Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Little Snitch Mini

obdev.at

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 276 posts

Re: Little Snitch Mini

#221

Post by wepple »

guessmyname wrote: post #85

I've been using Little Snitch for years, and it's probably the most important software on my computer. However, I've noticed a problematic trend in modern software development: developers are using the same hostname to serve both functional and non-functional web APIs. For example, let's say that Apple's Xcode sends harmless data to their telemetry service at telemetry.apple.test. Even though the data is anonymous, I…

> Could they please implement an option to view the raw HTTP request in the alert window,

This would be very, very hard to do well. First, for anything that doesn’t use standard libraries for TLS it’s simply not possible. And for things that do, you’re putting this software in a phenomenally trusted position. And then actually maintaining and using a deny/allow list based on something more granular than host:port will be so high that it’s a 0.1% of users type feature.

Negative RoI

Re: Little Snitch Mini

#222

Post by daneel_w »

hayst4ck wrote: post #79
daneel_w wrote: post #73

I bought Little Snitch long ago but managed to squander my license a couple of years later. Mini is unfortunately a subscription app, which is something I these days consider a hostile/unfriendly business pattern. I won't be going back. LuLu is a free alternative.

I generally agree with you so I looked it up. In-App Purchases: Yearly Subscription $13.49 Monthly Subscription $1.49 That's surprisingly modest. 3-4 years of subscription approximately being equal to a license sounds reasonable. The real question is, is little snitch rent seeking? Given what happened after Catalina, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt at the moment. Paying for updates before receiving them def…

>"That's surprisingly modest. 3-4 years of subscription approximately being equal to a license sounds reasonable."

To me it's not modest, because I don't plan to stop using the software after just 3-4 years.

Re: Little Snitch Mini

#223

Post by zamnos »

foooorsyth wrote: post #211
mrzool wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just release a new version of the app at full price. Like Silvio Rizzi has been doing with Reeder for 5 major versions since 2010, pretty successfully.

So you litter the App Store with N + 1 versions of your app — where N is the number of major versions you’ve released plus the subscription version for non-enterprise end users. I mean sure, that may work, but it’s really ugly and it’ll probably confuse end users when they search for your app. Apple should account for this model in a better way.

I searched the app store and was only able to find "Reeder 5". As someone who hasn't purchased 4, it doesn't show up, so new users aren't confused. Old users are presumably able to figure out that the idea that the bigger number is the one they want.

As for "littering" Apple's app store, it's just rows in a database, of which there are millions. Waste sucks, but we're not talking about a meaningful amount here.

Re: Little Snitch Mini

#224

Post by Terretta »

jtbayly wrote: post #215
foooorsyth wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or by just charging full freight again But is this possible with a one-time-full-price app in the App Store? It’s not, right? Once someone pays for your app, they get all updates forever. I think that’s what the person you were replying to was getting at. Basically, there are 3 major purchase models for software: 1) I’m buying a forever license 2) I’m buying this major version only 3) I’m subscribing to this softwa…

Some devs make each major version its own app in the App Store. It has drawbacks, I suppose, but it works.

See e.g. 1Password 7, 1Password 8.

See the apps like PDF Expert from Readdle Docs.

See ... no need to itemize, as tons of successful app vendors make this work. It's not a real problem.

Re: Little Snitch Mini

#225

Post by Terretta »

alexvoda wrote: post #213
foooorsyth wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or by just charging full freight again But is this possible with a one-time-full-price app in the App Store? It’s not, right? Once someone pays for your app, they get all updates forever. I think that’s what the person you were replying to was getting at. Basically, there are 3 major purchase models for software: 1) I’m buying a forever license 2) I’m buying this major version only 3) I’m subscribing to this softwa…

This is just one more reason 3'rd party stores should exist.

If you think corporations will buy from the third party store that isn't built into the Apple Business Manager (plus MDM of choice) that lets you open shrink-wrapped Macs and hand them to the employee with all their apps self-installed, think again.

Re: Little Snitch Mini

#226

Post by [deleted] »

foooorsyth wrote: post #211
mrzool wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just release a new version of the app at full price. Like Silvio Rizzi has been doing with Reeder for 5 major versions since 2010, pretty successfully.

