Casady & Greene Says "Goodnight" 95
powderhound writes "Longtime Mac software publisher Casady & Greene have said their final 'Goodnight.' The publisher of many notable Mac titles such as SpellCatcher, InfoGenie, iData, and Glider Pro, have decided to close the doors on July 3rd. Their web site contains the details of their decision. They will be sorely missed."
Re:Oh no! (Score:1, Informative)
And from the looks of it, the rants are gone.
Rêves doux. (Score:5, Informative)
It's been great.
Goodnight.
justen
Re:Rêves doux. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Rêves doux. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been scratching my head about C&G's business strategy and expecting this day ever since OS X was announced.
Re:Rêves doux. (Score:5, Insightful)
They had a raft of OS X utils, but not necessarily ones you'd pay for (e.g. Clone'X: there's freeware/shell commands that do the same thing). I think more importantly, they were a very "morally sound" company, almost to the extent of being complete hippies... but damn cool coding hippies
Re:Rêves doux. (Score:2)
Re:Rêves doux. (Score:3, Insightful)
I bought and received great satisfaction from both Conflict Catcher and SoundJam Pro.
So it is sad to see Cassady & Greene's departure.
But I'm not going to complain about the fact that a) Conflict Catcher is no longer needed and b) Apple bought SoundJam for everyone.
Re:Rêves doux. (Score:1)
Re:Rêves doux. (Score:1)
Crystal Quest ruled (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the rest of the stuff C&G published, well, I never needed any of it...
Re:Crystal Quest ruled (Score:1)
Re:Crystal Quest ruled (Score:2)
Re:Crystal Quest ruled (Score:2)
Re:Crystal Quest ruled (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Crystal Quest ruled (Score:2)
Re:Crystal Quest ruled (Score:1)
Re:Crystal Quest -- SCREENSHOTS (Score:2)
- B&W Mac title screen [soup-kitchen.net]
- Screenshot [inwards.com] (Apple IIgs version)
- Screenshot [pocketgoddess.com] (PalmOS version - color)
- Screenshot [portable-games.com] (PalmOS version - B&W)
- Screenshot [rottentomatoes.com] (GameBoy version)
- Pic of floppy [thesandbox.net] ("Green, Inc.")
- Box it came in [inwards.com] (Apple IIgs version)
- Game promo pamphlet [inwards.com] (Apple IIgs version)
- Patrick Buckland photo [stainlessgames.com] (author)
- Amiga screenshot of Diamond Thief [stainlessgames.com], a Crys
Did Apple kill them? (Score:5, Interesting)
After OS X came out, I stopped using Conflict Catcher, too (which, yes, is still on my 6500).
Just thinking this through: Apple definitely dealt a mjor blow buying SoundJam off of C&G, but does anyone think of C&G as an OS X developer?
Oh, well. Farewell, C&G. We'll miss you.
Did Apple kill them? I don't think so: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like: Even with FfmpegX, OSEX, 42 and the MissingWhateverToolsStuff the whole DVD-ripping-DivX-VCD-area on the Mac still needs some professional software company to engage in that field. This thing is the only I envy Windows-PC users for. They have some good easy to use and fast apps.
Re:Did Apple kill them? I don't think so: (Score:1)
Re:Did Apple kill them? I don't think so: (Score:1)
Re:Did Apple kill them? I don't think so: (Score:2)
Anyhow, I agree with you except that DivX isn't good example. It's just not something that I see standing the test of time. I know OS X users who are heavily into burning VCDs from DivX, but they are ones with more Unix experience and are willing to mess around in dark areas more than some (like you and, admittedly, me). But there is still voodoo and mystery surrounding it, and I don't
Re:Did Apple kill them? I don't think so: (Score:1)
Hehe, I see your point, but note that DVD player makers are starting to support some DivX formats (I say "starting" because it seems to not working that perfectly well). And then some stuff only comes as DivX (or Xvid or whatever) and I want to watch it. Two years ago that was really a problem on my old slow iMac. PC users laughed at me and rightly so.
"[...] know OS X users who are heavily into burning VCD
Re:Did Apple kill them? I don't think so: (Score:2)
If you run a larger software house, maybe you can handle a lawsuit (if it occurs), but C&G was just too small to handle such a risky proposition.
