9 ms·

A bug saved the company

380 points by ingve 1y ago

oarla 1y ago
So what were the same folks who downloaded Audio Hijack doing on versions 1.5 or older at the end of the 15 day trial period? Download it again? It’s great that they were able to see higher revenues and take the company forward, but I’m wondering if there were additional features that were only on the paid version and not on trial version which helped with retention and growth.
- tiltowait 1y ago
  I'd expect that the 15-minute nag screen prompted users when they were most enthusiastic about the app and therefore most inclined to purchase. After 15 days, your initial interest may have waned, or maybe you even completed whatever recording you needed to do in the first place.
- throwaway290 1y ago
  A bunch of users who reinstalled the app every 15 days thought "oops devs figured out my trick, now I can't fool them so easily guess better buy it"
kristianp 1y ago
Why do we need a paid app to record audio from the system? Surely it's a small enough job for a small utility/script? This seems very Mac ecosystem to me.
- bestham 1y ago
  That is a question for those that did not make that small (free?) script, not Rogue Amoeba that solved the problem with a paid for app.
- timc3 1y ago
  You don't, depending on your audio hardware. If it has a loopback you can just use sox from the command line to record the loop back channels...
- userbinator 1y ago
  Indeed. Windows has had a Sound Recorder since 3.1, and it's possible to record the currently playing audio if you select the right input (usually named "Stereo Mix" or similar.) https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/sound https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/sound
  - duskwuff 1y ago
    Support for the "Stereo Mix" audio source is a relatively recent thing - and my understanding is that, even now, it's driver-dependent. It most certainly wasn't available in Windows 3.1.
    - dlcarrier 1y ago
      I used to record the output audio using Sound Recorder, in Windows 95, so the feature goes back at least 30 years.
    - userbinator 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Sound_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Sound_System already had the ability to record from the mixer input (look in the datasheet of the AD1848 codec it uses) and I don't have the DDK to look at currently but I believe it also has an API for the mixer functionality
- tiltowait 1y ago
  It's very "Mac ecosystem" from multiple directions: a paid-for tool that is often free on other platforms, but also a paid-for tool that provides a very nice UX with easier customizability and features than a "small utility/script". (I don't use Audio Hijack, nor am I in the market for anything like it. But it's obvious from the product page[1] that it's a nice piece of software. I also know that several podcasters I listen to rave about it.) That's not to say free options don't exist. BlackHole[2] is FOSS. [1] https://rogueamoeba.com/audiohijack/ https://rogueamoeba.com/audiohijack/ [2] https://existential.audio/blackhole/ https://existential.audio/blackhole/
- Springtime 1y ago
  For the past like 30 years I feel there's never been a time some commercial Mac program hasn't filled a simple niche. I remember someone last year posting a Show HN for an ffmpeg wrapper for Mac with a limited feature that focused on transcoding and made $9k in the first 4 months. Or in the late 90s when there was a commercial program that allowed OS 9 to show real-time window previews while dragging rather than merely showing the window border outline.
  - aaronbrethorst 1y ago
    Once upon a time, Steve Wozniak paid me ten dollars for what was essentially a fancy GUI on top of an AppleScript.
- isaacfrond 1y ago
  Please see the dropbox comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
  - mickael-kerjean 1y ago
    This is what sparked me to build a Dropbox like web app to connect to FTP servers: https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash
- javawizard 1y ago
  Audio Hijack isn't a recording app. It's an app that allows you to selectively route audio from individual apps to different destinations - audio interfaces and otherwise. Its built-in recorder is a small part of what the overall app does. It drives me nuts how quickly people jump on the criticism bandwagon without bothering to look up what the thing they're criticising actually does first.
  - mort96 1y ago
    Doesn't change the fact that when you try to find out "how do I record desktop audio on my Mac?", the answer is very often "use Audio Hijack", because macOS has no built-in way to record desktop audio. (Not even QuickTime's screen recorder can record desktop audio, only microphones! It's wild.) These days, OBS is probably a decent alternative, but it's very video focused and very streaming focused, so it's not exactly great for that purpose.
    - nikodotio 1y ago
      My experience as a musician and huge linux nerd is: sure, it was all free, and very powerful, on linux, but I never actually made music because of the setup times, learning, hacking, and refining the systems. Since getting a mac and paying for tools like this, the immediacy of being productive has caused me to actually make music. it's the same with OBS - wow, what a piece of software. I spent a week going through and configuring it. They really thought of everything. Audio Hijack solved my problem in 30 seconds and made sense for my use case while doing it.
    - veidr 1y ago
      Not great, except for being free, and rock-solid reliable for the purpose of recording desktop audio! (I pay for Audio Hijack Pro, too — and yeah it is better for the purpose, if the price is worth it to you.)
      - mort96 1y ago
        Don't get me wrong, OBS is great! It's just clearly not made for this particular purpose, and therefore not great for that purpose. If you wanted to make an app whose main purpose is to record desktop audio, it would look a hell of a lot different than OBS.
- svantana 1y ago
  I'd say that this a missing feature from macOS that windows has had for 30 years already. I believe apple prohibits it for "security" reasons. But there are a number of open source solutions as well, I mainly use BlackHole: https://github.com/ExistentialAudio/BlackHole https://github.com/ExistentialAudio/BlackHole
- bitwize 1y ago
  Well, yeah. Mac developers are some of the most conscientious end-user developers in the world, and Mac users want to reward quality software. It's become less so lately, but the Mac ecosystem historically was what computing SHOULD be.
tkgally 1y ago
