Monday, 21st September 2009 at 5:24am about 
General
GeneralThis post is a followup to my prior post announcing PictureSync's end-of-life; now that Snow Leopard is out and folks are checking if PictureSync supports it (as of yesterday—it does) and discovering PictureSync is now free…
As a consumer I understand how one might feel, when discovering something you bought is being given away—for free! As a software programmer, it's another story.
To be clear this is not a rant about how some users expect things for free, indeed PictureSync users have been very supportive, but rather just a post that I hope shifts some fog from around the costs of software.
Now the following isn't necessarily true of all software by any means, but I imagine it is for a lot of 'shareware' (micro) developers. With bigger software enterprises you are far more likely to be paying primarily for the time that employed programmers put into a product, just as with most traditional industries.
Whereas a small developer (and indeed other 'artisans') will often put in their time with no expectation of getting 'paid' for it (rightly, or more likely, wrongly). Developing products is fun, and we learn stuff, which seems like good motivation…
But when you purchase software you are paying for more than the time that went into a 'static' product…that is just waiting around for you to use it. It needs supporting and updating, quite unlike most tactile products. The model of doing R&D then production, and having a huge pile of widgets you can then sell for the next period, just doesn't apply to software. It wouldn't last two days.
You may be familiar with the concept of the enterprise support contract, or the extended warranty? On the small scale you are paying for equally non-tactile 'potential' value: to be listened to by developers (i.e. feature requests); to expect a response (i.e. when you have issues); and be reassured that the product should continue functioning despite ever-changing software environments (i.e. compatibility updates). You may or may not use—or get—these, but nonetheless someone is spending time reading emails, forum posts, Apple's release notes, and the like; ideally also responding to and actioning them of course.
To say nothing of shelling out for things like Apple's developer conference. In PictureSync's case Snow Leopard compatibility was pushed out three weeks after its release, it could have been much longer. If PictureSync had still been paid and there was a larger user-base, there would have been more expectation of getting an update 'on time'. That would have meant being aware of the required changes in advance. Not cheap—in fact that would have accounted for more than $4 (~20%) of the licence cost (it's an annual cost, and the PictureSync licence never enforced any upgrades). That's just one cost for ancillary (non production time) benefits to the user.
A crunchpoint is reached when these costs cease to be affordable to be of benefit to most users, for all users are contributing to the costs through a licence fee (much like [nationalised] health insurance). If this point is passed, a new system is required. In the case of PictureSync, I did away with the 'health plan' and users are regrettably now left to fend for themselves and support their own workflows. PictureSync may continue working, but should it fail or crash in future, there'll be no warranty to keep it on the road. (As I have mentioned previously I will be maintaing PictureSync 'free', until something better comes along…)
What should you expect of free software? Someone has put unpaid time into developing something they're letting you use for free. You shouldn't expect anything, be it an email response to a 'thank you' (definitely appreciated though), let lone a 'why doesn't it work with widget x'.
So when a program goes free, you loose these benefits that were previously available at a cost. In the case of a cross-over to free however there is definitely a point where purchasers will have had expectations cut short, and this is why it's necessary to offer refunds (as a reminder, I am honouring refunds for purchases after November '08), and provide some limited maintenance going forward. Tis ensures use of the product is not cut off entirely before a user can adapt to a new workflow.
Open source software (OSS) meanwhile is another matter. It doesn't follow the 'capitalist' model, and instead hopes (not expects) everyone will contribute something to the project such that everyone gains. The key programmers contribute the core code, potentially gaining fame, experience and perhaps even paid gigs (sounds good!). Other programmers contribute fixes, get to use the software, and perhaps benefit from interacting with peers in the community. Whilst users aren't getting a free ride either, and should report bugs, evangelise and promote the product, write documentation and so on. Or at the very least contribute to the product's success (1 more download!).
Like someone once said, there is no such thing as a free lunch; even though it may appear otherwise, someone had to pay for it, or its production, whether it was with some money or some sweat.
A lesson I learnt with PictureSync, is that I assumed PictureSync's licence was consideration for time invested in the product up to each release, as a consumer would also, but without fully realising the costs of ongoing support.
As a consumer I understand how one might feel, when discovering something you bought is being given away—for free! As a software programmer, it's another story.
To be clear this is not a rant about how some users expect things for free, indeed PictureSync users have been very supportive, but rather just a post that I hope shifts some fog from around the costs of software.