I've not looked at their finances, but I hope that they're treating their employees better than a company forced into bankruptcy from a lawsuit.
It's all a question of politics and cash...I can't blame C&G for playing it safe, even though I would
Re:Did Apple kill them? (Score:3, Funny)
Certainly C&G doesn't.
Re:Did Apple kill them? (Score:1)
Re:Did Apple kill them? (Score:2)
Sad to see them go (Score:5, Interesting)
I think as Mac OS X becomes more ubiquitous, we'll witness a renaissance of Mac development and publishing. It's already showing with products like Transmit and Hydra (to name just a couple).
Re:Sad to see them go (Score:1)
That being said, the OS X development renaissance is already in full bloom, in my opinion. It's a great and fun platform to develop for.
Re:Sad to see them go (Score:2)
Re:Sad to see them go (Score:2)
why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I love this operating system, but I sometimes wonder how much all the goodies that come with it (X11, iTunes, iPhoto, iChat, Safari, Mail.app, Address Book.app, and iCal are all in my Dock) are hurting independent developers who innovated for the platform before Apple got around to incorporating those functions into the OS.
Re:why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:why? (Score:2)
The companies not working on large-scale applications are providing apps that offer familiar functionality (like text editing) but with additional features.
Re:why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The monopoly status of Microsoft makes all the difference, as a matter of fact.
Not everybody has a problem with bundling, per se. I do not think it is appropriate to artificially define where an OS ends and where applications begin. Historically, there have been many operating systems far less powerful than Linux or the NT kernel, so it would be rather silly to set a hard limit on where an OS must end.
What was the problem? Their variable pricing. Since the cost of Microsoft Windows is both variable and unavoidable for OEMs, this allows Microsoft to exert extraordinary pressure on them to ban things like pre-installing Netscape. There was very few reasons otherwise for an OEM to not pre-install Netscape, which was free anyway. This is also why simply requiring Microsoft to sell Windows at the same price (as determined by Microsoft) would already greatly reduce the undue influence they have over OEMs.
Software, especially popular software, all tend to grow. If you write Photoshop filters for a living, be prepared that Adobe may one day ship a similar one by default. This isn't really a new thing. More interestingly, consider Linux. Linux may have killed any number of small operating systems for various niches, and if its advocates are to be believed, it may one day kill off Microsoft Windows. Can Microsoft assert some moral right to keep selling Windows, rather than "find a new gig"?
Re:why? (Score:1)
Sure, they can choose not to, but that would mean they'd go out of business. If Dell tells Microsoft where to go, Microsoft can charge them more for Windows. How then is Dell supposed to compete with HP and Gateway if their computers suddenly cost $100 more than one from its rivals with the same specs? So no, they *don't* have a choice if they want to stay in business, which is why MS is a monopoly.
I was commenting about the doub
Re:why? (Score:2)
No, this would be using its monopoly in operating systems to not only enter a new market, but to throttle that market in its favor. This would be a clear violation of anti-trust laws.
Apple is not a monopoly. People have to choose to use Apple products, and can just as
Re:why? (Score:2)
No, I think you made your point pretty clearly, which is that companies should be judged by their actions regardless of whether they are a monopoly or not. This is a moral question, to which I offer no argument one way or the other.
I'm merely pointing out that the legal question is different. It does matter a great deal whether or not you are a monopoly. This is because a monopoly is really a singularity in market economy, because their phenomenal success in
Re:why? (Score:1)
If there were other viable consumer operating systems for x86, this would be fine, but Be is gone and Linux has a long way to go. Be kept trying to have some OEM's ship BeOS with their computers, but were always denied because the way Microsoft licensed Windows. MS would give out discounts if *all* the computers you shipped had
Re:why? (Score:2)
You use a most interesting definition of the word "choose".
Yes, Dell can certainly "choose" to sell only Linux PCs, and bundle Netscape as much as they want. However, they are likely to lose most of their market share, if not go out of business entirely. If I'm pointing a gun at you, you can certainly "choose" to disobey me. The rest of the world generally uses a more relevant definition
Re:why? (Score:2, Funny)
Why, that'd be like blaming Microsoft for putting out similar companies simply because Microsoft is constantly striving to improve Windows' features and functionality.
