tell application "iTunes"
copy name of current track to songName
copy album of current track to songAlbum
copy artist of current track to songArtist
end tell
say songName & ", bye" & ", "
& songArtist & ", from, " & songAlbum
Was originally using GrowlTunes with the "Speech" display style, but neither that nor AudioScrobbler gave me the exact announcement I wanted. Plus, we rapidly determined that having it occur with each song was annoying. This bound to a key command gives us an easy way of asking "what song is this?" (Or, as my wife occasionally puts it, "what the hell is this?", to which the correct answer is usually "Next Track!")
And...
Also, I feel now is an opportune time to make a comment on the tendency of many software companies (actually many companies in general, but in this case it is particularly germane to software companies) to take an attitude towards their customers I like to lovingly call "All My Customers Are Thieving Bastards, So Screw Them". In this particular case, my ire is sadly directed at the makers of one of my long-time favorite apps,
QuicKeys. I've used QuicKeys since the very first version on OS 9, and have loyally upgraded each version as my number of macros has grown over time and now make up a sizable portion of how I use my computer at home. (This is in spite of the fact that QuicKeys is extremely expensive when compared with other options which could cover the functionality I actually use, which range from $20 to free.)
When writing the above script, I thought "well, why don't I just throw it into QuicKeys" - nice and easy, bind it to a key command, and I'm done. Then, of course, I wanted it on both my laptop and our aging Mac Mini that serves as our music server, when suddenly I was given a friendly reminder why I hadn't used Quickeys on that machine (in spite of the fact that my
Quicksilver triggers for iTunes on that machine are always flaky):
So, let's discuss what this dialog means. When translated into the language "Customer-ese", which most customers speak but which seems to be a language many companies skipped in high school, this dialog reads:
"Dear loyal customer: it is so important to us to ensure that you don't use our product on more than one machine - no matter how trivial the usage, or how unlikely it would be that you would actually buy another license - that we have actually expended significant development resources on developing a mechanism to detect your thieving ways you horrible, horrible person. Please call us so you can give us more of your money, rather than finding a cheaper (or free) option to do what you are trying to do, even though that will probably also take significantly less time and effort on your part."
So, given that helpful translation, here is the $79.95 question: what do you think it is likely that someone will do in this situation? (I mean, other than writing an irate blog entry about an application that up until an hour ago
they had been completely and utterly happy with for over ten years, but now are seriously considering replacing.) Is it more likely that they will, as instructed, see the error of their ways and call Startly to ask if they can buy another license? Or, is it more likely that they will try to find another way of doing what they want to do (especially since because of the very nature of the application, anyone who would use QuicKeys is probably at least savvy enough to search for alternatives)?
Now, their FAQ indicates that the company that sells QuicKeys might offer some sort of "special pricing for registered home users who wish to purchase an additional license", however: a) it is improbable that license cost would be less than, say, free (after all, they have to pay for the time spent writing up that dialog and thievin'-bastard-customer detection mechanism) or even the $20
Keyboard Maestro that seems to be pretty close in functionality, and b) as noted in the translated version of the dialog, it's probably less work for me to just download and try one of said competing apps and get it to do what I want.
The amount of effort expended to effectively lose a customer here astonishes me. I have trouble believing that this sort of thing has ever garnered anyone additional sales, and there are many better ways of preventing "piracy", if that is their aim, without pissing off your paying customers unnecessarily.
All of this, of course, is a pretty common theme running through today's complex world of intellectual property, and our increasingly fragile attempts to both protect it and value it correctly. (Don't get me started on the recording industry, which has effectively managed to get me to
change my music selection criteria, mostly just because buying music from the RIAA is starting to feel a lot like paying protection money to a guy named Guido.)
I think a pretty good rule of thumb here is: if you treat your customers like thieves, they are very likely to find somewhere else to take their business.
