Bear Notes 1.2.2 Update Brings Text Highlighting, Multiple Windows, and More

[MacRumors]

Popular note-taking platform Bear received an update on Wednesday across Mac and iOS that adds a number of community-requested features to the Apple Notes rival.

Top of the feature list in version 1.2.2 is the ability to highlight parts of notes in a neon color to indicate importance, by bracketing text in "::" tags.

Over on the Mac, it's now possible to break out Bear notes into separate windows for easy reference between multiple entries, simply by double-clicking them in the notes list.

To simplify organization, Bear 1.2.2 also has a new option to edit note tags right from the sidebar and notes list. To do this on Mac, click a tag in the sidebar to view all notes with that tag, and then right-click any note and select "Remove tag (X)". The same option can be accessed on iPhone and iPad by tapping a tag in the sidebar, swiping left on a note, and tapping More.

In addition, the app has gained some new advanced search options or "Special Search" triggers. It's now possible to add "@today" or "@yesterday" to searches to find notes with those creation dates. The new functions join existing triggers such as "@untagged" to find all untagged notes, "@tasks" for all notes that contain tasks, and "@files" for notes that have attachments.

Elsewhere, there's new shortcuts for quickly inputting the current date/time in various formats, a new Print Note option and note counter at the top of the notes list, while an AirDrop option has been added over on iOS Share Sheets. It's also now possible to share notes as rich text.

Bear is available to download on the App Store for iPad and iPhone [Direct Link], as well as on the Mac App Store [Direct Link].

Article Link: Bear Notes 1.2.2 Update Brings Text Highlighting, Multiple Windows, and More

 

[farewelwilliams]

i'm still not going to periodically pay $15 for a sync feature. they need to fix their business model. would GLADLY pay $20-$30 one time for a great notes app.

 

[heretiq]

i'm still not going to periodically pay $15 for a sync feature. they need to fix their business model. would GLADLY pay $20-$30 one time for a great notes app.

There is nothing to fix in their business model. This is simply the model they've chosen to make their business sustainable. I'm happy to pay $15 a year for Bear. This price is a bargain for a professional, high-quality, multi-device app that I use every day -- from a team of talented professionals who pour their life energies into creating and regularly maintaining a useful, usable and beautiful tool.

 

[ikir]

Yes I agree, Bear is awesome, super fast on iOS and macOS, they implement many new features constantly, paying 15$/year it is well deserved for their work

 

[Telos101]

Agreed, Bear feature set is well worth it for just over $1 a month.

 

[macintoshmac]

i'm still not going to periodically pay $15 for a sync feature. they need to fix their business model. would GLADLY pay $20-$30 one time for a great notes app.

What’s the business model of your electricity supplier?

Also, people didn’t buy Microsoft Office and Adobe software that much when it was one time payment. Both companies have seen tremendous uprise in income and revenue since going subscription based, because in their cases, it adds value to both user and company.

On a smaller scale, it does the same with Bear developers. Regular payment makes developers “liable” in a way, far more than a one time ticket does. It’s a win win for both developer and user and the price is very competitive for what the software is.

Again, it is about the price in this case, which is pretty fair. Of course, they could charge $9.99 for iOS app and $9.99 for macOS app, and maybe the users would be happier. Who knows. There is just no satisfying some.

 

[AppleInLVX]

Anyone who doesn't like the business model, do what I do and just use Ulysses. It's served me well for years, and no bloody SaaS.

 

[saudade]

i'm still not going to periodically pay $15 for a sync feature. they need to fix their business model. would GLADLY pay $20-$30 one time for a great notes app.

Dud don’t be penny digger plz these guys r working hard n they deserve some income. R 15 bucks money 4 u? Gosh

 

[groove-agent]

Reminds me of Fantastical - a slightly modified version of a free Apple app. These companies that copy Apple's work, change some colours etc, then charge for it seems criminally plaigaristic.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

I hope this works for them.

 

[Fzang]

Why would you pay for this, let alone something like Ulysses? I fail to see the point, entirely. Unless the point is "choice", in which case I suppose it is...

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Why would you pay for this, let alone something like Ulysses? I fail to see the point, entirely. Unless the point is "choice", in which case I suppose it is...

Ulysses is a vastly better app.

 

[ignatius345]

Why would you pay for this, let alone something like Ulysses? I fail to see the point, entirely. Unless the point is "choice", in which case I suppose it is...