Oh, wait.. Well, no wonder there's so much more independent/shareware programs out there for Windows!
Why? Because of OSX (Score:5, Insightful)
OSX killed Extension Manager by way of UNIX, SoundJam by way of buyout, and Spellchecker with built in Cocoa services. All three, but _especially_ extension manager, were near necessities when we were dealing with an extension plauged, mp3 starved, clusterfuck of a system.
So to answer your question: a resounding "yes." OSX killed Cassidy & Greene along with C&G's innability to innovate and capitalize on a system change that they saw coming _years_ in advance (remember Rhapsody? they do).
Their Extension Manager was priceless in my converting to MacOS from Windows, and it is still one of the few applications I have ever paid for.
FYI (Score:2)
Re:Why? Because of OSX (Score:2, Interesting)
Not so fast. C&G SpellCatcher, formerly Thunder 7 is an excellent, unique app that Cocoa services fail to replace because so few applications use Cocoa services. In-line red-squiggle spell checking has changed some things but does little for spell checking the text box I am writing into right now. SpellCatcher captures all text input and can log it if you want to snoop/document. What
Re:Why? Because of OSX (Score:3, Informative)
HyperSpell (Score:4, Informative)
Not so fast. C&G SpellCatcher, formerly Thunder 7 is an excellent, unique app that Cocoa services fail to replace because so few applications use Cocoa services.
That's what HyperSpell [kuwan.net] is for. It lets you access OS X's spellchecker from any application, and it's free.
--
This post checked with HyperSpell
I Agree (Score:1)
But that promise is eeking its way into existence. Using OmniWeb there would
i have to wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:i have to wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has frequently added more and more programs to its arsenal, and has its market share dropped? Nope. Perhaps Apple thinks the same will be true of their efforts. I can only hope so. I see more and more people coming over to the Mac platform, from Windows. This can only be a Good Thing(TM) for Apple.
Re:i have to wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
as much as I liked C&G, I am not a fan of Extensis. Their updates were continuously late, often buggy and their support was spotty at best. Entire companies used to have to wait months for OS upgrades because they were waiting for new versons of Suitcase. They've gotten their act more together recently but their acquisition of Diamondsoft just seems anticompetitive to me. Besides, Apple hasn't improved their font management at all since they added the font folder back in OS 8 (or was it 9?), it was due for an overhaul.
Now I just need to save up for OpenType fonts to replace my old Type 1s.
Re:i have to wonder (Score:3, Informative)
it was System 7.0 (or maybe 7.1) and i agree the OS X system needed an overhaul, but the classic system worked just fine.
Re:i have to wonder (Score:3, Interesting)
It was 7.1.
Prior to System 7.0, fonts were resources inside the System suitcase which could only be managed via applications like Font/DA Mover, or ResEdit and similar. In 7.0, the System suitcase could be opened in the Finder, which showed the fonts, sounds and keyboard layouts it contained. Each of these could be dragged out of the System suitcase into a
Re:i have to wonder (Score:1)
We didn't have no stinkin' Extensions Manager...that showed up in System 7.5 (it was available separately before then, it wasn't an Apple product). We either ponied up for Conflict Catcher (which is still the better Extensions Manager), or we just move stuff manually out of
Re:i have to wonder (Score:2)
I am not alone.
yes, ResEdit and making simple changes like these were what made the Mac a great learning experience to me, allowing me to get whatever work i needed done, yet also allowing me to play around with the system when i felt so inclined.
Unlike dealing with PCs of the time, which were generally the other way around...play with it go get things to work, and get some work done if the computer felt so inclined....
=/
Re:i have to wonder (Score:2)
About those font resources, do you remember that it was also possible to put fonts in applications instead of the system file, using Font/DA mover? Those fonts would be only accessible to the patched application itself, of course. If I remember correctly you could still do this in System 7.
JP
Re:i have to wonder (Score:1)
You can do it with ResEdit; I wasn't aware that Font/DA Mover would let you copy a font into an application, but perhaps so. Actually, you can put font resources into a document that will be opened by the application -
Re:i have to wonder (Score:2)
Conflict Catcher was the same way. It was necessary, but shouldn't have been
Re:i have to wonder (Score:2, Informative)
The existing font managing tools are so terrible, terrible, terrible I just can't believe it. No way to use them effectivly. I just pray that Apple got it right and that it will work on my old slow Mac. I have a 400 Mhz G3 with 576 MB RAM and plenty of free diskspace, but all solutions choked on my ~5000 fonts. I don't want to use them all at once
Re:i have to wonder (Score:1, Insightful)
When the developers drop the fucking ball.
