LooseSuits

David Watanabe makes some pretty cool apps, but he's a total douchebag. I also find it ironic that most of his programs are for the facilitation of file sharing yet he charges up the ass for most of them.

That aside, he's a good interface designer. I've had issues, though, with most of his apps eventually slowing down the rest of my system. Acquisition loves to do this. XTorrent was pretty sweet as a beta, but crashed every now and again, and I think the pricing is ridiculous.

With his stuff, you're paying for the interface. Most people know this. He makes very intuitive stuff, and he's great at it. However I think in the case of a torrent client, it's not worth $20+ for a sweet interface when you can download something like Transmission that works just as well for free. And the interface on it isn't bad, either!

Eh. 9 out of 10 trackers ban xTorrent because it doesn't report statistics correctly. Just use Azureus or Transmission.

I think it's disgusting that all he did was slap a pretty interface on *open-source* software, and now he's charging for something that's not even made by him. I don't expect this product to do well, it's already garnered a bad reputation, and it's barely out of beta. Heck, people criticized it heavily even in the early stages for many other reasons.

Charging for beta software? That's like something Microsoft would do. What exactly are you paying for? Obviously it's not a completed product... does he offer 24/7 support? Sounds like a huge rip off to me.

Nah, it left beta two days ago I believe - that's when he started charging. Before you could use the betas all you want. They're all deactivated now though and make you download the finished version.

I think I can easily sum up the sentiments of many when I say "this guy is a fucking jerk for charging us to use a program that is predominately used to steal other software"

I think I can sum it up in one simple statement...

it's HIS creation, and if the market allows, he can charge anything he wants for it regardless of it's purpose

Seriously... do you HONESTLY want to call the developer a jerk because he wants to make a bit of income off of his hard work?

Since when did the PURPOSE of the application dictate its cost? The market does that.

If $30 is too much for 100% of his market, he won't make any money and the price will either drop or it will become donation-ware.

RightOn. You're right, it is his product, but at the same time, I'm sure he knows that very few people, at least most of the smart ones, won't pay for a piece of software that does a shittier job than most free clients. Especially when most trackers ban his product because his product doesn't perform correctly. What's the point in paying $30 bucks for a piece of crap software, when you can get something better for free?

Josh.... as stated in my previous comment...

I may very well agree that his product does a crappier job than the free options out there but the market and time will tell him if $30 is reasonable for his product.

If a year goes by an he has pulled in $0 for his product then he knows he was out of line and that he either needs to go freeware or drastically reduce his prices. (supply / demand)

If he sells 5,000 copies of xTorrent @ $30 in a year you can bet your butt that he will change nothing.

It's the free market at its best.

@Ozone42
"Charging for beta software? That's like something Microsoft would do."

With lies like that, I'm surprised that Apple hasn't hired you to write a Mac vs PC commercial.

Ozone...

I have to go with posure on the point that I VIVIDLY remember paying for the Public Beta for Mac OS X.

I did so happily but your comment was unfounded and kind of childish.

How was my statement unfounded, a lie, or childish? Microsoft has charged for Betas in the past, and is continuing the practice, albeit much more cheaply now (office 2007.) I remember my previous employer calling and complaining when MS switched to free beta's of the .Net framework after he'd purchased the first ones.

Paying for a beta is a bit ridiculous no matter who is doing it. No offense RightOn, I understand anticpating things fervently, but a company should be paying beta testers instead of the other way around. Getting feedback before you go to market is near priceless.

I have a problem with companies taking advantage of their customers, but hell, if the customers want to be taken advantage of then go for it I guess?

Way off topic though. I'm glad to hear the guy is not actually charging for a Beta now!

Let's all keep in mind how much money someone could hypothetically save by using xTorrent, which could possibly be hundreds or even thousands of dollars, hypothetically. So in reality, $20 or $30 for software that could hypothetically save you thousands of dollars is a very good deal in my opinion.

