FoldingText 0.9.2
- Added AppleScript support.
- Added Move Line Up and Move Line Down commands.
- Added .todo mode, see Help > Installed Modes.
- Added .timer mode, see Help > Installed Modes.
- Added Copy HTML option. Access through Option-Command-C.
- Added Command-[ and Command-] shortcuts for Shifting paragraphs.
- Added View > Go to Heading... (Command-L). You can also go to a heading by command clicking on the leading #. Command-click it again to go back a level. Or use View > Home to show all.
- Updated
<HTML tag="highlighting”>. - Updated User's Guide, split out Expert User's Guide.
- Updated text input to better handle OS X system auto-replace.
- Don't ask to save Users Guide, Release Notes, or Acknowledgments unless they've been edited.
You can download it from www.foldingtext.com, or direct download here.
There’s lots and lots to play with in this release. Be sure to check out the Help menu!
We’ve changed course a bit here. Originally we'd hoped to release a minimal markdown editor. And then add in more advanced productivity features over time. But we started to run into problems when trying to describe FoldingText. We didn’t want it to be put into the "Markdown Editor" mental bin, but unless it did more that’s where it would end up. And then when we later added the more advanced features people might not notice, since they already considered it a markdown editor.
We are also likely to change course on how we’ll price the app, though not final decisions have been made. Our original thought was to price it cheaply, then use in-app purchases to sell extensions and extra features. But we also (eventually) want others to build and distribute their own extensions and that goal goes against our needing to sell our own extensions as in-app purchases.
So instead we “think” we’ll take a different approach. We’ll sell FoldingText at a higher price point (target around $50, though cheaper to start for early adopters) and then just make the extensions that we develop free and open source. This seems like the right approach now since it wouldn’t put any constrains on extension development.
So please, try out the new release. Let us know where you find bugs. And let us know what you think about these changes in general.
Thanks,
Jesse
2 Posted by Ian Beck on 02 Aug, 2012 03:22 AM
Hey Jesse,
I think this is a very good idea. I've always been a little leery of the "Markdown editor" approach. Far better to embrace the rough sketch of your strength, and grow from there as a truly unique offering.
I can't really speak to the pricing (since as a consumer my gut reaction is that I want to pay less), but I personally prefer a single, higher cost with free updates (and upgrade fees for major version increases) to the nickel-and-dime approach to in-app purchasing that has grown so rampant with the app stores. Particularly if I'm able to get in on early adopter pricing that isn't quite so high. ;-)
Ian
3 Posted by Jefferson on 02 Aug, 2012 01:30 PM
Wow -- Jesse. Nicely done.
You've really outdone yourself w/ todo mode. It is beautifully implemented and I love the way it integrates in with a regular document (rather than being a separate document type).
I have no problem w/ your pricing approach and would definitely pick up FoldingText. I definitely understand the extensions quandry that you mentioned and your todo and timer mode have highlighted precisely how powerful these sorts of extensions could be.
My only request in the weeks/months ahead is not to do anything that would break an IOS markdown editors ability to view/edit/manipulate the documents in markdown mode. Until you eventually release an IOS client, I'm currently using ByWord to edit my FoldingText files in markdown mode. Seems to be working pretty well.
Also, a small improvement I've noticed (that I'm quite happy with):
if you do sub-heading with ## and then do a bullet on the next line, the bullet now aligns with the second #. it looks better from a hierarchical perspective than the bullet aligning with the first # in 0.9.1.
4 Posted by Clint MacDonald on 02 Aug, 2012 02:03 PM
Jesse:
In thinking about your pricing, you might want to drop your expectations by $5-10. At $50, you are positioning yourself head-to-head with BBEdit. Do you really want your intended market (geeks, presumably) to ask themselves, "Is FoldingText in the same class as BBEdit?"
Just my gut reactions. Otherwise, I am greatly looking forward to FoldingText!
