FastScripts 2.4 is out, with an important change in the evaluation terms.

Use FastScripts for free, for as long as you like. All features are enabled and you may define up to 10 keyboard shortcuts. If you decide you want unlimited keyboard shortcuts, purchase a license to remove that limitation.

I have been thinking for some time of eliminating FastScripts Lite. Customers found it confusing to differentiate between the versions, and I found it tedious to artificially maintain two versions. With the new, liberal evaluation terms in FastScripts 2.4, all of the old Lite functionality and much more is now included for free in the full version.

This new version also includes a software update mechanism so you can be sure to stay up to date with new releases as I update the application. So whether you’re an existing paid user, or a Lite user, be sure to download this release!

If you’ve been thinking of giving FastScripts a try, now is a great time to give it a spin. I hope you will enjoy what it has to offer!

Major congratulations to my friend Fraser Speirs, whose acquisition of Changes gives a nice boost to Connected Flow’s product lineup. I just love to see other developers pursuing growth in clever ways. Acquisition can be a great shortcut on the road to indie success. It worked wonders for Red Sweater, and I hope it does the same for Fraser.

The application, a popular file comparison tool, was developed by Ian Baird of Skorpiostech, who is also a good friend. Ian is selling the product because he has accepted a development position at Apple. He will be moving promptly from Phoenix to Cupertino to pursue that particular dream.

So one indie developer’s sun is rising as another one sets. I don’t begrudge Ian seizing the opportunity to work at Apple. It’s a great place to make a difference, and I doubt anybody passes through that institution without coming out a stronger developer. If they ever do come out, that is. The company also has more decades-long employees than I have commonly encountered elsewhere. So, best of luck to you Ian, hopefully we’ll at least see you once a year at WWDC.

Trivia: the name Changes was my contribution to the project. I guess that sort of makes me its godfather. Be well, my son.

Since I have developed this reputation for software acquisition, one of the benefits is that other companies commonly approach me either to offer a product for acquisition, or to ask advice about a transaction they are considering. This is a great position for me, not only because it often gives me first crack at an opportunity, but also because I truly enjoy the process of talking through the pros and cons of a particular product for a particular company. So please, don’t be shy! Keep the inquiries coming. I love this stuff.

For those of us working our butts off on small, independently owned businesses, I think I’ve stumbled upon a catchphrase that sums up our plight with the proper degree of sass and brevity. Things are not going quite as perfectly as you wish? Sales flagging? Can’t get any publicity? How will you up the indie?

Jens Alfke goes deep on the question of whether Apple’s recent and recurring stupidities with regard to iPhone App Store rejections amount to evil or not.

It’s in Apple’s genetic code to be about as transparent as a lead brick […] but in the context of the App Store, Apple’s inscrutability and arbitrariness has become actively malign.

The latest flub concerns an iPhone book reader called Eucalyptus, which was allegedly rejected from the App Store because users could potentially use it to access books with questionable content. You know, similarly to the way you can use a web browser to access web pages with questionable content. Smooth move, Apple. Everybody is pissed about the incident. While rejections of fart apps or soft porn in the past found their share of supporters, most people seem to agree that these actions, nostalgic of book burning and censorship, are indefensible.

As an Apple cheerleader, it’s tempting to take the stance that Apple’s botched handling of App Store approvals is mere incompetence. There are tens of thousands of apps, and it stands to reason that a few erroneous decisions will be made in the course of evaluating those submissions. In spite of a variety of truly frustrating policies, the App Store is steaming ahead at a breakneck speed. This is just a squeaky wheel attached to an otherwise well-oiled machine.

But with each ridiculous, pathetic incident, it becomes harder to exculpate the company for actions that cause injury not only to the specific developers whose works are wrongly rejected, but to the developer community as a whole, whose support of the platform will ultimately make or break the iPhone platform and Apple’s reputation along with it.

Apple is cocky and Apple is arrogant. They always have been, for better and for worse. Alongside the stubbornly perfected refinement of its products, marketing, and public image, the company has always worn blemishes such as these. Obliviously, and with an oafish lack of concern. Apple is the beautiful Hollywood actress at the party, who laughs giddily into the night as a long piece of toilet paper trails her elegant gown. She ignores the polite whispers, and then the pointed throat clearing. Finally, as the whole room shakes its head and laughs, she condescends: “everybody here has a terrible sense of humor.”

I don’t believe Apple is evil, but they are powerful. And the careless handling of such power produces results that are hard to distinguish from evil. I expect things will get worse, and then things will get better. It’s happened over the years in other areas where Apple has stumbled. They will become less oblivious and more receptive to criticism about the App Store approval process. At some point it might even feel fair, transparent, and equitable.

But eventually they will move on to something else, applying their cockiness to a new and exciting arena. As much as I don’t look forward to suffering the specific damages of that future bloom of faux pas, I’m excited as hell to find out what it is.

Panic’s co-founder Cabel Sasser just wrote a general round-up of changes at the venerable Mac software company.

Lots to be jealous of. Ahem, inspired by. Cabel counts the 13 people — including new hires Neven Mrgan and Ned Holbrook — who make up the ranks of their development, design, and support staff. Everybody I’ve met from Panic has been a genuinely kind person whose desire to build great things is evident. Now they’re all doing that from an incredible new office in their home town of Portland, OR. Cabel seizes on the good news that, with a growing staff, they’re able to tackle projects more concurrently, and to be more responsive to their customer base.

Red Sweater is one of those “one-or-two person companies” that Cabel shows no yearning nostalgia for having once been. There are certainly advantages to going it alone. I call all the shots. No meetings. 100% profit sharing. Vacation days on a whim and without concern for obligations to coworkers. Never a petty squabble or philosophical disagreement.

But never an agreement, either. I don’t want to be alone forever. I imagine Red Sweater evolving into something resembling a Panic, Rogue Amoeba, Bare Bones, or Omni Group. The advantages of scale and camaraderie that come with modest growth seem to outrank the limited, mainly ego-protecting advantages of solitude.

As I look forward to growth, I take inspiration from these great models. A long-term, sustainable Mac software business doesn’t have to be built from behind a faceless corporate wall. Each of these examples started as a small group of people with their minds set on delivering a great application. Then they did it, and eventually they profited. That’s a starting line most of us can relate to, and endeavor to imitate.

But other operational priorities are harder to agree on. When you start to look at the ways in which these companies and others like them grow, you discover that every one of them has vastly different priorities about what part of the company to invest in and when.

It struck me while reading Cabel’s post, for instance, that Panic apparently has no marketing staff. And yet they’re one of the best known brands in indie Mac software. Paradox? Is there something about Panic’s product and staff that does its own marketing? Or would they be an even bigger success had they hired a marketing person from the start? Smile On My Mac, by contrast, consists of just three people, one of whom is completely dedicated to marketing. Is this a waste of revenue or a brilliant component of their plan for world text expansion domination?

Office space is another area of dramatic diversity. Panic and Omni each embrace the value of a centralized, beautiful office space where their employees can work and play, side by side. At the absolute other end of the spectrum, Rogue Amoeba enjoys the benefits of a virtual, internet-based office. In particular, no office rent, and they can hire people from anywhere in the world without relocation concerns.

While the choices a growing business faces are numerous, I feel lucky to have so many stellar examples to compare and contrast. And while I may hesitate at choosing which direction to turn when I come to a fork in the road, I’ll take some comfort in knowing that many of those forks each lead to an equally exciting outcome.