Problem with that though, is that you can save the thousands of dollars on a free alternative - which ends up being (numsaved) + $30 for not using XTorrent. It may be a valid argument to someone who's new to BT (Also sounds like a good marketing phrase), but to those of us who are already happy with our BitTorrent client, it doesn't really mean much.

I'll be buying it.

Sure, there's free alternatives. But they hurt my eyes.

I pay for pretty.

What's so bad about Transmission? The icon for 0.6 is terrible, but 0.7 has vast improvements; if you try either of them, definitely go for 0.7; it's still in beta (Nightlies) but I haven't had it crash at all. The only BT app that I think is terrible looking is Azureus.

Let's all keep in mind how much money someone could hypothetically save by using xTorrent

Do you plan to back that claim up, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

I understand wanting to make a money for your work, but it still seems highly unethical to charge people to use a service that is one, built on free technology, advocated to continue being free, and if anything, is used to steal other software that is anything BUT free. I see NOTHING right about charging people to steal.

(And with that last sentence, I probably invalidated any argument I had that's pro-torrent sharing, but I still do it for the music)

I bought the app when he had discounted prices before the release -- I think it was $20 total for lifetime upgrades. That's a sweet deal in my opinion. And the integrated search + custom trackers is beautiful.

@Ozone
Its childish because you're singling out Microsoft (which presumably means you're either a passionate Apple or Linux user). Microsoft has a fairly expensive developer program that is used for sending out betas, but the scenario is that it is for business, not Joe Consumer. I'm sure you're aware that Apple has the exact same sort of developer program for beta builds of products which is also expensive.

Back to the topic at hand though, there's nothing wrong with charging for a beta if the final version is going to be a commercial product. There has to be some reason for people to pay for the final version, why would they do it if they get it for free? I liked Microsoft's method with the Vista betas. Everyone can get it for free, but its time-bombed. End result: Microsoft gets a lot of feedback, consumers get to test drive the new OS for free for months.

dook - I'm talking about the money that is saved since 99% of the things on BitTorrent are pirated. So when people download a movie, download an album, or download software, you are getting something for free that costs more than xTorrent itself. The creator of this application is asking for $30 and in return you can use the software to download whatever you want, whether it's CC-licensed material or $10,000 in typography. The application is slick, well-designed, and that's worth $30 to me since I paid for a license yesterday.

I'm with Posure on this. Such a move is valid for businesses, and I also agree with what you say on the Vista betas. It was a great move, to let people try out Vista.

However, I don't think it's realistically viable to say torrent files are going to be used in a commercial manner. In my opinion, it would take a tremendous reexamination of our value system when it comes to filesharing, intellectual property (the first time I use such a bullshit phrase favorably), and digital rights (a topic I'm going to be writing a note about very soon).

So let me ask this then, since we think we should pay this guy for xtorrent, should we pay for torrents at all?

It seems to be a conflict of interest here when it comes to paying for software to share files, but not paying for the files themselves. Invariably, it's borderline hypocritical to say 'we should pay this guy for his hard work', but at the same time, use his program to steal the work of others.

I wouldn't count the value of "money saved" from the stuff you downloaded as offsetting the cost of the torrent software. If you're going to pirate stuff, why don't you just pirate xTorrent too?

Who knows, Xtorrent could end up being as "free" as all the other software you can get "free" by using it.

*wink wink*

subliminal: Unfortunately it's very hard to pirate DW's products. :/ Not that I'm admitting to anything...

dook: It's amazing how much I agree with you. There's not much I can say that you haven't said.

dook wtf?.

he made an app and charges for it. if you dont like it dont buy it.

shut up about what he does to fucking make a living already.

go make an app yourself and see how you like people calling you a jerk because you charge for it.

regarding the piracy issue, it holds no weight. you're pretty much saying something like "the omniweb people are jerks because the browser is not free, yea the browser i can rip designs with, download illegal files with, YEAH ITS UNETHICAL AND THEY'RE JERKS".