I can’t remember exactly when I started using Audio Hijack, but it might have been from that very first release with the free-trial bug, as I used it to record streaming radio programs beginning around 2002 or 2003. I still use it now. In fact, it’s running on my Mac at this very moment, capturing a live stream from BBC Radio 3. There aren’t many other applications I have used for so long and with as much satisfaction as Audio Hijack.
- chris_st 1y ago
  Same here - it's one of those it just works apps that has given me a ton of utility for more than a decade, at a reasonable price.
evrennetwork 1y ago
[dead]
musicale 1y ago
It's sad that the more generous, user-friendly trial policy led to worse sales. ;-(
- AceJohnny2 1y ago
  it is the unfortunate truth of the world. It's why I just roll my eyes when I see comments like "nagging reminders mean I'll never buy your product!" Those were probably never going to be customers anyway, they're just finding ways to justify it to themselves.
  - Ekaros 1y ago
    I still have not gotten around to buying WinRaR. On other hand if it stopped working I would probably install something else.
    - AceJohnny2 1y ago
      QED
    - 1970-01-01 1y ago
      30 year non-paying customer of WinRAR here. I really don't think anything would have changed if I spent some money on it 30 years ago. In fact, way back then, I was correctly afraid of someone sniffing or leaking my credit card info. Today, I'm afraid to buy it because everything is getting AI baked into it. I'm switching back to PKZIP if that happens.
- ralferoo 1y ago
  I'm actually not so sure. Even if 100% of the signups to the new version came from users trying for the first time, the previous version being essentially free could have got the app a lot of publicity in tutorials, recommendations or even just showing more highly rated or higher in the download charts. All of that could increase discoverability of the version with only 15 minutes free trial, so it would be essentially trading sales for advertising. That said, 2 weeks evaluation on a tool you might use only once effectively means it's just free. Those who might have a need say once a month might just uninstall and reinstall it, and feel completely justified because they didn't get their 15 days, only one day.
dlcarrier 1y ago
So, letting people try it out it for two weeks prevented them from buying it? That doesn't reflect well on customer satisfaction.
- butlike 1y ago
  What always happens with me is that I'll install the plugin, activate its trial ( as part of the installation process in my mind), then completely forget to get around to testing it until the trial is up. I know it kind of falls under "user error," but I really wish these plugins had a metered trial period. Like 8 hours of actual usage instead of starting the clock from the time of activation.
- Etheryte 1y ago
  I think more than anything it reflects on the fact that most people don't need to record audio all that often. If the product is fine, but you've done all the recording you need, why would you buy it. I would wager that most users never even saw the trial end nag screen simply because they didn't need to open the app anymore.
  - lapcat 1y ago
    This. It's not an app that you would necessarily use every day, so basing the trial on a certain number of days wasn't a good fit.
    - butlike 1y ago
      That being said, it's a real heavy lifter (along with Loopback) for music production. (Sample size: 1)
- maephisto666 1y ago
  I believe this goes hand in hand with certain types of customers. Purchasing software is often a long-term decision, but many people only need it once. In 15 days, they can complete one or two projects and then forget about it. With a 15-minute limitation, however, you are effectively encouraging them—assuming the quality of your product matches the price—to purchase the software. So customers were satisfied anyway, but because of the bug their satisfaction did not last enough:-)
bronlund 1y ago
I love Audio Hijack, and I do use Loopback and SoundSource as well. Windows users love to complain about the fact that we have to pay for this stuff, but forget to mention that no amount of money can give you half of the same functionality on their preferred platform. I guess you can do some of it using a Windows port of JACK Audio or something, but this isn't trivial to get working - and would still pale in comparison. Why it still is so difficult to route audio in Windows is beyond me. To give a bit of context; I can sit in a Teams meeting using compressors and saturators and whatnot to make the audio better and put any amount of VST plugins in the chain on my own microphone. At the same time I can mix the output from an ambient track from Spotify with audio from liveatc.net and stream the whole thing to an Icecast server while ripping everything to a file. Trying to do the same thing on Windows will just drive you insane.
- tom1337 1y ago
  Just last week I wanted to add some VST Effects to my microphone input on Windows like I do on my Mac. Basically just an EQ and Compressor. With SoundSource this is - as you said - pretty easy. On Windows I've tried Virtual Audio Cable and was initially confused by the Banana and Potato version. Also it required a separate VST Host, something that SoundSource has implemented. In the end my setup worked by using Virtual Audio Cable, routed my microphone into FL Studio into my effect chain and then from FL Studio back into the system so each application gets the microphone with effects. I also tried Minihost Modular as a VST Host but that does not support VST3 and in the end I just gave up because sometimes it was far too complicated
  - uz3snolc3t6fnrq 1y ago
    you might want to check out carla[0], it's difficult to find when looking up vst hosts, you have to get past a couple "unbiased" top 5 list sites & outdated ones without vst3 support still being recommended, but it's the one that's brought me the least issues (expect one or two crashes setting it up anyway). seems it's made for linux first but i've had no (big) issues running it on windows so far. you will need to download third party vsts for every effect fl studio usually implements out of the box [0] https://github.com/falkTX/Carla/ https://github.com/falkTX/Carla/
oulipo2 1y ago
I tried Airfoil to be able to do the following: - redirect my music (eg Youtube music) to my Apple Homepod - still play all other audio (eg some podcast or video) on my laptop but it doesn't work / is buggy / either puts everything in one location or the other Has anyone here found a good setup to redirect the audio from exactly one app to the Homepod, and keep all the rest on the laptop audio?
- oulipo2 1y ago
