist purchase which says:
"Speed Download must be activated using the provided promo version. This version is the same as the currently released build of Speed Download in every way besides activation, which is required to track promo customers. You can upgrade to new versions using official, non promo releases through Yazsoft.com, or Speed Download's auto updating. We will keep a copy of the promo build available for downloading for six months until July 23rd, 2008. Please activate before then."
That would suggest to me that I could upgrade on my own dime to the new version of SD. But I don't think this led me to believe that it was automatically going to be free (what software upgrade is?) Should the thing have automatically updated to a new version? No--but the old version was still available.
You don't like the software, then fine don't use it--but seems like there is a lot of piling on Yazsoft here for what they claim was a simple misunderstanding with the Macheist folks--and gee it isn't the first time THAT has come up, now is it?
Reply
Greg L said 3:11PM on 2-24-2008
" You can upgrade to new versions using official, non promo releases through Yazsoft.com, or Speed Download's auto updating."
Sounds pretty straightforward to me; you can *upgrade* to *new versions* using auto updating.
Since SD5 was offered through auto updating, it should have been free to MH purchasers, fullstop, sorry, no argument.
Skeevy skeevy skeevy, and I've already deleted the app.
Reply
Rob said 3:32PM on 2-24-2008
Now I think that YazSoft was a little cheap on this. I own SD4 before machiest, so it wasn't what I wanted, but then when this whole version 5 came out I was very upset... It came via a sparkle update, what the F**k, I think that Yazsoft did that on purpose because when in the name of software do you push out a paid upgrade via sparkle. WTF man, anyway I made it known to the developer and he said it wasn't a problem, that we warned via the update that it was a paid upgrade but talk about cheap and dirty, I paid for my update but thinking that this was a microsoft move on Yazsoft's part...
Reply
squiddah said 3:37PM on 2-24-2008
I have had SD for 3 years and have paid for 2 licenses for the program. That being said, I have deleted V5 off of my computers. When the auto pop-up showed that there was a new version (5) and did I want to install i, I clicked "no". I later go to download something and it SD tells me I now have a trial version. I wrote Yazsoft to express my dissapointment with the way the upgrade went against my wishes and their response was basically - take the time to downgrade, but the same thing will happen every time you restart.
I really like the software and I prob. would have upgraded, but I will not be strong-armed into giving them more money just to continue to use their software.
When I try software and like it, I buy it. This experience is making me want to just grab a crack for V5 and be on my way. Shady business practices like this don't deserve to be rewarded.
Reply
Joshua Clayton said 3:40PM on 2-24-2008
talk about being over dramatic. i did the auto-upgrade via SD4 prompts ... realized i would have to pay $15 and then just reinstalled SD4. end of story.
take a damn chill pill.
Reply
rener said 3:42PM on 2-24-2008
In hindsight, it would have been smarter to wait until 30 days after MacHeist ended to release v5, thus putting MacHeight bundle purchasers (of which I was one) on a level field with all other previous purchasers outside the free upgrade window.
PR problems are often the least foreseen but can become the most damaging. Luckily, they can also be handled by good PR.
Reply
Jimmy L. said 3:44PM on 2-24-2008
Yes, you can upgrade from the stand-alone version 4, and not the MacHeist version 4. This is simple economics. As part of Macheist (14 apps), SD costs about $3.57. Stand alone, it's $25. Now, if you were a developer, could you give a lifetime of free upgrades to customers for $3.57? No. I have the MacHeist bundle. I love it. I understand that these are independent, stand-alone, unrestricted apps. There is no promise of upgrades, so I don't expect them. Besides, even if you pay the $15 to upgrade, added to the original $3.57 purchase price, you're still getting a deal. Suck it up, people. We're all adults.
Reply
rener said 3:45PM on 2-24-2008
Oh, and using Software Update to push Upgrades is unethical. Update is for unpaid dot release fixes, not for driving business. If you abuse it, you damage the reputation of the system for everyone.
