I realize that this may seem like a disproportionately long response compared to the comment that spurred it, but we've been talking internally for quite awhile about this situation is and what we can do about it. My previous email was effectively a brain dump of what we've been discussing within our group.
-Daniel On May 27, 2012, at 5:20 AM, Daniel Pasco <dan...@blackpixel.com> 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 <chrisp...@googlemail.com> 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)" <j...@blackpixel.com> 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 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. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Versions" group. >> 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. >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