  so playing with Audio Hijack, it seems my "Airplay" audio output is *only* present in the interface if I'm currently choosing "Airplay" as my default audio output from the system So basically with Audio Hijack I can do a "hack" which is: - set my laptop to play on Airplay - play some music there - then if I want to listen to something else on my laptop, I have to create an Audio Hijack pipeline to play some other app on my laptop Obviously I would prefer the reverse: by default play everything on the laptop, and be able to play a specific app on Airplay... but this doesn't seem to be possible because the "Airplay" device "disappears" from the interface as soon as I stop setting it as the default laptop output
  - strogonoff 1y ago
    One way to deal with a “transient” audio interface tripping various apps on macOS is by creating a virtual multi-output audio device in Audio MIDI Setup (stock app). That device will be persistent, even when one of its output devices is lost. In my case the interface was AirPods. It was incredibly annoying when various audio software would reset its output device whenever they disconnect or auto-switch to the phone. So, I set up a multi-output device that outputs signal to the pods along with the wired headphone port, and configured audio software to output to that virtual device. After that, there is no flakiness: when the pods are connected then they get the audio, if they aren’t then they don’t get the audio, nothing else needs to be changed.
    - oulipo2 1y ago
      Interesting! Can you give more details on how to build this virtual audio device? I tried creating one but it doesn't show as output in the Airfoil app, is there something special to do?
strogonoff 1y ago
Free-trial-based approach to software distribution is not the best. Compared to at least one better alternative, it is: 0) worse when it comes to developer bottom line (if you are being generous, try to provide enough trial time and usable software during trial period, a large chunk of your users will just never pay); 1) worse when it comes to user experience (you are interrupted, you encounter blocked-off functionality, which basically means that upsell is part of core GUI); 2) worse when it comes to developer experience (now you don’t just program one great product, you also have to program into your core GUI the upsell—the various ways in which it becomes restricted while remaining usable); 3) worse when it comes to product improvement (the unhappy user will simply delete the software and you’ll never know what they didn’t like); 4) exactly identical when it comes to honest paying user’s expenses. No doubt, there are worse options. (One that takes the cake: advertise it as free software, but constantly upsell the “full version” offered on subscription basis.) What’s that better alternative I’m comparing free trials against, then? Simply offer returns. Buy it, get a license, make your trial period however long you like; don’t like it—request a refund, get money back, get license revoked. What it means is that “tried and not bought” is no longer one of the “happy paths”. As a result, you have a better chance of really understanding what was wrong (if I must ask you for refund, you are in touch with me), and you also exhibit more confidence in your product up front. I believe App Store in fact works this way. If someone’s thinking about distributing there and feels like the only way to offer a trial is IAP, maybe reconsider: you don’t need that overhead, one fully featured version is enough if your users can already get their money back if they don’t like it. I believe refund process happens automatically for you as a developer, though I’m not sure whether or not the feedback they provided will be forwarded to you. Willing to be corrected.
- bot403 1y ago
  I like your line of reasoning and you may be right. But as a user I'll probably try a few of the free trial competitors to see if they do what I want before I put money down. I don't always trust front line customer service and the returns process. Sure, maybe you are the good developer who makes it instant and easy. But maybe you're not and either employ dark patterns to keep me in place or don't respond to me at all to return my money. Then I have to consider if the cc charge back process is worth my time and hassle.
ZaoLahma 1y ago
As I was reading this I was hoping that they had completely disabled the limitations and unexpectedly found alternate routes to sustainable profits, or that people suddenly became more willing to pay when there was less pressure to do so. But I guess the real bug and its outcome was more in line with the (often disappointing) reality that we all share.
lylejantzi3rd 1y ago
Am I the only one who thinks that describing this as a "bug" sounds a bit off? Most bugs don't come with their own updated alert text. It sounds a bit more like they had planned to switch to a different trial method and enabled it earlier than they expected? Or maybe a "rogue" employee added the feature as an experiment and didn't tell anybody?
- macintux 1y ago
  Possible, but they almost certainly had functionality to automatically convert from a number of seconds to text like “15 minutes” for rendering.
- Wowfunhappy 1y ago
  I think the alert text was supposed to only appear starting after 15 days. The bug was that this limitation began immediately.
- gus_massa 1y ago
  Option 1: they had a minnutes and days funcion and someone typed days and minutes. Option 2: they chech every 15 minutes if the trial time is over, so an inmediate expiration is notuced 15 days later. And 15 days - 15 minutes is a coincidence.
  - samwhiteUK 1y ago
    15 days/15 minutes is not a coincidence at all. They were both present in v1.5. For 15 days, usage was unlimited. After day 15, recordings were limited to 15 minutes. In v1.6, the 15 days was inadvertently removed. This meant that the 15 minute limit was in effect from day 0.
- lapcat 1y ago
  > Am I the only one who thinks that describing this as a "bug" sounds a bit off? Yes, you are the only one, because you've misunderstood. > Most bugs don't come with their own updated alert text. It sounds a bit more like they had planned to switch to a different trial method and enabled it earlier than they expected? No, the bug was simply that the trial period ended after 15 minutes instead of the intended 15 days. > Or maybe a "rogue" employee added the feature as an experiment and didn't tell anybody? There were no employees. At the time this happened, the company consisted entirely of the 3 cofounders. In fact the bug, that is, the shortened trial period, is what allowed the company to grow and hire employees, although the company is still relatively small.
emmelaich 1y ago
Having used similar software for one-offs I'm not surprised!
randall 1y ago
love you guys!!
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Fokamul 1y ago
And of course you're on MacOS, where very users are used to shelling $$$ for otherwise free apps on other OSes. Well, good for you :)
MarkusWandel 1y ago
