7 ms·

Installed to tryout it out. I dislike it requires yet another user account just to try it out[1][2]. Overall it is pretty simple to use with a decent UI and wo

Installed to tryout it out. I dislike it requires yet another user account just to try it out[1][2]. Overall it is pretty simple to use with a decent UI and worked fine for my quick test of a Signal desktop app video call by selecting the mmhmm virtual camera in Signal. It did not work in FaceTime as there is no way to change the camera from the built in one (however I was able to change the audio source to mmhmm audio fwiw). Not sure if this is a FaceTime limitation or mmhmm? For £20 I would probably buy it but £10 a month (or £100 a year)?! No. Sorry. I fail to see why this type of application needs to be a subscription service and a rather expensive one at that. Unless I am missing something it doesn't rely on a backend service the mmhmm developers would need to maintain and outside of adding new features it isn't likely the OS APIs used to access the camera will change much, if at all, on a desktop OS these days so on going development costs to the core camera functionality already present is likely to be minimal. A nice product but not worth an indefinite £10 a month to me personally. [1] Also there does not appear to be a delete account option anywhere on the website. I hate this when forced to sign up just to try the software. I have emailed using the address on their website to request deletion but it should be a clear option on the account management page. [2] Also accepting an 8 character minimum (requiring upper, lower and special character) password while rejecting a 4 word (27 character) passphrase is laughable.

ldenoue 6y ago
They have a recording functionality that generates interactive videos (as a person watching, you can still move the presenter around and jump to specific slides and images). So they might offer online hosting for your productions, à la YouTube or SlideShare?
fxtentacle 6y ago
As someone who has previously worked on real time audio apps on Mac, I find the price justified. Supporting MacOS with anything that needs kernel drivers requires constant updates and the potential market is so small that it kind of needs to be expensive per customer or else you need to cut corners with the quality. Windows has 5x the market share, so there you can sell for 80% less per user because you'll sell more licenses which compensates that. And a windows version for $2 per month sounds fair, so then $10 monthly on Mac is fair, too.
- qppo 6y ago
  Why do you need kernel extensions for realtime audio on Mac? If anything, CoreAudio is a dream to work with compared to the shitshow of APIs on Linux and Windows. Not to mention there are plenty of cross platform libraries for real time audio where you would never need to care about the difference.
  - klik99 6y ago
    Anything that needs to create input/output devices for routing into other apps “in the box” requires kernel extensions. I’ve heard some hack together more real time guarantees for performance purposes (mac os has a habit of regressing on audio stream stability) but most people who need that guarantee will build on an open source os anyway. CoreAudio is great, but since everyone just uses cross platform libraries will rarely be utilized to its fullest.
    - nikanj 6y ago
      Big Sur doesn't even support kernel extensions, so this sounds unlikely.
      - klik99 6y ago
        Quick google shows that subset of kexts still allowed. I updated to Big Sur last week and installed kernel extensions for exactly this reason.
      - user-the-name 6y ago
        You might be confusing this with the fact that Big Sur, on Apple Silicon, does not support x86 kernel extensions. It still supports them elsewhere, and it supports arm64 kernel extensions on Apple Silicon.
- Bishonen88 6y ago
  in most cases, tools with subscriptions do not need more maintenance than products with a one-time purchase (don't know anything about this specific case, so dunno if it applies here). It's just that after adobe/jetbrains and others opened pandoras box, slowly but surely more and more devs try to make their tools to a continuous income stream... It get's really silly to the point that a snipping app has a yearly subscription (xnip), calendars have subscriptions (fantastical) and many other tools which once would have been a $20-$30 purchase all now want $3-$10 a month. Personally I'm sick of it. I'd rather go back to the 'old days'...
joshspankit 6y ago
I feel like this is one of the great cases for a “residential” vs “commercial” model. From a software dev perspective, I definitely understand the benefit of monthly/yearly subscriptions vs feast and famine cycles (with the hope that you can justify an upgrade to your users), but it.has.gotten.out.of.hand. Some of your best customers start out bootstrapping and becoming experts in the cheapest (workable) solution. If you tell them they’re “too poor” for not wanting to pay your prices at the door, you just lose out. With an excellent product, it’s even viable to have free tiers and then charge businesses $$$ (basically all past Windows software if you count piracy as free), or move to a Patreon/sponsorship model (Vue.js). If you have to pay “cloud” costs, I get the struggle of giving it away for free, but if it’s all on-device? What’s your argument?
- ponker 6y ago
  I don’t need an “argument” to charge a specific price or business model. I’ve created something and am offering it to anyone who will pay what I’m asking. Why, as a customer, would you care about my “argument” for my price as opposed to the value it creates for you? This product is expensive and I expect most people to walk away but I also see why they don’t want to go down the old Windows 3.1 route of a perpetual license.
  - eitland 6y ago
    I partly agree, as an author it is your software and your choice. Demanding anything (unless one has an existing relationship as a customer that warrants it) is probably a sign of feeling entitled. Also these days I expect software to need security fixes for the lifetime of the software which is why I am somewhat less hostile to subscriptions than I would otherwise be. But I also partly understand very well what the users upthread writes, so let me try to explain: > I don’t need an “argument” to charge a specific price or business model. I’ve created something and am offering it to anyone who will pay what I’m asking. Fine, go right ahead. Consider the posts upthread as an explanation for why they wont use your software and will recommend against it. If people still buys it: Power to you. And, I should say, it looks like something that certain people will pay for > Why, as a customer, would you care about my “argument” for my price as opposed to the value it creates for you? Maybe they shouldn't care to write it, but at least now you know their reasoning.
evrydayhustling 6y ago
All the account creation friction sucks, but I'll defend the price. It's a subscription because the value you get depends on how long you use it. Making the price incremental (vs e.g. a one time $100 charge) means more people can try it and get value for a limited time, and only keep it if it continues to add value for them. Is $100/yr too much? A b2b sales team might spend $400 getting a first meeting with a customer, and $10k more over the course of further meetings. A 1h internal meeting with 10 people might cost thousands in wages. If mmhmm makes a handful of meetings marginally more effective it will pay for itself. If the product works but the price doesn't, you may not be the intended buyer.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  > It's a subscription because the value you get depends on how long you use it Isn’t that true of all things you purchase?
  - falcor84 6y ago
    Well, I suppose not for consumables like food or fuel.
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
      Okay so I'm glad we've agreed that single-use food items shouldn't be a subscription...
  - evrydayhustling 6y ago
    Most non-consumables can be rented (and frequently are) just for this reason. We buy things when our use expends or transforms the product (e.g. a house) so that we don't have to coordinate with the owner. It's nice to be able to buy outright (or download free!) things that we want to maintain, but most software doesn't fit that for most people.
- jen20 6y ago
  But if the product is ok and useful at a cost which users to not want to pay, it’s just a matter of time before equivalent features get integrated into video calling platforms directly.
purplecats 6y ago
Ah it's not even free? That's misleading. Theres the option to download etc on their page but no results for "pricing". I hate that they try to make you invest in them first then you get shown the fee. I cant say I'm the biggest fan of false advertising or dark patterns against me.
- dusted 6y ago
  Yea, and this is basically just obs with a webcam output and some built in assets, I'll just go ahead right now and donate their price to the OBS project.