So you litter the App Store with N + 1 versions of your app — where N is the number of major versions you’ve released plus the subscription version for non-enterprise end users. I mean sure, that may work, but it’s really ugly and it’ll probably confuse end users when they search for your app. Apple should account for this model in a better way.

[deleted]

Re: Little Snitch Mini

#227

Post by jzb »

torstenvl wrote: post #135
jzb wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think influencers, sorry, “the enthusiastic” tend to vastly overestimate the value of word of mouth recommendations vs recurring revenue.

How did neglecting enthusiastic users work out for, say, Firefox's market share?

Those are massively different scenarios. Off the top of my head:

- Mozilla doesn't derive its revenue directly from users. - Mozilla is/was competing with a corporation with vastly more resources on every level. More engineering resources, ability to leverage other parts of its business to promote/favor Chrome, and fairly direct financial control over Mozilla. - Mozilla's wrong moves aren't related to asking people to pay - they have at various times alienated or disappointed developers and end users.

Also worth noting that Firefox has artificially been blocked from competing on iOS (as has Chrome, but Google has its own mobile OS...) - so that's been a factor in their declining share that has little to nothing to do with their "neglecting" anybody.

There is value in advocates, but I'll say again: it tends to be overstated. And I hardly ever see self-professed enthusiastic users actually arguing for price increases / changes to support the development that generates the products.

It would be so refreshing to see self-professed enthusiastic users actually lobbying for people to pay for what they use instead of constantly tearing down companies trying to stay afloat.

I know the subscription model is a problem for end users as it spreads to more and more apps and services. The lifetime license model is a problem for the vendors. Especially for something like macOS where Apple releases a new OS every year. Right now shops that support macOS have to support like three macOS releases + two hardware architectures + the upcoming macOS.

Just how many users can an "enthusiastic user" convert to paid to make it worthwhile, if it ties the company's hands in terms of changing its revenue model as the world changes? Especially when that user is actively advocating against revenue?

Re: Little Snitch Mini

#228

Post by decko »

daneel_w wrote: post #222
hayst4ck wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree with you so I looked it up. In-App Purchases: Yearly Subscription $13.49 Monthly Subscription $1.49 That's surprisingly modest. 3-4 years of subscription approximately being equal to a license sounds reasonable. The real question is, is little snitch rent seeking? Given what happened after Catalina, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt at the moment. Paying for updates before receiving them def…

>"That's surprisingly modest. 3-4 years of subscription approximately being equal to a license sounds reasonable." To me it's not modest, because I don't plan to stop using the software after just 3-4 years.

I think the point is that after 3 to 4 years, a new version of the perpetual license version would be released and you would spend that amount to upgrade anyway. Of course you could choose no to upgrade, but that’s not always an option when support for new macOS versions are not available in the older version.

Re: Little Snitch Mini

#229

Post by newaccount74 »

Terretta wrote: post #207
kybernetyk wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is: you can't do upgrade pricing in the app store. So your users would have to pay full price for a 2.0 upgrade. You could of course buy outside the app store - but you don't want that. And I don't want that, too (as a dev selling my software). Purchase orders are a PITA and I have been shafted by enterprise more than once. They get their licenses, I'm not getting my money because they just don't pay. Suc…

> The problem is: you can't do upgrade pricing in the app store. That is not a real problem. Many apps handle this by checking for a prior version and giving a discount (see Omni or Affinity approach), by having an upgrade window (e.g. 1Password approach before switching to subs outside app store), or by just charging full freight again (which nobody who values software actually minds, and enterprises that budget ful…

> you just sold 15,000 copies at retail by having a full price version when you otherwise couldn't sell any

That's wishful thinking. No business buys 15,000 copies of an app just like that.

My experience from the point of view of an independent software developer is that:

1. The company will email you to fill out some forms because they are considering a bulk purchase. You get all excited and jump right into filling out their forms.

2. They will ask for a volume discount.

3. They will ask for some more forms to fill out. They'll casually mention that they are looking at competitors as well. Okay, maybe now they can finally make the purchase...

4. Ultimately they will order 5 licenses and move them around between employees as needed.

In the mean time, 50 private customers will have bought a license without ever contacting you.

If there's a market where businesses randomly buy 15,000 copies of an app let me know and I'll switch to making apps in that market.

(Also, in my experience, most bigger companies don't use Apple Business Manager, they buy software via resellers like Software One)

Post reply on HN