This discussion revolves around the business model and functionality of the macOS audio utility, Audio Hijack, and broader implications for software distribution and user perception. Several key themes emerge:
The Efficacy of Free Trials and Their Limitations
A significant portion of the conversation centers on the change in Audio Hijack's trial policy and its potential impact on sales. The shift from a longer, more lenient trial period to a 15-minute limitation is debated for its effectiveness in driving purchases.
- One user questions the prior trial model: "So what were the same folks who downloaded Audio Hijack doing on versions 1.5 or older at the end of the 15 day trial period? Download it again?" (oarla)
- The timing and nature of trial limitations are discussed, with one user suggesting: "I'd expect that the 15-minute nag screen prompted users when they were most enthusiastic about the app and therefore most inclined to purchase." (tiltowait)
- Conversely, some feel this new model is insufficient: "So, letting people try it out it for two weeks prevented them from buying it? That doesn't reflect well on customer satisfaction." (dlcarrier)
- A user highlights the potential for users to simply complete their tasks within a short trial: "I think more than anything it reflects on the fact that most people don't need to record audio all that often. If the product is fine, but you've done all the recording you need, why would you buy it." (Etheryte)
- The idea that limited trials or "nag screens" can be a catalyst for purchase is expressed: "A two-week long trial ends and you're not even on the computer? Oh well. You're recording something longer than 15 minutes that you want completed right now and the only way is to upgrade? Instant purchase." (switz)
- A user points out that a long trial period can effectively make the software "free" if users only need it occasionally: "All of that could increase discoverability of the version with only 15 minutes free trial, so it would be essentially trading sales for advertising. That said, 2 weeks evaluation on a tool you might use only once effectively means it's just free." (ralferoo)
- Another perspective on trials suggests loss aversion: "I think loss aversion comes in here as well: I'm worried about 'wasting' the trial. It's like consumables in a video game: yeah maybe this tool would be useful now, but what if I encounter something later where it would be more useful?" (mort96)
- A user laments the potential negative impact of a more generous trial: "It's sad that the more generous, user-friendly trial policy led to worse sales. ;-(" (musicale)
- The argument that such users were unlikely to buy anyway is presented: "Those were probably never going to be customers anyway, they're just finding ways to justify it to themselves." (AceJohnny2)
- Some suggest a simpler approach: allowing returns rather than timed trials. "Whatâs that better alternative Iâm comparing free trials against, then? Simply offer returns. Buy it, get a license, make your trial period however long you like; donât like itârequest a refund, get money back, get license revoked." (strogonoff)
- A counterpoint to the returns model raises user friction: "Customers already understand the standard subscription model/risk. Adding escrow means they have to learn about a new layer, evaluate it, etc. all in addition to doing the same for your own product." (0x3f)
The "Mac Ecosystem" and the Value of Paid Utilities
A recurring theme is the perception of Mac users needing to pay for utilities that might be free or built-in on other platforms, and the perceived value of well-designed, paid software in the Mac ecosystem.
- The necessity of paid software for system audio recording on macOS is questioned: "Why do we need a paid app to record audio from the system? Surely it's a small enough job for a small utility/script? This seems very Mac ecosystem to me." (kristianp)
- The Mac-centric nature of this paid utility landscape is reinforced: "It's very 'Mac ecosystem' from multiple directions: a paid-for tool that is often free on other platforms, but also a paid-for tool that provides a very nice UX with easier customizability and features than a 'small utility/script'." (tiltowait)
- Historical examples of commercial Mac programs filling niche tasks are provided: "For the past like 30 years I feel there's never been a time some commercial Mac program hasn't filled a simple niche." (Springtime)
- The comment about paying for simple GUI wrappers is also mentioned: "Once upon a time, Steve Wozniak paid me ten dollars for what was essentially a fancy GUI on top of an AppleScript." (aaronbrethorst)
- A user defends the Mac approach, highlighting the functionality gap on Windows: "Windows users love to complain about the fact that we have to pay for this stuff, but forget to mention that no amount of money can give you half of the same functionality on their preferred platform." (bronlund)
- This user elaborates on the complexity of achieving similar functionality on Windows: "Trying to do the same thing on Windows will just drive you insane." (bronlund)
The True Functionality of Audio Hijack
Several users emphasize that Audio Hijack is more than just a simple audio recorder, highlighting its audio routing capabilities.
