Just another ping on svn 1.7 support — even a vague ballpark statement would be nice. Is 1.7 support a priority? Perhaps after Kaleidoscope 2 emerges from beta? I've switched to the command line for now, and contemplating other apps.
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:20:01 AM UTC-4, dlpasco wrote: > > We bought this software to continue updating it and make it even greater > than it already is. > > Unfortunately, disclosing our product roadmap is not an option. Jack is in > the unenviable position of being the public face for this product - please > at least divert your frustration to me personally, because he is just > conveying the message that our team members have all internally agreed to > stand by: we give a damn what people think, our product group is very busy, > and we can't talk about when we'll release products or what will be in the > those releases until they have shipped. > > If people are upset about that, it's understandable. All that I can say > is, we didn't acquire this product to kill it or sit on it. > > The gist of this is as follows: > > * We can't miss a deadline we don't announce (on at least one product, we > would have missed our proposed deadline multiple times if we'd kept telling > people when we planned to ship. Unfortunately, really producing a polished > product takes a lot of time, and we agreed internally that we'd rather take > longer to make something better than just push something out the door that > would make people upset). > * If we don't announce the features in our next planned release, we can't > get flamed for postponing support for that feature in the release if it > looks like it's not ready to make it into the build yet). > * Our competitors (and there are many out there) - can't jump the gun on > us if we don't announce an upcoming feature before it goes live. > > All three of these factors are important, and the last one may only be > important to us, but it's a critical one: our product team is young and > totally buried working on applications - if we lose market share simply > because we announce something before it's ready, and someone else is > capable of responding to the announcement before we ship, it's going to > really hurt our ability to even break even on what we're working on - which > means that it will become even harder for our team to ship great updates to > these apps. > > My personal focus for almost the last year has been on putting absolutely > all of my energy into our product team. These apps are large, complex, > great things, and we're committed to doing great work on everything we > ship. Since our product team currently consists of about five full time > developers and four full time designers, and we have taken on five > different applications. Moving forward with these apps *and* doing a great > job on them takes time. > > Our company is investing heavily in the product group, currently at a net > loss. Hopefully, at some point in the future we will at least break even on > our work. At the present, please try to take the following points to heart: > > * We are crazily in love with our apps > * We are working our butts off > * We have already turned down offers to acquire our company, as well as > offers to acquire individual products, because we want to see these apps > *ship* and we want them to be amazing. > * We are absolutely not sitting on these apps and happily collecting > revenue from them - we're using the revenue to pay for the work our product > team is doing and our company is sinking considerably more than those apps > are making into the product group in order to pay for the other people that > the direct revenue doesn't cover. > > At this point, as I've told Jack (who has expressed support for our stance > of silence, but also really been uncomfortable with the fact that it > doesn't leave him in a very good position on the support front), the only > thing we can do is shut up and ship something great. Which is what we're > trying to do. > > If we lose customers in the interim, those are lumps we will have to take. > Hopefully as our apps do ship, they will be compelling enough that people > will be interested in trying them out. > > I wish we were big enough that I could just throw 30 people at these > projects and ship them on an expedited pace. Unfortunately, this is why > being indie is a double-edged sword: we have complete creative control over > our apps and can take the time to make them the best they can be, instead > of being beholden to some investor that wants us to ship a shitty product > as quickly as possible to meet their bottom line, or outright kill a > product by selling it to someone that *would* just sit on it to make a > quick buck. > > Really, the only sources of pressure we have to ship something before it's > ready are our own finance people, who would love to see the revenue coming > in so they could stop pouring money into the product team and put some > capital away for our own security, and our existing users, who are > understandably frustrated and impatient with the realities of how long this > is taking. > > Everyone else in our own group is beating themselves senseless on our work > and would prefer to keep it unreleased until it is ready. > > We've talked about writing a blog post about this, and we probably should. > I don't know if this will make a bit of difference to anyone reading this, > but we're working hard, and we truly give a shit about our customers and > what we're working on. > > In any case, as I said, if people are upset about it, feel free to reach > out to me directly. I'm the CEO and I'm the responsible party for these > decisions, not Jack. > > -Daniel Pasco, CEO > Black Pixel > > On May 27, 2012, at 4:46 AM, Christian Pleul > <chri...@googlemail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > > That support really sucks! Why did you guys ever bought this software... > > Christian > > > Sent from my iPad > > On 25.05.2012, at 23:26, "Jack (Black Pixel)" > <ja...@blackpixel.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Hi - sorry for the delay in responding. > > Unfortunately, I don't have any information to share regarding 1.7 support. > > Jack > > the Versions team > versionsapp.com > @versionsapp > > On Friday, May 18, 2012 10:19:24 AM UTC-7, William Chu wrote: >> >> When is Subversion 1.7 support coming to Versions? It's become a real >> hindrance and I've found myself gradually using Versions less and less >> given this limitation. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Versions" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/versions/-/wW6C4UDoQ8UJ. > To post to this group, send email to vers...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > versions+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Versions" group. > To post to this group, send email to vers...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > versions+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/versions/-/ZiJZJcgvBWgJ. To post to this group, send email to versions@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
