Existing users, 
 AddMovie - 1.7Join multiple clips into one movie, batch convert & much more. |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Feedback Summary:
| This Version: | |||||
| Overall Rating: | Not rated (0.0) | Features: | Not rated (0.0) | Support: | Not rated (0.0) |
| Ease of Use: | Not rated (0.0) | Quality / Stability: | Not rated (0.0) | Price: | Not rated (0.0) |
Key to Types of Feedback:
Reviews 
Troubleshooting 
Usage Tips 
Developer Notes 
Commentary 
Featured Reviews
does not work; no response from vendor 
- Version: 1.7, 6/11/2009 08:56AM PST
ennui1ross
After a donation and 3 e.mails for help later (with no replies), I would not recommend anyone giving money to this vendor. AddMovie will not work and the “temporary registration number” you get after a donation is already expired by a month. Not the way to get or keep customers.
Most Recent Replies: View All 2 Replies
- no response from vendor
Must be some mistake - Version: 1.6.4, 1/19/2009 08:43AM PST
(2 of 3 users found this comment useful)
rhea2
Must be some mistake. Whenever I have emailed Joe at Limit Point Software, he responds very quickly, often times within the same hour! And he has been very helpful.
Maybe you need to use an app like AppZapper to throw away the app and any associated files, then reinstall it.
Limit Point apps have always worked well for me. Joe just yesterday released the update to SeaTubes as well, fixing it.
Maybe you need to use an app like AppZapper to throw away the app and any associated files, then reinstall it.
Limit Point apps have always worked well for me. Joe just yesterday released the update to SeaTubes as well, fixing it.
Most Recent Replies: View All 1 Replies
Would be nice to use it... - Version: 1.5.9, 12/6/2008 08:54PM PST
(0 of 3 users found this comment useful)
gmcsuja
This is a good product. Does what it is advertised to do. My problem is not what the payment is called, rather the fact that when payment is made you do not get a permanent password. The application's demo period expires, it stops working, and then nobody supports the product. I've written a few e-mails to Joe about this, I have payment confirmation through PayPal. No answer.
My solution, use till demo period expires, then do not pay. Companies that treat their paying customers like this do not survive. My experience therefore may color my review of the program - overall, IT DOESN'T WORK!
My solution, use till demo period expires, then do not pay. Companies that treat their paying customers like this do not survive. My experience therefore may color my review of the program - overall, IT DOESN'T WORK!
Most Recent Replies: View All 1 Replies
focus please - Version: 1.5.8, 10/12/2008 05:47AM PST
(3 of 3 users found this comment useful)
ecodoc
It would be nice for the benefit of Version Tracker users, instead of obsessing about the exceptional licensing arrangements for the software, people would actually focus on the value and quality of it. Needless to say, I believe, this and the suite of related products is worth a lot more than the author requests as a reasonable donation. Best to find out for yourself.
I use them regularly and find these are going from strength to strength.
I use them regularly and find these are going from strength to strength.
"I call it a donation because I allow payments" - Version: 1.5.8, 10/10/2008 11:11AM PST
(4 of 5 users found this comment useful)
Krangdrol
Dear Developer,
I totally agree with the people who wrote about your product and your use of the word donation. As such, you state "I call it a donation because I allow payments..." That is absurd. It is hard to be totally honest isn't it? Especially when it comes to making money. As an end client, i look for responsible and honest developers, and when I see someone calling a product a donationware and then asking for money, I think it is silly. As such, you and any other developer should not call something a donationware product if it is not ABSOLUTELY FREE. That is what the word "donation" implies. If you want to lie to yourself, that is fine, but please don't lie to us and then try to make us believe that lie.
As a Buddhist, i sometimes go to teachings where the admission is a suggested "donation". If when I offer less than the donations suggestion—or nothing at all—and they refuse me entry, then they are guilty of the same thing you are: lying, and using a word with lofty ideals to further your financial gain. Tsk tsk.
I totally agree with the people who wrote about your product and your use of the word donation. As such, you state "I call it a donation because I allow payments..." That is absurd. It is hard to be totally honest isn't it? Especially when it comes to making money. As an end client, i look for responsible and honest developers, and when I see someone calling a product a donationware and then asking for money, I think it is silly. As such, you and any other developer should not call something a donationware product if it is not ABSOLUTELY FREE. That is what the word "donation" implies. If you want to lie to yourself, that is fine, but please don't lie to us and then try to make us believe that lie.
As a Buddhist, i sometimes go to teachings where the admission is a suggested "donation". If when I offer less than the donations suggestion—or nothing at all—and they refuse me entry, then they are guilty of the same thing you are: lying, and using a word with lofty ideals to further your financial gain. Tsk tsk.
pedantic punctilious pontification - Version: 1.5.7, 9/17/2008 03:58AM PST
(2 of 4 users found this comment useful)
ecodoc
I have seen the feedback about the donation issue for this software and feel compelled to rise to the defense of the developer, who I do not know. Version tracker is a place people visit to find software for their needs and not to learn semantic subtleties.
There is much unnecessary criticism of this developer and his suit of excellent software.
No one can be in any confusion that they have to pay for this software and the developer offers an option of several fees on a sliding scale depending on how you feel about the software; a little bit like a tip you might leave after a meal in a restaurant.
I think it is a good system.
Some people use the term donation-ware to get around restrictions that would otherwise raise the cost to unfavorable levels.
By the way, we should ask Apple (and Micro$oft) to make their software bug proof and perfect before knocking the little guy doing his work for small rewards in the garage to benefit at least some users.
