Well, there's a slight unfortunate thing that I, and many other people, bought TextMate 1.0 with a promise in writing that TextMate 2.0 would be free to us when it shipped. I'm really sorry that Alan didn't think things through well enough to realize that doing that was a poor idea, but I paid for what I paid for. It's illegal and immoral to change the rules after you've closed the deal.

EDIT: I'll add that I don't think that this is a greedy proposition. While I know a lot of people are truly thrilled with TextMate, I wasn't. I didn't ask for a refund, because I understand what it's like to be an indy developer, and thought I'd gamble that Alan would ship the features I'd need to switch to TextMate over Emacs when the 2.0 release got out the door. That gamble didn't pay out, which I'm okay with; 2.0 never shipped, and I'm not mad that 1.0 failed to materialize with the features I needed. But I also don't think it's fair to say I shouldn't get the 2.0 release, when I almost certainly would have asked for a refund based purely on the 1.0 release. I doubt I'm the only one in this boat--especially given how many blog posts I've seen over the last several years as developers, frustrated with TextMate's lack of progress, have reverted to Vim/Emacs/BBEdit/what-have-you to get the pet features they want.

It depends, he could have inadvertently got a lot of sales because of the promise, even though you can tell that wasn't the intention.