Might it simply be that people find the app for a use they have, right now? When it works great and solves your immediate problem, what's a few bucks? Whereas if you have a full function trial period, it solves your immediate need for free and then you already have this mentality "this functionality should be free". Maybe even uninstall the app, erase all its data, and then register for a new trial period next time you need it etc.
- draw_down 1y ago
  Not only that, but if the trial works that way, you can repeat it any time you need to record something. The app probably dropped a prefs file somewhere (the old-style Mac XML preferences files), delete that and go again. This would actually be easier than just paying.
  - teiferer 1y ago
    Easier, yes. But it's cheating. I'm often saddened by all the normalization of all the things people do to cheat their way through life. Why does everything need to be physically prevented just so people don't find a loophole to exploit? And then just act like it's nothing or are even proud of it? There is a trial period + you are asked to pay if you keep using it after? Well, pay up if you do. You also (hopefully) don't steal candy from the supermarket, even though it's "actually easier than just paying". Why would it be any different for software?
    - draw_down 1y ago
      [dead]
- teiferer 1y ago
  I'd have loved for the article to explore such reasons.
tristor 1y ago
FWIW, Audio Hijack and Loopback are core software for my work setup to process a boom microphone input and make it ready for use with video conferencing/collab software. These two pieces of software are some of the best things I've ever bought for a Mac.
andrewljohnson 1y ago
This almost exact thing happened with me with a hiking app I used to make. We had a 7-day trial when you started the app, but we shipped a release that broke this and made all the paid features immediately paywalled. This led to a big increase in sales and we got rid of the trial forever. It’s possible that our trial might have worked better if it were like modern iOS trials that start charging you after a certain period, but ours just let you use the paid features for 7 days and then lapsed, and it stifled sales. My theory was people urgently needed the paid features (mostly to download maps for a coming trip) so the trial got in the way of them paying right away.
nate 1y ago
We killed growth too when we had one of these generous trials. I worked on a (once) popular Saas app :) We were losing customers when I came in. But then started growing again (slowly) when we started shipping a bunch of great things. But then the owner wanted to get rid of the "free trial" and was adamant we offer a free version. That would boost our growth to an incredible new level he promised. I could see the reasoning. Our free trial still required you give us a credit card up front. We just wouldn't charge you for 30 days. Asking for a credit card has to be bad for growth, right? People want to kick the tires before they become our customers, and there's a lot more of those folks. So we ditched the collection of credit cards up front and went to a totally free plan. You could upgrade to a paid plan of course. Growth started tanking again and we never got it back. One theory was collecting the credit card just got the really eager shoppers and now our growth was from zombie, forgetful, monthly Saas payments. And that's valid of course. But I wonder too, if just asking for a credit card gets you to be more serious too about trying a product. If you have to put in a credit card, you'll probably focus in here for a bit and not sign up for 10 other things the same day to try. And successfully collecting a credit card while someone is in the process of choosing anything, is probably always going to be easier than trying to convince them in 30 days to come back and get into a buyers mindset again. Unless you really are selling something so deeply crippling not to have it again after 30 days.
- yndoendo 1y ago
  I recommend "Alchemy" by Roy Sutherland. [0] It deals with human and behavior that drive economics and highlights ideas that would fail on paper and actually work. Example, turns out you can use Disney like characters painted on the outside of a store to reduce brake-ins at night. It goes through similar scenarios. Example, "Offering a free version and not requiring a credit card can push the idea that your solution has no value so why should I use it?" [0] https://bookbrief.io/books/alchemy-rory-sutherland/summary https://bookbrief.io/books/alchemy-rory-sutherland/summary
  - sharts 1y ago
    The problem these days seems like everyone and their grandma has read about this type of phenomenon and now we live in a world where solutions that truly provide little if any value require the credit card, email, or some other exchange of information. It’s a sad state of affairs.
gertlex 1y ago
While the bug is how soon the cutoff occurs and the prompt is shown... Comparing the dialogs; did the 15-day expiration dialog have a "purchase" button at the time of the bug? (its screenshot in the write-up does not.) Making the purchase easy to initiate with the purchase button seems like something that would increase conversion rate, too.
- geoffpado 1y ago
  The way I read it, the first dialog showed up the first time you launched the app, and never had the Purchase button. The idea was that 15 days later, you’d see the second dialog (after 15 minutes of recording). Due to the bug, however, the second dialog showed up after 15 minutes of recording from day 1. The second dialog was always shown (and presumably always had the purchase button), but the difference was between whether users got 15 full free days first or not.
  - gertlex 1y ago
    Gotcha! When going back to sanity check before my comment, I clearly was skimming too lightly to pick up on that.
steveBK123 1y ago
Unfortunate that some accidental friction was what it took to get users paying for what they over wise clearly found to be a useful product previously. I definitely prefer a world where being a small software company charging for your product is sustainable. Not everything needs to be ads/SaaS/Mag7 owned/slop...
hinkley 1y ago
Seems reasonable that there’s some sort of recency bias here and waiting two weeks can let people completely forget about your app.
123sereusername 1y ago
[dead]
mirekrusin 1y ago
Linked story [0] in the footer sounds even better. [0] https://weblog.rogueamoeba.com/2023/03/24/the-riaa-v-steve-jobs/ https://weblog.rogueamoeba.com/2023/03/24/the-riaa-v-steve-j...
hopelite 1y ago
This website has accessibility issues. My text reader cannot recognize any text. That has never happened to me. Edit: it seems the iOS “listen to page” functionality works though. Odd.
adxl 1y ago
Serendipity.