Now the following isn't necessarily true of all software by any means, but I imagine it is for a lot of 'shareware' (micro) developers. With bigger software enterprises you are far more likely to be paying primarily for the time that employed programmers put into a product, just as with most traditional industries.
Whereas a small developer (and indeed other 'artisans') will often put in their time with no expectation of getting 'paid' for it (rightly, or more likely, wrongly). Developing products is fun, and we learn stuff, which seems like good motivation…
But when you purchase software you are paying for more than the time that went into a 'static' product…that is just waiting around for you to use it. It needs supporting and updating, quite unlike most tactile products. The model of doing R&D then production, and having a huge pile of widgets you can then sell for the next period, just doesn't apply to software. It wouldn't last two days.
You may be familiar with the concept of the enterprise support contract, or the extended warranty? On the small scale you are paying for equally non-tactile 'potential' value: to be listened to by developers (i.e. feature requests); to expect a response (i.e. when you have issues); and be reassured that the product should continue functioning despite ever-changing software environments (i.e. compatibility updates). You may or may not use—or get—these, but nonetheless someone is spending time reading emails, forum posts, Apple's release notes, and the like; ideally also responding to and actioning them of course.
To say nothing of shelling out for things like Apple's developer conference. In PictureSync's case Snow Leopard compatibility was pushed out three weeks after its release, it could have been much longer. If PictureSync had still been paid and there was a larger user-base, there would have been more expectation of getting an update 'on time'. That would have meant being aware of the required changes in advance. Not cheap—in fact that would have accounted for more than $4 (~20%) of the licence cost (it's an annual cost, and the PictureSync licence never enforced any upgrades). That's just one cost for ancillary (non production time) benefits to the user.
A crunchpoint is reached when these costs cease to be affordable to be of benefit to most users, for all users are contributing to the costs through a licence fee (much like [nationalised] health insurance). If this point is passed, a new system is required. In the case of PictureSync, I did away with the 'health plan' and users are regrettably now left to fend for themselves and support their own workflows. PictureSync may continue working, but should it fail or crash in future, there'll be no warranty to keep it on the road. (As I have mentioned previously I will be maintaing PictureSync 'free', until something better comes along…)
What should you expect of free software? Someone has put unpaid time into developing something they're letting you use for free. You shouldn't expect anything, be it an email response to a 'thank you' (definitely appreciated though), let lone a 'why doesn't it work with widget x'.
So when a program goes free, you loose these benefits that were previously available at a cost. In the case of a cross-over to free however there is definitely a point where purchasers will have had expectations cut short, and this is why it's necessary to offer refunds (as a reminder, I am honouring refunds for purchases after November '08), and provide some limited maintenance going forward. Tis ensures use of the product is not cut off entirely before a user can adapt to a new workflow.
Open source software (OSS) meanwhile is another matter. It doesn't follow the 'capitalist' model, and instead hopes (not expects) everyone will contribute something to the project such that everyone gains. The key programmers contribute the core code, potentially gaining fame, experience and perhaps even paid gigs (sounds good!). Other programmers contribute fixes, get to use the software, and perhaps benefit from interacting with peers in the community. Whilst users aren't getting a free ride either, and should report bugs, evangelise and promote the product, write documentation and so on. Or at the very least contribute to the product's success (1 more download!).
Like someone once said, there is no such thing as a free lunch; even though it may appear otherwise, someone had to pay for it, or its production, whether it was with some money or some sweat.
A lesson I learnt with PictureSync, is that I assumed PictureSync's licence was consideration for time invested in the product up to each release, as a consumer would also, but without fully realising the costs of ongoing support.
Tuesday, 9th June 2009 at 1:33pm about PictureSync
PictureSyncPictureSync for Mac in its current form is now officially end-of-life. What this means:
Licence holders: if and when a new version of PictureSync is released, you will be offered a discount on a licence for that new version. If you bought a licence recently and PictureSync is not working for you, you may request a refund (be sure to mention your payment reference number).
On paper PictureSync is quite ambitious. One application to handle any user's needs, regardless of photo organiser and service provider—super! But in practice, although for the majority of users it fulfils their needs well, there's feature sprawl and a rather inappropriate code platform supporting it (AppleScript Studio, with Cocoa sprinkles) resulting in some users hitting un-resolvable hurdles. Furthermore PictureSync has a split personality with a strong disparity amongst the types of users, spanning from consumers to professionals. Together this has lead to a heavy testing and support burden.
