On Feb 20, 2010, at 3:23 AM, Uli Kusterer wrote: > > I may be missing something, but why not just set up a separate > > appcast? Is there any reason why your v1 users _would_ ever want to > > find out about v2 releases?
To clarify: What I meant by this was, do v1 users really want to find out every time a 2.0.x bugfix is released? Obviously many of them would want to know when 2.0 is available, but I was concerned that a single appcast would keep spamming them with non-applicable updates every time a new v2 release comes out. > and they activated it, so they've told you they're interested. There I'd have to disagree somewhat. As a user, I see Sparkle as a way of keeping a product I've already bought up-to-date with bugfixes, but that doesn't mean I'm interested in being offered a new product (which, to an extent, a paid upgrade is). Which is not to say that you shouldn't let people know v2 is out there, but I'd feel weird about it popping up in the app while I'm trying to work. > I'd be interested in hearing why you think Sparkle isn't the right > venue here, and what you would do instead? Obviously no one solution is going to be best for everybody. In our case, we have the luxury of mailing list + twitter + word-of-mouth being perfectly effective among our users, so I would personally prefer to keep paid upgrades out of the update path and avoid the appearance of in-app advertising. I still don't think Sparkle out of the box is the right tool for the job, but it sounds like you've managed to solve most if not all of the technical problems to make it into a viable tool for people who don't have any other real options. Sean [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