The beauty of there being thousands of Mac developers out there is that there are apps being built and sold which meet the needs and desires of different people, so people are free to pay for things you yourself might not want or need.

Let me break it down for you.

For example, let's say someone (you, maybe) has no need for Ulysses' organizing, syncing and editing features, and doesn't want to pay for Ulysses. Hmm. Thorny problem. Why should you pay for this app you have no use for? Seems very unfair, right? The great news is, as it turns out, you don't have to! In fact, you can find and download whatever app meets your needs, maybe a free one like Notes or TextEdit, maybe something else.

Alright, now you're asking, "Yeah, but what about Ulysses? It makes me mad that someone would pay for that when I don't need its features."

Great question. Turns out other people have different needs than you. Crazy, right? So let's say some nutjob actually wants to blow their hard-earned money on an app like Ulysses because they want all these extra features, like iCloud sync, and all these output options, and organizing features. Maybe they "write a lot" or whatever. Get this: they can still pay for Ulysses, get use out of it and support the developers who make it, and, crazily, it doesn't actually obligate you to buy Ulysses at all! Is your head exploding right now, or what? I know mine is.

Anyway, turns out your using whatever you use and someone using Ulysses (or whatever) are not mutually exclusive. Both can happen at the same time.

What a crazy world we live in!

 

[AppleInLVX]

The beauty of there being thousands of Mac developers out there is that there are apps being built and sold which meet the needs and desires of different people, so people are free to pay for things you yourself might not want or need.

Let me break it down for you.

For example, let's say someone (you, maybe) has no need for Ulysses' organizing, syncing and editing features, and doesn't want to pay for Ulysses. Hmm. Thorny problem. Why should you pay for this app you have no use for? Seems very unfair, right? The great news is, as it turns out, you don't have to! In fact, you can find and download whatever app meets your needs, maybe a free one like Notes or TextEdit, maybe something else.

Alright, now you're asking, "Yeah, but what about Ulysses? It makes me mad that someone would pay for that when I don't need its features."

Great question. Turns out other people have different needs than you. Crazy, right? So let's say some nutjob actually wants to blow their hard-earned money on an app like Ulysses because they want all these extra features, like iCloud sync, and all these output options, and organizing features. Maybe they "write a lot" or whatever. Get this: they can still pay for Ulysses, get use out of it and support the developers who make it, and, crazily, it doesn't actually obligate you to buy Ulysses at all! Is your head exploding right now, or what? I know mine is.

Anyway, turns out your using whatever you use and someone using Ulysses (or whatever) are not mutually exclusive. Both can happen at the same time.

What a crazy world we live in!

Feeling punchy? Thank you for the great read. Can always use a laugh. I was going to outline the reasons why I, as resident nutjob, use Ulysses, but this is a far better response.

 

[ignatius345]

Feeling punchy? Thank you for the great read. Can always use a laugh. I was going to outline the reasons why I, as resident nutjob, use Ulysses, but this is a far better response.

Thanks, and if 20 minutes spent responding on a web forum lets me procrastinate actually writing, it's time well spent.

 

[heretiq]

Reminds me of Fantastical - a slightly modified version of a free Apple app. These companies that copy Apple's work, change some colours etc, then charge for it seems criminally plaigaristic.

Have you ever used Bear? Or the Apple Notes app which it is most comparable to?

I don’t think so. If you had you would know that apart from being a notes app, there is no comparison:

* Bear is based on Markdown – which no Apple app supports
* Bear allows you to embed code blocks – which you can’t do with Apple Notes
* Bear supports nested checklists – not supported by Apple Notes
* Bear allows you to export your notes in TXT, MD, HTML, RTF, DOCX, PDF, and JPG – Try that with Notes
* Bear gives you doc stats (Words, Characters, Paragraphs and Read Time) – Apple Notes, not so much
* Bear allows notes organization with nested/hierarchical tags – Apple Notes? Nope

I could go on and on; but hopefully you get the point. Bear is not a copy of anything that Apple has on macOS or iOS. It is a fresh new take and a leap forward on Markdown editors – an area that Apple has avoided.

I like Apple Notes – especially on iOS 11; but even the new Notes is a different animal from Bear. In fact, people smarter than you and me have claimed that it is Bear that is setting the standard for a modern note taking app – one that Apple should be copying: https://thenextweb.com/apple/2017/06/14/bear-is-everything-we-wanted-apples-notes-app-to-be/
[doublepost=1500594421][/doublepost]

Ulysses is a vastly better app.