Best wishes, Clint
5 Posted by Stefan on 02 Aug, 2012 02:59 PM
I really really like Foldingtext and I admire your work in general. Every app you have done since HBImageProcessor was highly original, of high quality and very useful. If you think that Foldingtext will eventually evolve into something very sophisticated, then charge 50$ for it. I would be cautious with such a high price though. For, say, 20$ I would certainly buy it, but for 50$ I am not so sure. The biggest problem with such a high price is that I am not sure how future-proof such an investment is. Since HogBay Image Processor I bought quite a few of your apps and most of them were discontinued and you switched to something new. The same seems to be true now for TaskPaper. It badly needs iCloud sync, then it would be perfect. But you seem to have changed your priorities again and be now committed to Foldingtext, which will evolve into something which can also do what Taskpaper does now. That is perfectly fine, but it will take another year or so until you release an iOS version of Foldingtext and so on, and until then I am stuck with a suboptimal sync mechanism for Taskpaper (Dropbox) and cannot be even sure if Foldingtext will eventually (also) be what Taskpaper is today. That's why I would be hesitant to pay 50$ for Foldingtext, even though I am truly excited about it. I have to know what will happen to Foldingtext 3 years from now. I understand why you constantly want to try something new and have to start all over again, but from the point of view of the customer this is a risky proposition if your products start to get so expensive and cannot be justified as an impulse buy anymore.
Best,
Stefan
6 Posted by Clint MacDonald on 02 Aug, 2012 03:47 PM
Stefan and Jesse:
For perspective, here is a smattering of prices for text editors and word processors on the Mac App Store. The touchstone app prices are $50 for BBEdit (text editor) and $20 for Pages (word processor). Coda ($75) is probably too specialized for consideration. Depending on how Jesse positions FoldingText, its competitors might be iA Writer, Byword (each $5), or his own WriteRoom ($10).
Certainly Jesse should position FoldingText above WriteRoom, which puts it in the $15-50 range. But, where should it sit? It is entirely up to Jesse!
BBEdit - $49.99
Byword - $4.99
Coda 2 - $74.99
iA Writer - $4.99
Markdown Pro - $9.99
Marked - $3.99
MarsEdit - $39.99
MultiMarkdown Composer - $9.99
OmmWriter Dana - $1.99
Pages - $19.99
Ulysses $11.99
WriteRoom - $9.99
Zen Writer - $19.99
Best wishes,
Clint
Support Staff 7 Posted by Jesse Grosjean on 02 Aug, 2012 07:01 PM
That’s for everyone’s pricing thoughts. I’m listening.
If you look at FoldingText as a text editor $50 is probably high. At the same time if you look at it as a productivity tool it’s comparable. OmniFocus and Things are more, and while they might provide a more standard experience, FoldingText can do a lot that they cannot.
Comparing to BBEdit makes some sense, but in the end the apps are very different. I think BBEdit’s focus is programmers multi-language editor. FoldingText can’t do that at all, it only understands a single format and that won’t change. But at the same time FoldingText can do a lot of things (I think, haven’t actually tried BBEdit for a long while) such as syntax hiding, modes that add behavior and transform styling, filtering document while leaving it editable) that normal text editors cannot do.
The other thing is just the effort involved. I was selling my notebook app 10 years ago for $40. FoldingText has been a much bigger undertaking and has taken a lot longer to develop. I’m just turning 36 soon, which is when programmers brain probably starts to atrophy, but FoldingText has been in development (fits and starts) since TaskPaper 2.0 (2008?) release. And in full time development (mostly with two guys) for over a year and a half. Who knows if the ideas are good, but they at least took us a lot of work!
Last, with the pricing we are trying to leave ourselves some room for more focused apps. We don’t know if we’ll need to do it. But if FoldingText doesn’t sell like we hope, then it’s likely we’ll split out some of the functionality into small, cheap, targeted apps. For example a simple plain text todo list. (without almost all FoldingText features, except type (-) and get a checkbox. So that’s the backup plan and we need some room for it.
Anyway the way that I see things:
On release (and for a few days it will be around $20). That will be upgrade pricing for TaskPaper, WriteRoom users, though anyone will be able to get it since we are using app store. Before release I’ll send an email out to WriteRoom and TaskPaper users.
After that it will rise to early adopter pricing. Probably about $30. Will stay at that for immediate future.
Once app does everything that I think it should (filtering, spell check, themes, plugins) then I’ll likely bump the price up again. I don’t know, might never hit $50, but that’s the goal. We’ll have to see how things go in the early adopter stage I guess.