380 points by ingve 1y ago

So what were the same folks who downloaded Audio Hijack doing on versions 1.5 or older at the end of the 15 day trial period? Download it again? It’s great that they were able to see higher revenues and take the company forward, but I’m wondering if there were additional features that were only on the paid version and not on trial version which helped with retention and growth.

tiltowait 1y ago
I'd expect that the 15-minute nag screen prompted users when they were most enthusiastic about the app and therefore most inclined to purchase. After 15 days, your initial interest may have waned, or maybe you even completed whatever recording you needed to do in the first place.
throwaway290 1y ago
A bunch of users who reinstalled the app every 15 days thought "oops devs figured out my trick, now I can't fool them so easily guess better buy it"

kristianp 1y ago

Why do we need a paid app to record audio from the system? Surely it's a small enough job for a small utility/script? This seems very Mac ecosystem to me.

bestham 1y ago
That is a question for those that did not make that small (free?) script, not Rogue Amoeba that solved the problem with a paid for app.
timc3 1y ago
You don't, depending on your audio hardware. If it has a loopback you can just use sox from the command line to record the loop back channels...
userbinator 1y ago
Indeed. Windows has had a Sound Recorder since 3.1, and it's possible to record the currently playing audio if you select the right input (usually named "Stereo Mix" or similar.) https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/sound https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/sound
- duskwuff 1y ago
  Support for the "Stereo Mix" audio source is a relatively recent thing - and my understanding is that, even now, it's driver-dependent. It most certainly wasn't available in Windows 3.1.
  - dlcarrier 1y ago
    I used to record the output audio using Sound Recorder, in Windows 95, so the feature goes back at least 30 years.
  - userbinator 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Sound_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Sound_System already had the ability to record from the mixer input (look in the datasheet of the AD1848 codec it uses) and I don't have the DDK to look at currently but I believe it also has an API for the mixer functionality
tiltowait 1y ago
It's very "Mac ecosystem" from multiple directions: a paid-for tool that is often free on other platforms, but also a paid-for tool that provides a very nice UX with easier customizability and features than a "small utility/script". (I don't use Audio Hijack, nor am I in the market for anything like it. But it's obvious from the product page[1] that it's a nice piece of software. I also know that several podcasters I listen to rave about it.) That's not to say free options don't exist. BlackHole[2] is FOSS. [1] https://rogueamoeba.com/audiohijack/ https://rogueamoeba.com/audiohijack/ [2] https://existential.audio/blackhole/ https://existential.audio/blackhole/
Springtime 1y ago
For the past like 30 years I feel there's never been a time some commercial Mac program hasn't filled a simple niche. I remember someone last year posting a Show HN for an ffmpeg wrapper for Mac with a limited feature that focused on transcoding and made $9k in the first 4 months. Or in the late 90s when there was a commercial program that allowed OS 9 to show real-time window previews while dragging rather than merely showing the window border outline.
- aaronbrethorst 1y ago
  Once upon a time, Steve Wozniak paid me ten dollars for what was essentially a fancy GUI on top of an AppleScript.
isaacfrond 1y ago
Please see the dropbox comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
- mickael-kerjean 1y ago
  This is what sparked me to build a Dropbox like web app to connect to FTP servers: https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash
javawizard 1y ago
Audio Hijack isn't a recording app. It's an app that allows you to selectively route audio from individual apps to different destinations - audio interfaces and otherwise. Its built-in recorder is a small part of what the overall app does. It drives me nuts how quickly people jump on the criticism bandwagon without bothering to look up what the thing they're criticising actually does first.
- mort96 1y ago
  Doesn't change the fact that when you try to find out "how do I record desktop audio on my Mac?", the answer is very often "use Audio Hijack", because macOS has no built-in way to record desktop audio. (Not even QuickTime's screen recorder can record desktop audio, only microphones! It's wild.) These days, OBS is probably a decent alternative, but it's very video focused and very streaming focused, so it's not exactly great for that purpose.
  - nikodotio 1y ago
    My experience as a musician and huge linux nerd is: sure, it was all free, and very powerful, on linux, but I never actually made music because of the setup times, learning, hacking, and refining the systems. Since getting a mac and paying for tools like this, the immediacy of being productive has caused me to actually make music. it's the same with OBS - wow, what a piece of software. I spent a week going through and configuring it. They really thought of everything. Audio Hijack solved my problem in 30 seconds and made sense for my use case while doing it.
  - veidr 1y ago
    Not great, except for being free, and rock-solid reliable for the purpose of recording desktop audio! (I pay for Audio Hijack Pro, too — and yeah it is better for the purpose, if the price is worth it to you.)
    - mort96 1y ago
      Don't get me wrong, OBS is great! It's just clearly not made for this particular purpose, and therefore not great for that purpose. If you wanted to make an app whose main purpose is to record desktop audio, it would look a hell of a lot different than OBS.
svantana 1y ago
I'd say that this a missing feature from macOS that windows has had for 30 years already. I believe apple prohibits it for "security" reasons. But there are a number of open source solutions as well, I mainly use BlackHole: https://github.com/ExistentialAudio/BlackHole https://github.com/ExistentialAudio/BlackHole
bitwize 1y ago
Well, yeah. Mac developers are some of the most conscientious end-user developers in the world, and Mac users want to reward quality software. It's become less so lately, but the Mac ecosystem historically was what computing SHOULD be.

