Seems like a fairly safe bet to me, given that all communication from the Versions side has stopped. Good job killing off a perfectly sellable and well written piece of software.
On 11.01.2013, at 07:37, Lorin Rivers <[email protected]> wrote: > What are the odds for "never"? I'll place a bet on that. > > -- > Lorin Rivers > 512-203-3198 > > On Jan 10, 2013, at 21:20, Ron Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm staying subscribed to this thread only because several of us at work >> have a bet on when Versions will be updated to provide SVN 1.7 support... >> >> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:51:37 PM UTC-7, drukepple wrote: >>> >>> Wow, I totally forgot about this thread. But thanks, because the email >>> notification reminded me that I should just unsubscribe myself. Even if >>> SVN were still a thing for me (why, hello, Git!), Versions would be dead to >>> me owing to the very topic of this thread. Best of luck to you. Thanks >>> for the year or two that Versions was grand, and I hope your plan works out >>> the way you expect. So long. >>> >>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:38:44 PM UTC-7, Daniel Dickison wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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)" <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>> 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/-/KduvQQJ4xA0J. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