The function divergence came about shortly after the first version. Some of you may remember that it just uploaded from iView MediaPro to Flickr. Simple—for a specific workflow. Later I added Webshots, and with it came throngs of users who didn't use MediaPro, or even iPhoto. Thus the single focus was lost as PictureSync needed to start providing thumbnail previews and annotation editing capabilities. To compound this, I'm not really a programmer and had negligible interest in either learning Cocoa, or pursuing leads to find suitable partners or investors that would enable a complete redevelopment of PictureSync. I do however still believe my vision for PictureSync's future (aka Lumiere) is viable.
In the past year or two I became somewhat distracted by other projects, and PictureSync's support and development have suffered. I am now embarking on a new web-based project, which may or may not leave me time to continue with PictureSync, so it would be wrong for me to keep it on life support as it is.
It's not the end-of-the-line. I rely on PictureSync myself (both via drag and drop, and with Expression Media) so it's not going away unless someone else comes up with something that works the way I need…but right now I must re-focus.
I have not yet decided what will happen to PictureSync for Windows and the .NET Client Framework.
- service provider plug-ins will be maintained where reasonable
- all functionality is free
- no further support is available
Licence holders: if and when a new version of PictureSync is released, you will be offered a discount on a licence for that new version. If you bought a licence recently and PictureSync is not working for you, you may request a refund (be sure to mention your payment reference number).
Background
I've really enjoyed working on PictureSync since it's initial inception in late 2004, and in the years since was able to introduce what I consider to be a few innovations that I hope have made it easier for its users to upload the many millions of images that they have. Thanks must certainly go to those users who supported the development by purchasing licences, and those providers who have supported and promoted it to their users.On paper PictureSync is quite ambitious. One application to handle any user's needs, regardless of photo organiser and service provider—super! But in practice, although for the majority of users it fulfils their needs well, there's feature sprawl and a rather inappropriate code platform supporting it (AppleScript Studio, with Cocoa sprinkles) resulting in some users hitting un-resolvable hurdles. Furthermore PictureSync has a split personality with a strong disparity amongst the types of users, spanning from consumers to professionals. Together this has lead to a heavy testing and support burden.
The function divergence came about shortly after the first version. Some of you may remember that it just uploaded from iView MediaPro to Flickr. Simple—for a specific workflow. Later I added Webshots, and with it came throngs of users who didn't use MediaPro, or even iPhoto. Thus the single focus was lost as PictureSync needed to start providing thumbnail previews and annotation editing capabilities. To compound this, I'm not really a programmer and had negligible interest in either learning Cocoa, or pursuing leads to find suitable partners or investors that would enable a complete redevelopment of PictureSync. I do however still believe my vision for PictureSync's future (aka Lumiere) is viable.
In the past year or two I became somewhat distracted by other projects, and PictureSync's support and development have suffered. I am now embarking on a new web-based project, which may or may not leave me time to continue with PictureSync, so it would be wrong for me to keep it on life support as it is.
Forwards
Without hypothesising about the future too much, I do intend to release an open-source framework, upon which I would build new applications and tools to supersede PictureSync, but each would be more focused on a specific workflow.It's not the end-of-the-line. I rely on PictureSync myself (both via drag and drop, and with Expression Media) so it's not going away unless someone else comes up with something that works the way I need…but right now I must re-focus.
Windows
This is another story. In 2006 I decided to invest (in as much as I could) into PictureSync myself, so I set off for Bangalore and hired some C# guys to develop a new Windows version. (I never managed to get Mac guys, otherwise the Mac story would be different!) The result has a pretty solid code base and potential, in fact I have an unreleased version with online photo browsing enabled. However as I have ceased offering software development to clients I no longer have a Windows developer on board to further it.I have not yet decided what will happen to PictureSync for Windows and the .NET Client Framework.
Updates
Stay tuned by following PictureSync on Twitter, or subscribe to the RSS feed. You may also follow myself on Twitter.Saturday, 13th December 2008 at 6:21am about PictureSync
PictureSync
Deck the halls with boughs of holly, tra-la-la la, 'tis the season to be jolly…and in the sprit of well-wishing and gift-giving (it's the thought that counts*), PictureSync licences will be free for all on Christmas day!
On Christmas day (wherever you are) simply launch PictureSync, choose 'Licence…' from the PictureSync menu and then click 'Licence Details'.