8 Posted by mon10a on 02 Aug, 2012 07:25 PM
I would like to weigh in on the pricing issue. I think FoldingText is doing things that no other app has done before. When all the discussed features are implemented, it will provide incredible control over the display of simple text files (data). We will be able to build our own personal apps around these features. Others obviously feel differently, but I would pay more than $50 for that kind of power.
Regards.
mon10a
9 Posted by Clint MacDonald on 02 Aug, 2012 09:03 PM
Jesse:
I see FoldingText as being at the same "level" as TaskPaper. At $25, TaskPaper seems about right, and I think FoldingText will feel the same.
(But I intend to get in on that Early Bird pricing. :-) )
Best wishes,
Clint
10 Posted by Brandon Titus on 02 Aug, 2012 09:25 PM
Wow...I am absolutely stunned that these modes are already creeping in (I never got a chance to see the earlier builds).
I'm now extremely excited at the future of this project and I hope to look at writing some extensions of my own (just today, I was looking at trying to join a todo list with a task timer that would time you as you work in a textual format like this).
As for price, I would easily pay $50 but I do fear that most of the market would not. I think $25-40 is about where it will do best. Of course, this whole discussion hinges on what features are available.
I love the model of charging and then open sourcing the extensions. This seems like the obvious way to go and will make FoldingText a platform similar to Textmate that passionate users can build upon, creating a great source of viral marketing.
11 Posted by Jefferson on 03 Aug, 2012 01:43 AM
One additional thought -- if and when you switch from your early adopter pricing to your final price point ($40 or whatever), I'd suggest that a must-have feature would be your mobile IOS client. I'd consider that a requirement on day 1 for your final full price model.
12 Posted by Scott on 03 Aug, 2012 12:12 PM
The target price seems reasonable, once the app hits its lofty goals (which I think it certainly can), but it is a bit of chicken and egg issue. As you say, for the ultimate goals and target price, the app really needs the rich outside interest for plugins and themes etc.
At $20 then quickly $30 entry prices it might never get critical mass. $5-10 seems more of a "Seems interesting, I'll give that a try" price for people that appreciate good software. At that price, more might be willing to buy into the promise, given that many probably already have a number of apps that do something like the current functions of Folding Text.
My general suggestion would be a lower starting price with a steeper and more incremental pricing ramp with each new feature.
13 Posted by Nicholas Lash on 03 Aug, 2012 10:27 PM
Wow, I'm already using FT for my schoolwork and it's really great. Looking forward to making more modes!
I'm supportive of the pricing model. The extensibility that's promised will more than pay for itself, especially once some creative tinkerers get it in their hands.
14 Posted by pan.baranek on 04 Aug, 2012 12:11 PM
Dear Jesse, these are great improvements and clever direction for FT to make it more productivity-oriented.
But, I mean, it should still keep markdown-backwards compatibility, because people will presume it works that way. IMHO it is important to keep text files created by FT "live" and usable on many platforms, not just in FT.
E.g. the .todo list ability is GREAT (!) but not md-compatible – when you view the list as markdown, it renders as "compressed" paragraph. I am using NVAlt when accessing my text files and it keeps me from using the FT in the productivity way. Simply: must be the "tasks" in the .todo list be indented? And: insterting "CR+LF" between line with list heading and the list is necessary for md, but it does not work with FT...
As for .todo (if you are comparing FT with Things etc…) : what about finally implementing some due-date ability? I left TaskPaper because of not being able to keep with due dates – using applescripts was very clunky and did not worked on iOS…
Thank you very much for your effort
Tomáš
15 Posted by Scott on 04 Aug, 2012 12:48 PM
As I try to use PlainText as my go-to text app, the price/feature issue has been bouncing around in my head. I wanted to add one more comment for consideration.
Is the plan really to ship this on the app store with no spell check features? A text app for $20-30 the the lack of tools to proof what you have typed? I think that is not going to go well. These tools are such a standard in every app on OS X (they are in the browser text box as I type this), I think it will generate a lot of irate reviews. I would certainly never expect them to be missing, especially in a text app at that price point, and I miss them now in the preview. I would guess that a lot of users like me, that use these kind of apps for writing not coding, will be the same. Just something you might want to consider for getting some momentum with the launch.
