aejae

How do you compare the pros/cons of having the summarization built into the call tool, like with Vowel, vs having more control but in separate tools?

Thanks for the kind words!

Thanks! We've put a lot of effort into making Multi feel like it's built into macOS

Hey CitrusFruits, thanks for the plug! (Haha I agree with the dead comment that this reads like a paid ad. I'm grateful you took the time to post this... before I even realized we were on HN!)

We're building so that you're (hopefully) both right: - The focus is on code, especially macOS/iOS devs in Xcode. - We want working together to feel as intuitive as Figma/Miro.

Thanks! Cross-platform support is planned but not out yet.

For some options that work with PC, check out my other comment mentioning "Windows"

If you're pairing infrequently, Zoom has "kind of low latency" screenshare, with "somewhat usable" remote control. I'd just that.

For a more better experience on both macOS and Windows, check out CoScreen as mentioned, and Tuple too!

Hey jsherwani—congrats on the awesome product! Would love to catch up if you're up for it :D

Hey cofounder here, just confirming that we do _not_ support running from the browser. That's a pretty great feature.

Another tool that supports streaming to a browser is [Coduo](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/coduo-pair-coding-for-xcode/id...)... although I just noticed the single 1-star review :/

Multi is typically used for long-term teammates. That's when, the extra features we get from being native, as well as the command palette to reach someone, are more useful.

For anyone who's genuinely curious about why the pricing ramp, here's the [an internal doc with some of the debate about the pricing plan](https://multiapp.notion.site/Pricing-What-should-we-charge-f...).

Link expires in 6 days. Most of the discussion is in the comments.

For anyone who doesn't want to load a ton of JS, in short:

# Free

Mostly pairing features. Free because we think that collaborative pairing functionality should be available to everyone, whether or not you can pay. If you're an individual contributor, you should just be able to sign up. Our closest competitor charges $30 a month for just pairing functionality, and as a result many small teams can't afford to use it.

# Standard

Mostly features to help with async communication and documentation. We think that distributed work in it's ideal is "Pair often, write a lot, and minimize meetings."

We think it makes sense to draw the paywall here because a/ The async features cost us more to run, and b/ This problem is something that team leaders or managers care about. And those are the people with credit cards.

We support teams having a mix of Free and Standard seats. Just pay for the power users.

# Enterprise

There are some features that cannot be per-seat: They have to be the whole team or nothing. For example, SSO (yes #ssoTax), API access, bespoke security review etc. For these, we can talk to the team about what their usage will look like in deciding the price.

Hope that helps. We're very open to feedback on this. DM's open at @embirico on Twitter if you have thoughts privately.

Hey, cofounder here. Thanks for the post @bx376! Totally unexpected since we launched last Aug.

I'll be responding to the comments. LMK if you have any questions.

Not sure about this for larger teams, but for very early stage teams I agree.

Seeing people using a hard-to-build feature a couple times a day, then more, until eventually you have to mute notifications to focus on work is a great way A/ to feel the progress, and B/ notice trends you can't pick out in averages.

Example for A: Just yesterday our CTO wrote in a feature-specific channel: > This page is now unreadable due to volume of usage pings! Go team!!

Example for B: Intuitively noticing whether your tool, that has say 6 DAUs on a team, is being used once by all 6 people, or in 3 pairing sessions, or something in between. Yes could run an analysis for this, but at an early stage co it's easier to just notice.

We became June users at our pre-launch co a few months ago, and the feature 0xferruccio mentioned is part of what sold me initially.

Not sure how long it'll remain useful but loving it for now.

Agree -- it's nice that there are (usually) options we starts diving deep enough

John the author doesn't have a HN account so standing in for him here.

We as a team were initially divided on whether to push NSSttatusItem limits in this way. Fighting the OS is always extra work and risk. But at the end of the day Apple's own FaceTime pulls similar shenanigans and ultimately it feels like a successful design.

Curious what primary use case you had in mind?

I live in NYC and was recently surprised to learn that despite the population, we don't rely at all on desalination. Pure water catchment. Good YT doc on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDLkOWW0_xg

Most of the points here are about separating your self-worth from your work, and that's certainly good general advice, but it's not the only way to go.

I'll be honest and admit that I connect self-worth with my work, or the sport I'm playing... part of my identity is the desire to do things well.

So yeah criticism hits personally for me. But actually: In a good way. I view every piece of feedback as an opportunity to advance that personal identity.

Usually at work that's desired: The people giving feedback are trying to help. But even that criticism from that stranger on the internet trying to get you down is an opportunity.

It took me a while to get here. I still have half a second of defensive feelings when I receive unexpected feedback. But I've trained myself to quickly let curiosity overpower the defensiveness.

As others have said, your awareness is half the battle. You're on a good path. I hope this alt POV helps!

Got to say, the H1 on the main landing page is amazing.

Cofounder of Remotion here. Thanks for the mention!

We actually still have the drop-in rooms.

The pivot if you're curious is because very few teams adopted the rooms just for hanging out. Instead people ended up doing work in them, like pair coding. So we decided to keep the rooms, but focus all our feature development and marketing on the collaborative features.

Thanks for sharing this! Cofounder at Remotion here—I worked closely with Zak on this and we'd love to discuss!

Invite sent to you and terretta!

Thanks for the suggestion. This is a good idea.

Good points. I think there are two reasonable options:

A/ use cross platform to iterate effectively

B/ choose to iterate on only one platform, then build out other platforms as your ux stabilizes.

We chose B but acknowledge it’s an unusual option, and there a 30% chance in our minds that we’re wrong /shrug

(Cofounder here) This is close to our thinking. Comes from seeing how at Dropbox we started with a cross-platform approach on desktop. While it meant that we could quickly achieve consistency, it also meant that we couldn’t use platform-specific tooling on any given platform, like debuggers, without a bunch of custom tooling to fight through the intermediate layers.

We want to try running small teams using the best stack for each platform.

(Cofounder here) Agreed, we aren’t ready for your team yet.

We’re starting with a small but opinionated target audience, and building out for other platforms from there.

> just for some technical clout

I think we both know that’s oversimplifying :)

TBH we weren't sure how much people would care. What we've found is that when we build a bucket of value props to solve for a given use case (e.g. eng coworking), different users will find different value props to resonate.

So some people are very glad to save RAM, CPU, etc. Others don't care but love shared music DJing etc...

I'm not a fan of Qt from my time at Dropbox (we used it for our desktop client preferences for some time), but will need to check out GTK4 and Compose. Thanks!