tkgally 1y ago

I can’t remember exactly when I started using Audio Hijack, but it might have been from that very first release with the free-trial bug, as I used it to record streaming radio programs beginning around 2002 or 2003. I still use it now. In fact, it’s running on my Mac at this very moment, capturing a live stream from BBC Radio 3. There aren’t many other applications I have used for so long and with as much satisfaction as Audio Hijack.

chris_st 1y ago
Same here - it's one of those it just works apps that has given me a ton of utility for more than a decade, at a reasonable price.

evrennetwork 1y ago

[dead]

musicale 1y ago

It's sad that the more generous, user-friendly trial policy led to worse sales. ;-(

AceJohnny2 1y ago
it is the unfortunate truth of the world. It's why I just roll my eyes when I see comments like "nagging reminders mean I'll never buy your product!" Those were probably never going to be customers anyway, they're just finding ways to justify it to themselves.
- Ekaros 1y ago
  I still have not gotten around to buying WinRaR. On other hand if it stopped working I would probably install something else.
  - AceJohnny2 1y ago
    QED
  - 1970-01-01 1y ago
    30 year non-paying customer of WinRAR here. I really don't think anything would have changed if I spent some money on it 30 years ago. In fact, way back then, I was correctly afraid of someone sniffing or leaking my credit card info. Today, I'm afraid to buy it because everything is getting AI baked into it. I'm switching back to PKZIP if that happens.
ralferoo 1y ago
I'm actually not so sure. Even if 100% of the signups to the new version came from users trying for the first time, the previous version being essentially free could have got the app a lot of publicity in tutorials, recommendations or even just showing more highly rated or higher in the download charts. All of that could increase discoverability of the version with only 15 minutes free trial, so it would be essentially trading sales for advertising. That said, 2 weeks evaluation on a tool you might use only once effectively means it's just free. Those who might have a need say once a month might just uninstall and reinstall it, and feel completely justified because they didn't get their 15 days, only one day.

dlcarrier 1y ago

So, letting people try it out it for two weeks prevented them from buying it? That doesn't reflect well on customer satisfaction.

butlike 1y ago
What always happens with me is that I'll install the plugin, activate its trial ( as part of the installation process in my mind), then completely forget to get around to testing it until the trial is up. I know it kind of falls under "user error," but I really wish these plugins had a metered trial period. Like 8 hours of actual usage instead of starting the clock from the time of activation.
Etheryte 1y ago
I think more than anything it reflects on the fact that most people don't need to record audio all that often. If the product is fine, but you've done all the recording you need, why would you buy it. I would wager that most users never even saw the trial end nag screen simply because they didn't need to open the app anymore.
- lapcat 1y ago
  This. It's not an app that you would necessarily use every day, so basing the trial on a certain number of days wasn't a good fit.
  - butlike 1y ago
    That being said, it's a real heavy lifter (along with Loopback) for music production. (Sample size: 1)
maephisto666 1y ago
I believe this goes hand in hand with certain types of customers. Purchasing software is often a long-term decision, but many people only need it once. In 15 days, they can complete one or two projects and then forget about it. With a 15-minute limitation, however, you are effectively encouraging them—assuming the quality of your product matches the price—to purchase the software. So customers were satisfied anyway, but because of the bug their satisfaction did not last enough:-)

bronlund 1y ago

I love Audio Hijack, and I do use Loopback and SoundSource as well. Windows users love to complain about the fact that we have to pay for this stuff, but forget to mention that no amount of money can give you half of the same functionality on their preferred platform. I guess you can do some of it using a Windows port of JACK Audio or something, but this isn't trivial to get working - and would still pale in comparison. Why it still is so difficult to route audio in Windows is beyond me. To give a bit of context; I can sit in a Teams meeting using compressors and saturators and whatnot to make the audio better and put any amount of VST plugins in the chain on my own microphone. At the same time I can mix the output from an ambient track from Spotify with audio from liveatc.net and stream the whole thing to an Icecast server while ripping everything to a file. Trying to do the same thing on Windows will just drive you insane.

tom1337 1y ago
Just last week I wanted to add some VST Effects to my microphone input on Windows like I do on my Mac. Basically just an EQ and Compressor. With SoundSource this is - as you said - pretty easy. On Windows I've tried Virtual Audio Cable and was initially confused by the Banana and Potato version. Also it required a separate VST Host, something that SoundSource has implemented. In the end my setup worked by using Virtual Audio Cable, routed my microphone into FL Studio into my effect chain and then from FL Studio back into the system so each application gets the microphone with effects. I also tried Minihost Modular as a VST Host but that does not support VST3 and in the end I just gave up because sometimes it was far too complicated
- uz3snolc3t6fnrq 1y ago
  you might want to check out carla[0], it's difficult to find when looking up vst hosts, you have to get past a couple "unbiased" top 5 list sites & outdated ones without vst3 support still being recommended, but it's the one that's brought me the least issues (expect one or two crashes setting it up anyway). seems it's made for linux first but i've had no (big) issues running it on windows so far. you will need to download third party vsts for every effect fl studio usually implements out of the box [0] https://github.com/falkTX/Carla/ https://github.com/falkTX/Carla/

oulipo2 1y ago

I tried Airfoil to be able to do the following: - redirect my music (eg Youtube music) to my Apple Homepod - still play all other audio (eg some podcast or video) on my laptop but it doesn't work / is buggy / either puts everything in one location or the other Has anyone here found a good setup to redirect the audio from exactly one app to the Homepod, and keep all the rest on the laptop audio?