16 Posted by feek on 04 Aug, 2012 02:38 PM
I agree with pan.baranek. FoldingText should be compatible with markdown and 100% text oriented!
@Scott: I assume all spell check features will be implemented, because as Jesse said FoldingText should be a complete program, integrating all seperated programs of Hogbay (please correct me if I'am wrong ;) ). In WriteRoom spell check features are excellent implemented!
17 Posted by Scott on 04 Aug, 2012 04:03 PM
@feek, Jesse has said in this thread and others that spell check is planned for some point after the 1.0 release on the app store. I am inclined to believe that this will happen, but my point is that anyone encountering the app for the first time on the app store is likely to be pretty shocked after they buy it to find that it lacks the standard OS X spell check tools.
On these forums, the original stated plan was to launch at a low price, which I assumed meant somewhere in the $5 range. That is where other mark-down-y apps have launched, before they got more rich features. No spell check at that price might be passable, especially if feature updates come quickly. But at $20-30, no spell check is likely to generate some very bad reviews and have a hard time getting momentum.
Go through the list of apps that fill the same general niche and hit that price mark or much lower, then ask how many of them lack basic spell check tools. The answer in none.
Support Staff 18 Posted by Jesse Grosjean on 05 Aug, 2012 07:39 PM
FoldingText is and will remain 100% text oriented, that’s one of the fundamental pillars that we are building on. But 100% Markdown compatibly isn’t our goal, and isn’t even really possible. At least isn’t possible I think without hurting our primary goal. I’ve an extended response (and looking for feedback) to that question here:
http://support.foldingtext.com/discussions/problems/69-help-me-bett...
Support Staff 19 Posted by Jesse Grosjean on 06 Aug, 2012 01:25 PM
As I said above 100% Markdown compatibly isn’t as important to me as providing a good place to think and structure text. (And I think tab indent of body text to structure is an essential part of that).
But if you do want 100% Markdown compatibly in your documents you don’t need to use Tab indents. For example you can still use .todo in standard Markdown like this:
I hope that makes sense.
Jesse
20 Posted by Alex on 07 Aug, 2012 09:03 AM
Hi,
This is really really awesome. This is really THE productivity tool I was waiting for. You really did a great job in this last iteration and future seems even brighter!
BTW, I have a bug (XML parsing...) when I add an @12/20/2012 tag to a line (in a .todo).
I really looking forward to next updates as it gets better at every new version.
Thanks
Alex
Support Staff 21 Posted by Jesse Grosjean on 07 Aug, 2012 12:47 PM
Can you instead put '12/20/2012' in as a tag value, something like @due(12/20/2012)? Generally tags need to be more "variable" like. We include them as attribute name/values in the XML DOM (so you'll be able to use them for styling). Also we need to embed them in our node path language (see Expert Users Guide) and "/" is a special character (path separator) in that context.
22 Posted by Alexandre Aubert on 07 Aug, 2012 01:07 PM
Thank you very much for your help, it works perfectly!
23 Posted by jafwld on 07 Aug, 2012 05:09 PM
FoldingText is a great app with a TON of potential, especially if extensions are frequently made and source is released for users to customize and users themselves make their own extensions available.
The problem I see with the $50 price tag is convincing new users that this app will not be abandoned like so many other app store programs. Your history of standing behind your products speaks to that matter, so for those who are familiar with you and your apps/company the $50 price tag does not sound unreasonable but the challenge will be convincing new users that this $50 is for something special that will be around for a long time to come.
Now for a question. Although the app store limits it's developers a great deal are you going to make features that are beneficial to the community but violate app store rules available via your website as extra downloads? For instance a command line app for FT would have to be a free download from your website and not packaged with the app itself. If the app store is not going to limit FT's development this is going to have to be communicated to users but more importantly demonstrated. Another issue, out of your hands, is the long period of time that it takes between your submission of updates to apple and the app getting updated on the mac app store. Competitors like BBEdit can release updates on the fly since users are given the choice of purchasing the app through the company directly or the app store.