No one running Apple Software Update on Tiger started downloading Leopard.
Big no no.
Reply
Floggy said 3:50PM on 2-24-2008
Phil Ryu and his snake oil mafia are a pox on the Mac independent dev scene. Boycott these charlatans. Support real, serious developers, not these fly-by-night opportunists.
Reply
David Chartier said 3:50PM on 2-24-2008
I think the only actual mistake or problem here is that SD5 was sent down as an automatic upgrade. That should NEVER be done for any software. An upgrade notice of a new version touting the new features, maybe with a link to the website with more info and download/purchase links, sure, but not overwriting the current version with the adverse affect of forcing the user to upgrade.
MacHeist customers who got a copy of SD4 for what amounts to roughly $3-5 dollars then demanded a free license for the new version, however, are out of their mind. Yea mistake(s) were made here, but we all make mistakes. Mat has a great idea in that Yazsoft could somehow offer a way to easily go back to SD4.
The $15 upgrade price is more than reasonable for MacHeist customers, and I gladly paid it for the new version.
Reply
krye said 3:51PM on 2-24-2008
Sorry, but people have to realize that when you buy software it doesn't mean that you get free updates for life. Sure, if you go from 1.0 to 1.1 to 1.2 etc, then those are free updates because they are incremental changes and/or bug fixes.. But when the software goes to 2.0 or 3.0, then that is a considered a major release and should be a new purchase to the user. It's the software provider's responsibility to bump the rev only for major releases and not soak the user for cash every time they make a small change.
So if SD goes from version 4 to 5 for a charge, then so be it. I think everyone is twisted because they bumped the rev so soon after MacHeist ended.
Reply
david said 3:56PM on 2-24-2008
I'd be willing to absolve Yazsoft in this little mess except for one thing. Back when SpeedDownload 2 was released the company decided that everyone would pay full price for the new version. Naturally we've all become accustomed to upgrades costing less - rewarding the faithful customer and all. There was a firestorm, as you might imagine.
I wrote the developer an email expressing my opinion that at least a small discount should be offered to upgraders. I said that I understood the program was fairly priced but that it didn't seem particularly bright to buck a trend that had become so ingrained in popular computer culture. This advice, I made plain, wasn't just from a customer but from a former shareware author who had always offered a 20% to 40% discount to upgraders.
The email I received in reply shocked me on two levels. First, there was a several paragraph diatribe on cheapskates who don't appreciate the hard work programmers put into their coding and an insulting "keep your nose in your own business, if you were any good you wouldn't be a former shareware author" paragraph to boot. Second, I was given a free license to version 2 with two expectations: a) that I give them a good review on download websites, and b) that I not disclose that I was given a free upgrade. I didn't accept their offer.
In light of this, I'm not inclined to give them a pass. At best, the person (people) behind Yazsoft are as incompetent at running a business as they are competent at coding. At worst they are a bunch of unscrupulous crooks. I don't know which and I don't really care. They've received no money from me since version 1.
Reply
Pradador said 3:58PM on 2-24-2008
It's funny how if they had just waited one more month to release Speed Download 5, there'd be no grounds for complaints.
However, I always thought it was strange for Speed Download to be included in the software package and it seems they did it as SD4's life-cycle was coming to an end so they tried to milk it a bit more before releasing SD5.
Either way, both Yazsoft and customers are at fault here. Yazsoft for trying to work the customers, and the customers for expecting a version update to be free. It's pretty standard practice to have version updates cost money. You got like 10 apps for an incredible price. Stop bitching and enjoy them.
Reply
geochick said 4:05PM on 2-24-2008
I purchased the bundle and wasn't aware of the issue until I upgraded via the auto-update and now SD is asking for registration info that does not work with the update. I think Yazsoft should just offer a free upgrade to version 5 to bundle buyers since we technically bought it between the
Jan 1-Feb 12 date.