oulipo2 1y ago
so playing with Audio Hijack, it seems my "Airplay" audio output is *only* present in the interface if I'm currently choosing "Airplay" as my default audio output from the system So basically with Audio Hijack I can do a "hack" which is: - set my laptop to play on Airplay - play some music there - then if I want to listen to something else on my laptop, I have to create an Audio Hijack pipeline to play some other app on my laptop Obviously I would prefer the reverse: by default play everything on the laptop, and be able to play a specific app on Airplay... but this doesn't seem to be possible because the "Airplay" device "disappears" from the interface as soon as I stop setting it as the default laptop output
- strogonoff 1y ago
  One way to deal with a “transient” audio interface tripping various apps on macOS is by creating a virtual multi-output audio device in Audio MIDI Setup (stock app). That device will be persistent, even when one of its output devices is lost. In my case the interface was AirPods. It was incredibly annoying when various audio software would reset its output device whenever they disconnect or auto-switch to the phone. So, I set up a multi-output device that outputs signal to the pods along with the wired headphone port, and configured audio software to output to that virtual device. After that, there is no flakiness: when the pods are connected then they get the audio, if they aren’t then they don’t get the audio, nothing else needs to be changed.
  - oulipo2 1y ago
    Interesting! Can you give more details on how to build this virtual audio device? I tried creating one but it doesn't show as output in the Airfoil app, is there something special to do?

strogonoff 1y ago

Free-trial-based approach to software distribution is not the best. Compared to at least one better alternative, it is: 0) worse when it comes to developer bottom line (if you are being generous, try to provide enough trial time and usable software during trial period, a large chunk of your users will just never pay); 1) worse when it comes to user experience (you are interrupted, you encounter blocked-off functionality, which basically means that upsell is part of core GUI); 2) worse when it comes to developer experience (now you don’t just program one great product, you also have to program into your core GUI the upsell—the various ways in which it becomes restricted while remaining usable); 3) worse when it comes to product improvement (the unhappy user will simply delete the software and you’ll never know what they didn’t like); 4) exactly identical when it comes to honest paying user’s expenses. No doubt, there are worse options. (One that takes the cake: advertise it as free software, but constantly upsell the “full version” offered on subscription basis.) What’s that better alternative I’m comparing free trials against, then? Simply offer returns. Buy it, get a license, make your trial period however long you like; don’t like it—request a refund, get money back, get license revoked. What it means is that “tried and not bought” is no longer one of the “happy paths”. As a result, you have a better chance of really understanding what was wrong (if I must ask you for refund, you are in touch with me), and you also exhibit more confidence in your product up front. I believe App Store in fact works this way. If someone’s thinking about distributing there and feels like the only way to offer a trial is IAP, maybe reconsider: you don’t need that overhead, one fully featured version is enough if your users can already get their money back if they don’t like it. I believe refund process happens automatically for you as a developer, though I’m not sure whether or not the feedback they provided will be forwarded to you. Willing to be corrected.

bot403 1y ago
I like your line of reasoning and you may be right. But as a user I'll probably try a few of the free trial competitors to see if they do what I want before I put money down. I don't always trust front line customer service and the returns process. Sure, maybe you are the good developer who makes it instant and easy. But maybe you're not and either employ dark patterns to keep me in place or don't respond to me at all to return my money. Then I have to consider if the cc charge back process is worth my time and hassle.

ZaoLahma 1y ago

As I was reading this I was hoping that they had completely disabled the limitations and unexpectedly found alternate routes to sustainable profits, or that people suddenly became more willing to pay when there was less pressure to do so. But I guess the real bug and its outcome was more in line with the (often disappointing) reality that we all share.

lylejantzi3rd 1y ago

Am I the only one who thinks that describing this as a "bug" sounds a bit off? Most bugs don't come with their own updated alert text. It sounds a bit more like they had planned to switch to a different trial method and enabled it earlier than they expected? Or maybe a "rogue" employee added the feature as an experiment and didn't tell anybody?

macintux 1y ago
Possible, but they almost certainly had functionality to automatically convert from a number of seconds to text like “15 minutes” for rendering.
Wowfunhappy 1y ago
I think the alert text was supposed to only appear starting after 15 days. The bug was that this limitation began immediately.
gus_massa 1y ago
Option 1: they had a minnutes and days funcion and someone typed days and minutes. Option 2: they chech every 15 minutes if the trial time is over, so an inmediate expiration is notuced 15 days later. And 15 days - 15 minutes is a coincidence.
- samwhiteUK 1y ago
  15 days/15 minutes is not a coincidence at all. They were both present in v1.5. For 15 days, usage was unlimited. After day 15, recordings were limited to 15 minutes. In v1.6, the 15 days was inadvertently removed. This meant that the 15 minute limit was in effect from day 0.
lapcat 1y ago
> Am I the only one who thinks that describing this as a "bug" sounds a bit off? Yes, you are the only one, because you've misunderstood. > Most bugs don't come with their own updated alert text. It sounds a bit more like they had planned to switch to a different trial method and enabled it earlier than they expected? No, the bug was simply that the trial period ended after 15 minutes instead of the intended 15 days. > Or maybe a "rogue" employee added the feature as an experiment and didn't tell anybody? There were no employees. At the time this happened, the company consisted entirely of the 3 cofounders. In fact the bug, that is, the shortened trial period, is what allowed the company to grow and hire employees, although the company is still relatively small.

emmelaich 1y ago

Having used similar software for one-offs I'm not surprised!

randall 1y ago

love you guys!!