ldenoue 6y ago

They have a recording functionality that generates interactive videos (as a person watching, you can still move the presenter around and jump to specific slides and images). So they might offer online hosting for your productions, à la YouTube or SlideShare?

fxtentacle 6y ago

As someone who has previously worked on real time audio apps on Mac, I find the price justified. Supporting MacOS with anything that needs kernel drivers requires constant updates and the potential market is so small that it kind of needs to be expensive per customer or else you need to cut corners with the quality. Windows has 5x the market share, so there you can sell for 80% less per user because you'll sell more licenses which compensates that. And a windows version for $2 per month sounds fair, so then $10 monthly on Mac is fair, too.

qppo 6y ago
Why do you need kernel extensions for realtime audio on Mac? If anything, CoreAudio is a dream to work with compared to the shitshow of APIs on Linux and Windows. Not to mention there are plenty of cross platform libraries for real time audio where you would never need to care about the difference.
- klik99 6y ago
  Anything that needs to create input/output devices for routing into other apps “in the box” requires kernel extensions. I’ve heard some hack together more real time guarantees for performance purposes (mac os has a habit of regressing on audio stream stability) but most people who need that guarantee will build on an open source os anyway. CoreAudio is great, but since everyone just uses cross platform libraries will rarely be utilized to its fullest.
  - nikanj 6y ago
    Big Sur doesn't even support kernel extensions, so this sounds unlikely.
    - klik99 6y ago
      Quick google shows that subset of kexts still allowed. I updated to Big Sur last week and installed kernel extensions for exactly this reason.
    - user-the-name 6y ago
      You might be confusing this with the fact that Big Sur, on Apple Silicon, does not support x86 kernel extensions. It still supports them elsewhere, and it supports arm64 kernel extensions on Apple Silicon.
Bishonen88 6y ago
in most cases, tools with subscriptions do not need more maintenance than products with a one-time purchase (don't know anything about this specific case, so dunno if it applies here). It's just that after adobe/jetbrains and others opened pandoras box, slowly but surely more and more devs try to make their tools to a continuous income stream... It get's really silly to the point that a snipping app has a yearly subscription (xnip), calendars have subscriptions (fantastical) and many other tools which once would have been a $20-$30 purchase all now want $3-$10 a month. Personally I'm sick of it. I'd rather go back to the 'old days'...