The licence will remove the limit on the number of accounts you can use at once, and is valid for use with Pro apps (Aperture/xMedia).
(* Especially if it's a genuine locally-sourced sustainable thought so sayeth the preacher!)
On Christmas day (wherever you are) simply launch PictureSync, choose 'Licence…' from the PictureSync menu and then click 'Licence Details'.
The licence will remove the limit on the number of accounts you can use at once, and is valid for use with Pro apps (Aperture/xMedia).
(* Especially if it's a genuine locally-sourced sustainable thought so sayeth the preacher!)
Wednesday, 10th December 2008 at 2:47pm about Webshots
WebshotsThis update fixes some errant bugs when used with iPhoto that could result in an error after launch, handling of .wb1 files, plus some other minor issues. It updates the logo and icon to match Webshots' new branding. [Details and Download]
As an addendum, Webshots have now realised that WBZ Helper bypasses the encryption on their Pro shots (that are licenced from suppliers who require that they be protected in this manner) in order to allow them to be used by Mac OS X's default screen saver and desktop background. At best this means that WBZ Helper will no longer be promoted directly by them, at worst it may mean WBZ Helper may have the ability to process Pro shots removed.
As WBZ Helper is currently the only solution for Mac users to use Webshots' Pro shots as their screen saver or desktop, I hope that the latter does not happen, but a dedicated screensaver module for Pro shots could be created by them within the licencing restrictions, as is done on Windows, and some other compromise may be reached to protect the interests of the photographers and agencies whose work is used by them, and enjoyed by you as a result.
For now, this update will let you continue enjoying your downloads from Webshots on your Mac.
[UPDATE 13th Dec.] Webshots are now actively looking at developing a new Mac client!
As an addendum, Webshots have now realised that WBZ Helper bypasses the encryption on their Pro shots (that are licenced from suppliers who require that they be protected in this manner) in order to allow them to be used by Mac OS X's default screen saver and desktop background. At best this means that WBZ Helper will no longer be promoted directly by them, at worst it may mean WBZ Helper may have the ability to process Pro shots removed.
As WBZ Helper is currently the only solution for Mac users to use Webshots' Pro shots as their screen saver or desktop, I hope that the latter does not happen, but a dedicated screensaver module for Pro shots could be created by them within the licencing restrictions, as is done on Windows, and some other compromise may be reached to protect the interests of the photographers and agencies whose work is used by them, and enjoyed by you as a result.
For now, this update will let you continue enjoying your downloads from Webshots on your Mac.
[UPDATE 13th Dec.] Webshots are now actively looking at developing a new Mac client!
Wednesday, 23rd July 2008 at 2:09pm about PictureSync
PictureSyncWant to check out and help test what is best described as PictureSync-in-a-cloud? Got an iPhone or Nokia N-series? Want to upload to services PictureSync doesn't support yet like Blogger, Picasa, Pikeo, Phanfare, Tumblr, TypePad, Wordpress or YouTube?
Click this link and signup for Pixelpipe. Note that this link is restricted to a small number of signups, but if you have a licenced copy of PictureSync, you may also send feedback from the Help menu and I'll send you your own invite.
What is Pixelpipe? It's a web-service that takes your uploads from disparate applications (such as our own iPhone application, or any third-party Flickr API compatible application) and sends them to your preferred photosharing and blog providers. We connect it all together.
You can use it with PictureSync or any other suitable upload plugin/application. If you're wondering how this impacts PictureSync I'll post about that soon, or for more background see my blog post on metaverse.
It's early days yet and we're working towards adding a lot more supported applications and services, plus functionality akin to what you can currently find in PictureSync itself.
Click this link and signup for Pixelpipe. Note that this link is restricted to a small number of signups, but if you have a licenced copy of PictureSync, you may also send feedback from the Help menu and I'll send you your own invite.
What is Pixelpipe? It's a web-service that takes your uploads from disparate applications (such as our own iPhone application, or any third-party Flickr API compatible application) and sends them to your preferred photosharing and blog providers. We connect it all together.
You can use it with PictureSync or any other suitable upload plugin/application. If you're wondering how this impacts PictureSync I'll post about that soon, or for more background see my blog post on metaverse.
It's early days yet and we're working towards adding a lot more supported applications and services, plus functionality akin to what you can currently find in PictureSync itself.