I used Ulysses for years and have been waiting for checklist support since it was placed “on the list” 2+ years ago. I decided to try Bear when first released because Bear provided checklists – an essential feature for my narrative-driven management style and workflow. I immediately fell in love with Bear’s functionality, usability and amazing support team. Each release surprises me with usability and functional enhancements that improve my productivity. I have no reason to even consider going back to Ulysses.

 

[farewelwilliams]

What’s the business model of your electricity supplier?

Also, people didn’t buy Microsoft Office and Adobe software that much when it was one time payment. Both companies have seen tremendous uprise in income and revenue since going subscription based, because in their cases, it adds value to both user and company.

On a smaller scale, it does the same with Bear developers. Regular payment makes developers “liable” in a way, far more than a one time ticket does. It’s a win win for both developer and user and the price is very competitive for what the software is.

Again, it is about the price in this case, which is pretty fair. Of course, they could charge $9.99 for iOS app and $9.99 for macOS app, and maybe the users would be happier. Who knows. There is just no satisfying some.

you're really comparing a paid notes app vs a utility company? really?
[doublepost=1500598000][/doublepost]

There is nothing to fix in their business model. This is simply the model they've chosen to make their business sustainable. I'm happy to pay $15 a year for Bear. This price is a bargain for a professional, high-quality, multi-device app that I use every day -- from a team of talented professionals who pour their life energies into creating and regularly maintaining a useful, usable and beautiful tool.

disagree 100%. tweetbot has the right idea. "things" has the right idea. panic (Transmit) has the right idea. all of them are talented professionals that built professional, high-quality, multi-device app that I use everyday. even sketch has the right idea

 

[heretiq]

disagree 100%. tweetbot has the right idea. "things" has the right idea. panic (Transmit) has the right idea. all of them are talented professionals that built professional, high-quality, multi-device app that I use everyday. even sketch has the right idea

* Coda 2.5 for MacOS (by Panic) is $99 and the upgrade is only free for Coda 2.0 customers. Coda for iOS is $9.99.

* Transmit for MacOS (by Panic) is $45 with upgrade from Transmit 4 priced at $19. Transmit for iOS is $9.99

* Bear for iOS + macOS is $15/year with continuous upgrades

How is the Panic business model better for you and other users? Or did you mean to say the Panic business model is better for Panic?

 

[farewelwilliams]

* Coda 2.5 for MacOS (by Panic) is $99 and the upgrade is only free for Coda 2.0 customers. Coda for iOS is $9.99.

* Transmit for MacOS (by Panic) is $45 with upgrade from Transmit 4 priced at $19. Transmit for iOS is $9.99

* Bear for iOS + macOS is $15/year with continuous upgrades

How is the Panic business model better for you and other users? Or did you mean to say the Panic business model is better for Panic?

Transmit and Bear are two different apps. But fine, I'll play along. I can't comment on Coda since I never used it but I can talk about Transmit.

Transmit 4 came out in 2010. I paid $34 back in 2010-2011-ish.
Transmit 5 is an optional upgrade. I don't need it. Transmit 4 fully works today without any issues. Last time Transmit 4 was updated was in April 2017. That's 7 years of FREE updates for users.
I don't use Transmit iOS because I don't need to upload files from my iPhone to FTP/AWS S3. But even if I did buy it, that's $10. Fine, let's add that to the budget.
Total Transmit: $34 (Transmit 4) + $10 (iOS) for seven years of usage (potentially working another few years too).

Bear: you MUST pay $15/year if you want the sync feature. Yes, you "can" use Bear without the sync feature but that's such a substantial feature to the usage of this app. The moment you stop paying for the sync feature, Bear instantly become less useful compared to Apple Notes. Sync is critical.
Total for Bear: $15 times 7 years for syncing = $105

Over 7 years: $105 for a notes app vs $44 for a professional file transfer app. Even if I bought Transmit 5 for $35 this week, that's still cheaper than Bear.

I can do my job without Bear. I can't do my job without Transmit. And yet, Transmit is cheaper and does a whole lot more. Panic even built infrastructure to provide the sync feature for free.
So yes, I think Bear needs to rethink the business model.
Also, I can't imagine the developers working only on Bear for the next 7 years There's only so much you can add to a notes app before it gets too complicated to use. I rather have these developers work on something new after a while.

