Page 1 of 1

Leopard Support for LS1?

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:29 pm
by Oliver
Hm, after deinstalling LS2 beta - will there be Leopard Support for LS1?

Re: Leopard Support for LS1?

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:03 am
by rhywun
Oliver wrote:Hm, after deinstalling LS2 beta - will there be Leopard Support for LS1?


Hard to tell for sure, but it seems like v1 is not supported in Leopard--which strikes me as really strange. I don't appreciate having to pay again to continue using a piece of software.

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:39 pm
by Guest
So where's the outrage at having to pay for Leopard?

Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:26 am
by rhywun
Guest wrote:So where's the outrage at having to pay for Leopard?


Heh. Well I'll probably buy, because I do want to continue using it. I hope the upgrade from 1.x is smooth.

Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:52 am
by rhywun
Wow, v2 is VERY different from v1. This is going to take some investigation :)

Poor policy

Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:23 am
by Jason
This is really poor policy on the part of Objective Development.

Of all my shareware apps, this is the only one that I actually have to pay just to continue using after moving to Leopard. The majority of developers have released compatibility fixes to support their customers, rather than using the event to force customers onto new versions.

It would be fine to consider the new version if it contains interesting features, but being forced into the situation is really disappointing.
:(

Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:24 pm
by rhywun
It helps if you think of it as simply upgrading to a new version, without reference to Leopard. There DOES seem to be lots of new functionality, even if most of it is over my head...

Yes... but

Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:20 pm
by Jason
Well, it does and it doesn't help. If they made a fix so that it worked with Leopard (an update to the program, like many other developers have)... even at a very small price, that would have been reasonable. Of course, obviously OD has been working on this new version, and it would be fantastic to consider that as a separate option, but being forced into that as a previously paying customer, I'm just disappointed. It's bad business.

Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:49 am
by Chantal
My question is: Why OD don't offer the possibility to pay a lifetime license ?

That means free upgrade for the next new versions.

The price can be higher that the actual $24.95 ($50 for a lifetime license sounds good for me)

I don't like the fact that I need to pay again $24.95 for a Leopard compatible version (Little Snitch 1.xxx was just perfect for me)

Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:36 pm
by rhywun
Chantal wrote:I don't like the fact that I need to pay again $24.95 for a Leopard compatible version


The upgrade price is $12.95.

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:07 pm
by suavito
rhywun wrote:It helps if you think of it as simply upgrading to a new version, without reference to Leopard. There DOES seem to be lots of new functionality, even if most of it is over my head...


I'd suggest the opposite: Little Snitch is not just a program that does whatever it does under whatever OS, like a word processor or a painting program.

'Normal' programs are affected too by a change of the OS to a certain amount, but not as much as a tool like Little Snitch that's deep inside the system.

So beside from all the new features—which are quite a lot already—you should see Little Snitch as totally new program. Which you get for a really low upgrade fee, especially comparing it to what important security function it serves.

And the life time licence … well, offer the guys at Obdev some $500 and maybe you'll get what you want. I mean, why do you think shareware producers are just bored millionaires that don't need money?

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:35 pm
by rhywun
In the end, I think it's fair. The upgrade price is reasonable. It could have been handled better, though. I didn't get any warning that Little Snitch 1 wasn't going to work in Leopard, and I didn't know it wasn't running for a couple weeks until I realized how "quiet" it was and saw that it was disabled. Which I suppose is part of the "background" nature of the product--you set it up once and rarely hear from it again.