I am more than happy with the suit of the software from this developer that works as promised and deserves the donation that you are comfortable with.
There is much unnecessary criticism of this developer and his suit of excellent software.
No one can be in any confusion that they have to pay for this software and the developer offers an option of several fees on a sliding scale depending on how you feel about the software; a little bit like a tip you might leave after a meal in a restaurant.
I think it is a good system.
Some people use the term donation-ware to get around restrictions that would otherwise raise the cost to unfavorable levels.
By the way, we should ask Apple (and Micro$oft) to make their software bug proof and perfect before knocking the little guy doing his work for small rewards in the garage to benefit at least some users.
I am more than happy with the suit of the software from this developer that works as promised and deserves the donation that you are comfortable with.
big file, wrong type - Version: 1.5.3, 8/1/2008 10:52PM PST
(0 of 1 users found this comment useful)
capologist
I contactenated to .mov files. The first one is 6.7MB with a duration of 34 seconds. The second is 25.9MB with a duration of 1:55. The result was a .MooV file 87.9MB in size.
How do I get a .mov file with a reasonable size?
How do I get a .mov file with a reasonable size?
Utilities Pricing Policy and Terminology - Version: 1.4.3, 2/10/2008 12:00AM PST
(3 of 3 users found this comment useful)
Joe_Pagliaro
As some of the feedback below indicates certain users are annoyed that I use the term "donation" when I enforce a payment for permanent activation of AddMovie, and all the other programs in my Utility Bundle that are simultaneously activated by such a "donation." So they give it a bad rating without even trying the product.
I call it a donation because I allow payments in four amounts. At the present time these amounts are: $10, $15, $20 and $25. I am fully aware of the conventional meaning of the term, or at least what it seems to imply: free access to the software with no requirement to pay anything ever. Yet in the description above I do clearly note that AddMovie is part of a bundle, and that a payment is required to permanently activate it and all other utilities.
It is very disappointing to receive 1-star ratings because of this pricing policy and terminology, and not because the product was actually used and found to be unworthy of a higher rating. I put a good deal of of time and effort into developing AddMovie, as well as all the other utilities in the software bundle it belongs to. It is not fair to disparage the programs with bad ratings because of a pricing policy or terminology related to it, although comments are always welcome.
I would consider changing the policy to one where, say, each utility has a separate price and I charge another single price for the whole bundle, rescinding the usage of the term donation. However, many people seem to like the way I am offering the software, and many people do pay in one of the various amounts available. So I don't think a change is necessary.
The idea is: pay an amount commensurate with the number of utility products you use. If you only use AddMovie, pay $10. If you use AddMovie, TransformMovie and Seatubes, maybe you'll consider $15. If you use 50% of the utility programs maybe $25 is reasonable. I really don't think this idea is unfair. Especially in light of the fact that all upgrades are always free, and whenever I create a new member of the utility bundle you get it at no extra charge. New products are in fact added frequently, and updates are applied all the time.
I hope I clarified the issue a bit. And I hope you consider retracting your 1-star rating and just leaving a comment that you think I am being unfair and misleading (which of course I am not trying to be.)
I call it a donation because I allow payments in four amounts. At the present time these amounts are: $10, $15, $20 and $25. I am fully aware of the conventional meaning of the term, or at least what it seems to imply: free access to the software with no requirement to pay anything ever. Yet in the description above I do clearly note that AddMovie is part of a bundle, and that a payment is required to permanently activate it and all other utilities.
It is very disappointing to receive 1-star ratings because of this pricing policy and terminology, and not because the product was actually used and found to be unworthy of a higher rating. I put a good deal of of time and effort into developing AddMovie, as well as all the other utilities in the software bundle it belongs to. It is not fair to disparage the programs with bad ratings because of a pricing policy or terminology related to it, although comments are always welcome.
I would consider changing the policy to one where, say, each utility has a separate price and I charge another single price for the whole bundle, rescinding the usage of the term donation. However, many people seem to like the way I am offering the software, and many people do pay in one of the various amounts available. So I don't think a change is necessary.
The idea is: pay an amount commensurate with the number of utility products you use. If you only use AddMovie, pay $10. If you use AddMovie, TransformMovie and Seatubes, maybe you'll consider $15. If you use 50% of the utility programs maybe $25 is reasonable. I really don't think this idea is unfair. Especially in light of the fact that all upgrades are always free, and whenever I create a new member of the utility bundle you get it at no extra charge. New products are in fact added frequently, and updates are applied all the time.
I hope I clarified the issue a bit. And I hope you consider retracting your 1-star rating and just leaving a comment that you think I am being unfair and misleading (which of course I am not trying to be.)
Most Recent Replies: View All 4 Replies
Tsk, tsk, tsk.... - Version: 1.4.3, 2/9/2008 12:00AM PST
(3 of 7 users found this comment useful)
cal411
I cannot even try a product that comes intentionally mislabeled. It is such an affront to the MacUser mentality. Although labeled as "Donationware", there is nothing in the description that suggest a limit on use until payment is made. Full disclosure or proper labeling is the only honorable way to go.
Most Recent Replies: View All 1 Replies
Excellent little app - Version: 1.2.5, 9/26/2007 11:14AM PST
(1 of 2 users found this comment useful)
ColinT
I would recommend this if you have movies to join together and don't like the command line. It works and works well and will work with your Elgato Turbo.264 if you have one because it uses QT. Well done it is excellent. Please fix the bug though that stops it minimizing when it is processing, I would have given it a full 5 stars if it wasn't for that little bug.