 

[heretiq]

I can do my job without Bear. I can't do my job without Transmit. And yet, Transmit is cheaper and does a whole lot more.

So, your use case and preferences should be the standard for judging all apps -- even ones that are not essential for you?

Did it occur to you that there might be others for whom Bear is essential and Transmit unnecessary?

What is the basis for your claim of Transmit doing "a whole lot more"? Do you feel that features that improve writer proficiency are less important than features that improve sysadmin productivity?

The bottom line is that there are lots of different users with differing use cases, priorities and willingness to pay for solutions that meet their needs. Likewise there are lots of different software developers with differing products, feature sets, cost models and pricing models. The intersection of these define a range of Value equations that will work for some users but not for others. Those that work for you are good for you. That does not make them the best nor the standard for others.

I am thrilled with Bear's feature set and pricing model. That's good for me; but I'm not going to proclaim it to be the standard for judging other solutions. That would be absurd.

 

[macintoshmac]

you're really comparing a paid notes app vs a utility company? really?
[doublepost=1500598000][/doublepost]

There is no reasoning with some people, I guess.

What you wrote: i'm still not going to periodically pay $15 for a sync feature. they need to fix their business model. would GLADLY pay $20-$30 one time for a great notes app.

What I am saying about it:

You make a condescending statement such as "they need to fix their business model" and you'd pay $20-$30 one time for a great notes app.

They are giving you a FREE app that is really, really great. On TWO platforms. Never charging you for any update, just giving you a high quality app for free. Counts for nothing? I did not find you praising them for that. Did not see you saying they need to "fix their model" and charge per app per platform.

They want to charge you a really small $15 per year fee to sync between the platforms. What is so wrong with it that brings you out of your box of entitlement and makes you proclaim they don't know what they are doing, they should fix the business model?

It is their software, they want to keep it free for use and charge if someone wants to sync. If I do not, it is forever free. That is a really good model, and service, in my opinion and I would only even pay for the sync service even without using it, because of the app's quality.

On another note, are you a developer? Ever spent hundreds of man hours developing an idea and bringing it from ideation to fruit?

 

[macintoshmac]

The beauty of there being thousands of Mac developers out there is that there are apps being built and sold which meet the needs and desires of different people, so people are free to pay for things you yourself might not want or need.

Let me break it down for you.

For example, let's say someone (you, maybe) has no need for Ulysses' organizing, syncing and editing features, and doesn't want to pay for Ulysses. Hmm. Thorny problem. Why should you pay for this app you have no use for? Seems very unfair, right? The great news is, as it turns out, you don't have to! In fact, you can find and download whatever app meets your needs, maybe a free one like Notes or TextEdit, maybe something else.

Alright, now you're asking, "Yeah, but what about Ulysses? It makes me mad that someone would pay for that when I don't need its features."

Great question. Turns out other people have different needs than you. Crazy, right? So let's say some nutjob actually wants to blow their hard-earned money on an app like Ulysses because they want all these extra features, like iCloud sync, and all these output options, and organizing features. Maybe they "write a lot" or whatever. Get this: they can still pay for Ulysses, get use out of it and support the developers who make it, and, crazily, it doesn't actually obligate you to buy Ulysses at all! Is your head exploding right now, or what? I know mine is.

Anyway, turns out your using whatever you use and someone using Ulysses (or whatever) are not mutually exclusive. Both can happen at the same time.

What a crazy world we live in!

I can see you had great fun writing it out so beautifully. In Ulysses, right?
[doublepost=1500654405][/doublepost]

Transmit 5 is an optional upgrade. I don't need it. Transmit 4 fully works today without any issues. Last time Transmit 4 was updated was in April 2017. That's 7 years of FREE updates for users.

That is what is generally considered when people whine about "another subscription". Panic had no incentive to give you anything else beyond the version number it gave you when you gave them your money. That they provided updates and kept the software alive on all Mac OS X iterations all the years, is a bonus that the consumers WERE NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE.

Imagine if they had charged for adding support for each OS iteration every year - because it was legitimate work that they did not get paid for. They got paid for what they did 7 years ago. Such niceties by developers has made spoilt brats out of the general public who now thinks that buying one software means they are now set for updates till the time they decide to stop using it.