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Fokamul 1y ago

And of course you're on MacOS, where very users are used to shelling $$$ for otherwise free apps on other OSes. Well, good for you :)

MarkusWandel 1y ago

Might it simply be that people find the app for a use they have, right now? When it works great and solves your immediate problem, what's a few bucks? Whereas if you have a full function trial period, it solves your immediate need for free and then you already have this mentality "this functionality should be free". Maybe even uninstall the app, erase all its data, and then register for a new trial period next time you need it etc.

draw_down 1y ago
Not only that, but if the trial works that way, you can repeat it any time you need to record something. The app probably dropped a prefs file somewhere (the old-style Mac XML preferences files), delete that and go again. This would actually be easier than just paying.
- teiferer 1y ago
  Easier, yes. But it's cheating. I'm often saddened by all the normalization of all the things people do to cheat their way through life. Why does everything need to be physically prevented just so people don't find a loophole to exploit? And then just act like it's nothing or are even proud of it? There is a trial period + you are asked to pay if you keep using it after? Well, pay up if you do. You also (hopefully) don't steal candy from the supermarket, even though it's "actually easier than just paying". Why would it be any different for software?
  - draw_down 1y ago
    [dead]
teiferer 1y ago
I'd have loved for the article to explore such reasons.

tristor 1y ago

FWIW, Audio Hijack and Loopback are core software for my work setup to process a boom microphone input and make it ready for use with video conferencing/collab software. These two pieces of software are some of the best things I've ever bought for a Mac.

andrewljohnson 1y ago

This almost exact thing happened with me with a hiking app I used to make. We had a 7-day trial when you started the app, but we shipped a release that broke this and made all the paid features immediately paywalled. This led to a big increase in sales and we got rid of the trial forever. It’s possible that our trial might have worked better if it were like modern iOS trials that start charging you after a certain period, but ours just let you use the paid features for 7 days and then lapsed, and it stifled sales. My theory was people urgently needed the paid features (mostly to download maps for a coming trip) so the trial got in the way of them paying right away.

nate 1y ago

We killed growth too when we had one of these generous trials. I worked on a (once) popular Saas app :) We were losing customers when I came in. But then started growing again (slowly) when we started shipping a bunch of great things. But then the owner wanted to get rid of the "free trial" and was adamant we offer a free version. That would boost our growth to an incredible new level he promised. I could see the reasoning. Our free trial still required you give us a credit card up front. We just wouldn't charge you for 30 days. Asking for a credit card has to be bad for growth, right? People want to kick the tires before they become our customers, and there's a lot more of those folks. So we ditched the collection of credit cards up front and went to a totally free plan. You could upgrade to a paid plan of course. Growth started tanking again and we never got it back. One theory was collecting the credit card just got the really eager shoppers and now our growth was from zombie, forgetful, monthly Saas payments. And that's valid of course. But I wonder too, if just asking for a credit card gets you to be more serious too about trying a product. If you have to put in a credit card, you'll probably focus in here for a bit and not sign up for 10 other things the same day to try. And successfully collecting a credit card while someone is in the process of choosing anything, is probably always going to be easier than trying to convince them in 30 days to come back and get into a buyers mindset again. Unless you really are selling something so deeply crippling not to have it again after 30 days.

yndoendo 1y ago
I recommend "Alchemy" by Roy Sutherland. [0] It deals with human and behavior that drive economics and highlights ideas that would fail on paper and actually work. Example, turns out you can use Disney like characters painted on the outside of a store to reduce brake-ins at night. It goes through similar scenarios. Example, "Offering a free version and not requiring a credit card can push the idea that your solution has no value so why should I use it?" [0] https://bookbrief.io/books/alchemy-rory-sutherland/summary https://bookbrief.io/books/alchemy-rory-sutherland/summary
- sharts 1y ago
  The problem these days seems like everyone and their grandma has read about this type of phenomenon and now we live in a world where solutions that truly provide little if any value require the credit card, email, or some other exchange of information. It’s a sad state of affairs.

gertlex 1y ago

While the bug is how soon the cutoff occurs and the prompt is shown... Comparing the dialogs; did the 15-day expiration dialog have a "purchase" button at the time of the bug? (its screenshot in the write-up does not.) Making the purchase easy to initiate with the purchase button seems like something that would increase conversion rate, too.

geoffpado 1y ago
The way I read it, the first dialog showed up the first time you launched the app, and never had the Purchase button. The idea was that 15 days later, you’d see the second dialog (after 15 minutes of recording). Due to the bug, however, the second dialog showed up after 15 minutes of recording from day 1. The second dialog was always shown (and presumably always had the purchase button), but the difference was between whether users got 15 full free days first or not.
- gertlex 1y ago
  Gotcha! When going back to sanity check before my comment, I clearly was skimming too lightly to pick up on that.

steveBK123 1y ago

Unfortunate that some accidental friction was what it took to get users paying for what they over wise clearly found to be a useful product previously. I definitely prefer a world where being a small software company charging for your product is sustainable. Not everything needs to be ads/SaaS/Mag7 owned/slop...

hinkley 1y ago

Seems reasonable that there’s some sort of recency bias here and waiting two weeks can let people completely forget about your app.

123sereusername 1y ago

[dead]

mirekrusin 1y ago

Linked story [0] in the footer sounds even better. [0] https://weblog.rogueamoeba.com/2023/03/24/the-riaa-v-steve-jobs/ https://weblog.rogueamoeba.com/2023/03/24/the-riaa-v-steve-j...

hopelite 1y ago

This website has accessibility issues. My text reader cannot recognize any text. That has never happened to me. Edit: it seems the iOS “listen to page” functionality works though. Odd.

adxl 1y ago

Serendipity.