- A user expresses frustration with the common misunderstanding of the app's purpose: "Audio Hijack isn't a recording app. It's an app that allows you to selectively route audio from individual apps to different destinations - audio interfaces and otherwise. Its built-in recorder is a small part of what the overall app does." (javawizard)
- This user continues to criticize the tendency to criticize without understanding: "It drives me nuts how quickly people jump on the criticism bandwagon without bothering to look up what the thing they're criticising actually does first." (javawizard)
- Despite this, the core problem of system audio recording on macOS without external tools remains: "Doesn't change the fact that when you try to find out 'how do I record desktop audio on my Mac?', the answer is very often 'use Audio Hijack', because macOS has no built-in way to record desktop audio." (mort96)
User Loyalty and Satisfaction with Audio Hijack
Despite the discussion around pricing and trials, some users express long-standing satisfaction and loyalty to the software.
- A user shares their long history with the product and continued satisfaction: "I canât remember exactly when I started using Audio Hijack, but it might have been from that very first release with the free-trial bug, as I used it to record streaming radio programs beginning around 2002 or 2003. I still use it now." (tkgally)
- "There arenât many other applications I have used for so long and with as much satisfaction as Audio Hijack." (tkgally)
- One user strongly refutes the idea that the takeaway is "misguided": "Audio Hijack is one of the best pieces of software I've ever used. Your takeaway is misguided." (postalcoder)
Alternatives and System Audio Recording on Other Platforms
The discussion also touches upon built-in audio recording capabilities on other operating systems and the existence of free alternatives.
- The Windows "Stereo Mix" feature is brought up as an alternative: "Windows has had a Sound Recorder since 3.1, and it's possible to record the currently playing audio if you select the right input (usually named 'Stereo Mix' or similar.)" (userbinator)
- There's a debate about the historical availability of "Stereo Mix": "Support for the 'Stereo Mix' audio source is a relatively recent thing - and my understanding is that, even now, it's driver-dependent. It most certainly wasn't available in Windows 3.1." (duskwuff)
- "I used to record the output audio using Sound Recorder, in Windows 95, so the feature goes back at least 30 years." (dlcarrier)
- The Windows Sound System and its mixer input capabilities are mentioned: "Windows Sound System... already had the ability to record from the mixer input (look in the datasheet of the AD1848 codec it uses)" (userbinator)
- The FOSS alternative "BlackHole" is suggested: "That's not to say free options don't exist. BlackHole[2] is FOSS." (tiltowait)
- OBS is noted as a video-focused alternative that could potentially be used for audio: "These days, OBS is probably a decent alternative, but it's very video focused and very streaming focused, so it's not exactly great for that purpose." (mort96)
Innovative Software Distribution Models
The conversation delves into alternative software distribution models beyond standard free trials.
- A user proposes an "escrow-style middleman" for software trials: "Want a program, give the middleman some money, get the product. Within whatever trial period, tell middleman you don't like it, they refund you, program stops working." (JonChesterfield)
- This idea is met with skepticism regarding user adoption and friction: "Customers already understand the standard subscription model/risk. Adding escrow means they have to learn about a new layer, evaluate it, etc. all in addition to doing the same for your own product." (0x3f)
- The risk of chargebacks for developers is also discussed: "As a developer, high rate of chargebacks can presumably cause issues for billing." (strogonoff) and "There is a big penalty for chargebacks, so not presumably, definitely." (whatevaa) The severity depends on the platform and pricing. (strogonoff)
User Experience Around Audio Routing Quirks
Some users discuss specific technical challenges with audio routing on macOS and how they are addressed.
- A user describes a workaround for transient audio interfaces (like AirPods) using a virtual multi-output device in Audio MIDI Setup: "One way to deal with a 'transient' audio interface tripping various apps on macOS is by creating a virtual multi-output audio device in Audio MIDI Setup (stock app)." (strogonoff)
- The difficulty of redirecting specific app audio to Airplay while keeping other audio local is explored: "so playing with Audio Hijack, it seems my 'Airplay' audio output is only present in the interface if I'm currently choosing 'Airplay' as my default audio output from the system" (oulipo2) This leads to a workaround of changing the system default. (oulipo2)
- The creator of the virtual audio device workaround argues against free trials, listing several disadvantages, including user experience and developer experience:
- "worse when it comes to developer bottom line" (strogonoff)
- "worse when it comes to user experience (you are interrupted, you encounter blocked-off functionality)" (strogonoff)
- "worse when it comes to developer experience (now you donât just program one great product, you also have to program into your core GUI the upsell)" (strogonoff)
- "worse when it comes to product improvement (the unhappy user will simply delete the software and youâll never know what they didnât like)" (strogonoff)
- This same user advocates for refunds as a better alternative: "Whatâs that better alternative Iâm comparing free trials against, then? Simply offer returns." (strogonoff)