Why do we have, for example, fax built in to Panther? Because third-party fax solutions sucked out loud. Why do we have FontBook? Because Suitcase sucked out loud. Why do we have iTunes? Because nobody else built anything like it. Why do we have Sherlock? Because Watson sucked...
dealings with C&G (Score:5, Interesting)
They wanted 85%, wanted to delay payments to us for up to 180 days,
if they wanted new "features" either we had to implement them or
they would pay to have it done and -we- would have the cost deducted
from royalties. We said no thanks.
When talking to them, the SoundJam/iTunes thing happened a few months earlier
and I asked the guy about it. He said that Apple approached them,
with a fixed price. They advised them to take it, or get buried by an Apple product.
He wouldn't say how much they got, but it wasn't a huge number, plus they had
to relinquish the programmers as part of the deal. I like Apple, and I like iTunes
and what it's become, but Apple sort of rolled over them and they never recovered.
Re:dealings with C&G (Score:2)
Re:dealings with C&G (Score:2, Informative)
Re:dealings with C&G (Score:2)
with a fixed price. They advised them to take it, or get buried by an Apple product.
He wouldn't say how much they got, but it wasn't a huge number, plus they had
to relinquish the programmers as part of the deal. I like Apple, and I like iTunes
and what it's become, but Apple sort of rolled over them and they never recovered
From other sources [thinksecret.com], including an interview with C&G Vice President Bonnie Mitchel in the Wall Street Journal, it sounds as if you are badly mistake
Re:dealings with C&G (Score:2)
I had thought that SoundJam being bought by Apple would
have been a windfall. I just wrote what the guy told me.
Sad but... (Score:4, Informative)
Glider Pro... (Score:1, Interesting)
Brings back memories
oh nooooo (Score:1)
My summer job at C&G (Score:5, Interesting)
Some random memories of C&G:
- Seeing my first IBM computer with a full-color monitor and GUI. The PC tech support guy was amused that I thought all IBM's had green screens.
- Beta testing a paint program that simulated natural media. It was at least as good as Aldus SuperPaint, the Mac favorite at the time, but for some reason I never heard of it again.
- The intraoffice instant messaging system that one of the programmers built. Everyone spent so much time sending messages to each other, the boss shut it down after just a few days.
Re:Adios (Score:1)
Re:Conflict Catcher (Score:3, Interesting)
open source, .mac, osx (Score:5, Informative)
I always waited for Conflict Catcher to do the same. There was room for it. It would have need to be completely rewritten, but the basic concept is sound (looking for conflicts). If they'd had found a way to do a Clean-Install System/User Merge under OS 10, CC would have easily regained its throne.
I don't think C&G had the reources or maybe even the dedication to make the kind of investment leap to really make their tools valuable for OS 10 users. Between the explosion of freeware apps and open source projects, and cheap hosting on
They were always more a publisher than developer, so and with resources like Sourceforge and
At least most of their developers have taken their software with them.
speaking of Glider (Score:3, Informative)
Re:speaking of Glider (Score:1)
Conflict catcher's idiosyncrasies (Score:2, Interesting)
One trick I did with CC was a "reverse psychology" test: ra
Re:Conflict catcher's idiosyncrasies (Score:2)
Kinda like CrashGuard caused most of 'em?
Mission: Thunderbolt (Score:2, Interesting)
Possible last sale? (Score:1, Interesting)
Keep It Simple Spreadsheet (Score:2)
K.I.S.S. had a really bad name. I bought it at MacWorld. I'm just geeky enough to be intimidated by attractive women ten years younger than me, so I couldn't bring myself to say something like "I want a KISS
Re:Keep It Simple Spreadsheet (Score:1)
Seemed like a good idea at the time, but I didn't have much use for spreadsheets then.. Nowadays, I think the 'helper' features in excel probably make things something near easy enough, i.e. you can press a single button to sum a row.
All of those spreadsheets you mention have interesting features. There's so little innovation these days. When