joshspankit 6y ago

I feel like this is one of the great cases for a “residential” vs “commercial” model. From a software dev perspective, I definitely understand the benefit of monthly/yearly subscriptions vs feast and famine cycles (with the hope that you can justify an upgrade to your users), but it.has.gotten.out.of.hand. Some of your best customers start out bootstrapping and becoming experts in the cheapest (workable) solution. If you tell them they’re “too poor” for not wanting to pay your prices at the door, you just lose out. With an excellent product, it’s even viable to have free tiers and then charge businesses $$$ (basically all past Windows software if you count piracy as free), or move to a Patreon/sponsorship model (Vue.js). If you have to pay “cloud” costs, I get the struggle of giving it away for free, but if it’s all on-device? What’s your argument?

ponker 6y ago
I don’t need an “argument” to charge a specific price or business model. I’ve created something and am offering it to anyone who will pay what I’m asking. Why, as a customer, would you care about my “argument” for my price as opposed to the value it creates for you? This product is expensive and I expect most people to walk away but I also see why they don’t want to go down the old Windows 3.1 route of a perpetual license.
- eitland 6y ago
  I partly agree, as an author it is your software and your choice. Demanding anything (unless one has an existing relationship as a customer that warrants it) is probably a sign of feeling entitled. Also these days I expect software to need security fixes for the lifetime of the software which is why I am somewhat less hostile to subscriptions than I would otherwise be. But I also partly understand very well what the users upthread writes, so let me try to explain: > I don’t need an “argument” to charge a specific price or business model. I’ve created something and am offering it to anyone who will pay what I’m asking. Fine, go right ahead. Consider the posts upthread as an explanation for why they wont use your software and will recommend against it. If people still buys it: Power to you. And, I should say, it looks like something that certain people will pay for > Why, as a customer, would you care about my “argument” for my price as opposed to the value it creates for you? Maybe they shouldn't care to write it, but at least now you know their reasoning.

evrydayhustling 6y ago

All the account creation friction sucks, but I'll defend the price. It's a subscription because the value you get depends on how long you use it. Making the price incremental (vs e.g. a one time $100 charge) means more people can try it and get value for a limited time, and only keep it if it continues to add value for them. Is $100/yr too much? A b2b sales team might spend $400 getting a first meeting with a customer, and $10k more over the course of further meetings. A 1h internal meeting with 10 people might cost thousands in wages. If mmhmm makes a handful of meetings marginally more effective it will pay for itself. If the product works but the price doesn't, you may not be the intended buyer.

madeofpalk 6y ago
> It's a subscription because the value you get depends on how long you use it Isn’t that true of all things you purchase?
- falcor84 6y ago
  Well, I suppose not for consumables like food or fuel.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    Okay so I'm glad we've agreed that single-use food items shouldn't be a subscription...
- evrydayhustling 6y ago
  Most non-consumables can be rented (and frequently are) just for this reason. We buy things when our use expends or transforms the product (e.g. a house) so that we don't have to coordinate with the owner. It's nice to be able to buy outright (or download free!) things that we want to maintain, but most software doesn't fit that for most people.
jen20 6y ago
But if the product is ok and useful at a cost which users to not want to pay, it’s just a matter of time before equivalent features get integrated into video calling platforms directly.

purplecats 6y ago

Ah it's not even free? That's misleading. Theres the option to download etc on their page but no results for "pricing". I hate that they try to make you invest in them first then you get shown the fee. I cant say I'm the biggest fan of false advertising or dark patterns against me.

dusted 6y ago
Yea, and this is basically just obs with a webcam output and some built in assets, I'll just go ahead right now and donate their price to the OBS project.