Reply
Bob S. said 4:14PM on 2-24-2008
Isn't it weird, Tom, to be enjoying this calm and analytical discussion even as the townsfolk around us are lighting their torches and grabbing their pitchforks? :)
Anyway, on further reflection, Macheist buyers got both a full *version* *and* a full license. What's a license? It lays out the conditions under which you can use the software you bought, and Macheist buyers bought SD4. I agree with you that licenses are more trouble than they're worth. But regardless, typically licenses don't outline or describe the conditions under which future versions of the software will be available.
I know SD4 came, went, and returned as part of the bundle, but don't really know the timing. It looks like the Macheist bundle ended around Jan. 8 or so. So maybe the folks who bought the bundle the last week of the promo have a valid complaint, although Lu's own wording says otherwise. I don't see that anyone else does.
Speaking of which: Incidentally, Mat, since I am an editor, I'll do TUAW's work for free: Here are the factually inaccurate or ambiguous portions of your post that remain.
"the developer Yazsoft was not offering free upgrades for the Macheist purchasers. This despite the fact that anyone who purchased SD 4 directly from Yazsoft between Jan 01, 2008 and Feb 12, 2008 (during which time Macheist ran) was eligible for the free upgrade."
There's no contradiction there, so this is a nonstory in the first place. Again, as I say, maybe the folks who bought Macheist after Jan. 1 have a grumble, but they've already gotten their discount, I'd say.
"Further, Macheist purchasers were led to believe"
Who led them to believe this and how? Quote or show a screenshot here. You're making an affirmative statement that there was an affirmative policy declared by either Macheist or Yazsoft.
"that they were getting full versions of the software included in the bundle. Yazsoft offered Macheist purchasers"
It's been pretty clearly verified that they got full versions.
"Now I purchased the Macheist bundle with my own money"
As opposed to whose?
"the Macheist site made it very clear that purchasers were getting the full versions of the software they were buying, not time-limited or non-upgradeable versions."
Nice try. As noted early, this sentence originally ended with "crippleware," not "time-limited or non-upgradeable versions." And you changed the wording but didn't use the strikethrough and you didn't include an edit history at the end, both of which are TUAW's standard policy, which kind of made me look stupid until I found that Google link in the screenshot. (Ha ha!) "Time-limited" is a red herring here; it has nothing to do with the story. And again you use "full versions," so while you aren't *saying* "crippleware" anymore, you're still *suggesting* it. Everyone agrees that the public version and the Macheist version were identical except for the promotional authorization code, and that means that a feature-complete "full version" absolutely was made available to all.
The only thing in question here is neither the "full version" nor the "full license," both of which users received, but the upgrade policy. And arguably any developer's free to set their own terms there. There's no such thing as a "non-upgradeable version." Any Macheist purchaser can upgrade, wouldn't you say? The only issue is how and for how much.
Now, again speaking as an editor, I know the post has been tagged "Analysis / Opinion" from the start, but those two are useless without perspective, and you can't have perspective without accuracy. It would be nice if you updated this post to make it accurate, and used the strikethrough and edit history features that are part of standard TUAW policy to clarify how.
Reply
Michael Rose said 11:59PM on 2-24-2008
Hi Bob --
You say
"Nice try. As noted early, this sentence originally ended with "crippleware," not "time-limited or non-upgradeable versions." And you changed the wording but didn't use the strikethrough and you didn't include an edit history at the end, both of which are TUAW's standard policy, which kind of made me look stupid until I found that Google link in the screenshot."
I was the editor that made the change you object to, without Mat's knowledge or prior assent. There's no official policy that governs whether we use a strikethrough to indicate changes, but I agree that in this case it would have been helpful.
I felt that the use of the word "crippleware" did not accurately reflect the SpeedDownload product included in the bundle, and that's why I changed the wording. Had I reviewed the story before it went live, I would have made the change in advance; if the after-effect change has caused confusion or anger, my apologies. I did not intend to cast doubt either on Mat's integrity or on the points of view of the commenters.