I am correct to assume, from what I am reading that FoldingText will be mac app store only? In that case, will there be a demo for those who never had a chance to try the betas? I know your other apps which were developed pre-app store still have versions which can be bought through you directly but that is not the road you are taking with FT is it?
FoldingText will not be an impulse buy by any of us, but once we see that it is going in the direction of flexibility and the user is given constrol over how lightweight or feature packed the app will be then I think people will slowly but steadily start to take the plunge and buy the app.
On a positive note, you have a great app that will draw many customers who will then refer others, so although it may have a slow start with the high price tag, sales will continue to rise if it is stays on the course we have seen. Running promos every once in awhile to attract those buyers on the edge about purchasing will help but you know more about this than all of us. Just keep up the good work and think long term, both of which should not be a problem for you.
Cheers, thanks, and good luck!
Support Staff 24 Posted by Jesse Grosjean on 07 Aug, 2012 05:53 PM
I expect yes eventually. Though I also expect the first bit of post 1.0 development to still be on more fundamental features. I haven’t looked it up recently, but I also think there’s a way to allow you to download from app store once, and then get your updates directly from my website after that.
I’m also not certain that we will be app store only, though it’s looking that way right now.
25 Posted by Ian Beck on 07 Aug, 2012 06:55 PM
I really hope you'll reconsider this. If you do this, then custom third-party themes and extensions become highly problematic to manage for users (based on my understanding, App Store apps cannot download and execute additional code), you tie your hands when it comes to things like command-line access/etc., and handling a demo becomes a big headache.
Personally, I try never to buy apps that I care about and intend to use for a while from the App Store because Apple keeps hamstringing them without warning (TextExpander, 1Password, and so forth being excellent examples).
I'm not convinced that the App Store actually offers any real benefits to developers unless they happen to luck out with an app that is feature by Apple for a long time, either (based on third-pary comments and anecdotal evidence from the apps the company I work for sells).
Particularly when you are targeting the geek crowd and want to have a userbase that is comfortable running and writing their own extensions, etc. I suspect limiting yourself to the App Store is going to do nothing but hurt you down the road.
The only reason I could see for doing App Store only would be if you wanted to go the in-app purchasing route but it sounds like you are veering away from that direction, anyway.
Ian
26 Posted by Brandon Titus on 07 Aug, 2012 07:08 PM
The obvious reason for publishing FoldingText on the App Store is publicity. I think it is a no-brainer to submit to the App Store.
That being said, I think there are obvious things to consider (like trials) they may be better done outside of the App Store. I don't think the plugin/extension features will really run afoul of Apple's policies since there are many examples of existing editors who support these features available (and promoted) on the store.
Support Staff 27 Posted by Jesse Grosjean on 11 Aug, 2012 02:49 PM
I think that I will initially just sell from that app store.
That means I don’t need to spend time building the licensing system. And also don’t need to spend time supporting it. As a datapoint we’ve long sold other Hog Bay apps from our website, but right now ~90% of our sales come from the Mac App Store.
An important point. I’m pretty sure, we can provide the option to migrate people from the app store to our own licensing system if we need to in the future using something like this technique. But the reverse is not possible.
28 Posted by jafwld on 12 Aug, 2012 04:16 PM
The developer's over at alfredapp.com have use the mac app store wisely and I think you should consider doing what they do. 1) List your product on the mac app store and allow people to purchase through the mac app store, but if users want to use features like the powerpack that take 3rd party extensions then allow the full featured version to be downloaded from your website and transfer over licensing on a per-user basis but do not cripple your app simply to get it on the mac app store. 3rd party extensions are a must imo, and I believe that offering the "full featured" version off of the mac app store is the way to go.
Alfred is a top downloaded/purchased app but their power users, like myself, use the app because they offer a version and licensing through their own system which allows customization/extensions to be used. Best of both worlds. Mac app store for publicity but alternate licensing and download of full feature version via your website. I think this is the only viable option. As, Ian Beck mentioned, app store apps can't download and/or execute additional code... Of course your choice. But please do keep us up to date with your thought process and final decision before we go ahead and decide to purchase or not.
Thank you for being open and listening to your users here. You don't have to and that says a lot... I still hold out hope...