Bear asks for a subscription to enable sync facility, what is wrong? Don't you want to pay for what you use AND KEEP USING? You would they rather charge you $20-30 today and that is okay. But then, truth be told, would you not expect them to keep the app updated to work with changes Apple makes to its OS each year, till the time they release a paid upgrade? Therefore, are you not expecting them to keep the software updated without getting paid for it?

What kind of twisted world are we living in where people quote free updates from developers for software already paid for, against those very developers, when they want to get paid reasonably for their efforts!!

I cannot reasonably argue for any entitlement towards any update to software that I was given in lieu of the money I was charged, do you agree or not, to this simple statement?

How do you think the developers are paying for the costs of keeping the software you paid for 7 years ago, updated to support the latest and greatest on the platform? They release a new version and people still crib about paying for it, even if it was one time.

 

[farewelwilliams]

So, your use case and preferences should be the standard for judging all apps -- even ones that are not essential for you?

nope. i never said that. don't put words in my mouth.
[doublepost=1500674198][/doublepost]

You make a condescending statement such as "they need to fix their business model" and you'd pay $20-$30 one time for a great notes app.

It's not condescending. It's my opinion. Paying $$$/mo for Adobe Creative Cloud makes sense because it's an entire suite of professional apps. Paying $/mo to keep an essential feature in a notes app doesn't make sense.

They are giving you a FREE app that is really, really great.

No. The free app is useless since sync is essential to making a notes app great. Imagine trying to use a calendar app that only saves appointments locally to your phone. No matter how great the calendar app looks and works, if it doesn't sync, it's useless.

They want to charge you a really small $15 per year fee to sync between the platforms. What is so wrong with it that brings you out of your box of entitlement and makes you proclaim they don't know what they are doing, they should fix the business model?

They're using CloudKit which means they have 0 upkeep in terms of infrastructure for the syncing. So that $15/year is really for developing the app only. That's fine for the next 2-3 years of new features but what happens after 7 years? 10 years? There's only so much you can add to a Notes app and I don't see that they can contiuously add new features to their subscription unlike Adobe with their Creative Cloud service. It's very likely that the Bear team will implement all of the features they want and move Bear to maintenance only mode and some point in a not too distant future.

It is their software, they want to keep it free for use and charge if someone wants to sync. If I do not, it is forever free.

Like I said, syncing is essential to a great notes app. Manually copying over notes to sync all of my devices makes this free app useless. Once you invest 1-2 years into it and suddenly decide to stop paying, you no longer can practically use the app since you'll be spending so much time copying over notes on a daily basis.

www.sketchapp.com has a similar business model but it's well suited for that app. you pay $$$/year for as long as you want updates. if you stop paying, you get to keep the last update before you stop updating and you don't lose any essential features.

On another note, are you a developer? Ever spent hundreds of man hours developing an idea and bringing it from ideation to fruit?

I am an iOS developer and have spent 60-80 hour weeks in several startups. Yes, I know what it is like. BTW if you look at the website of the developers of Bear, it looks like they take in clients and build iOS apps. Bear isn't their only source of income (so essentially they aren't really working on Bear fulltime).

 

[farewelwilliams]

That they provided updates and kept the software alive on all Mac OS X iterations all the years, is a bonus that the consumers WERE NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE.

I never said we were entitled to receive 7 years of free updates. The reason why they provided free updates was because they were continuing to sell Transmit 4 even after new OS iterations. And they decided that it wasn't worth calling Transmit 5 without new features, so they provided free updates. Decision was made entirely by Panic. I would have been fine with a paid upgrade for the sole purpose of supporting the next version of macOS.

Imagine if they had charged for adding support for each OS iteration every year - because it was legitimate work that they did not get paid for. They got paid for what they did 7 years ago. Such niceties by developers has made spoilt brats out of the general public who now thinks that buying one software means they are now set for updates till the time they decide to stop using it.

I would encourage Panic to release paid upgrades to new OS iterations and allow me to pay whenever I'm ready to upgrade. Again, no one asked Panic for 7 years of free updates. But the fact that Panic didn't charge a subscription for Transmit, the fact that they're still alive, and the fact that the their audience is generally happy with the company and their products means that it's totally possible for a notes app to not be a subscription based model.

Bear asks for a subscription to enable sync facility, what is wrong? Don't you want to pay for what you use AND KEEP USING? You would they rather charge you $20-30 today and that is okay. But then, truth be told, would you not expect them to keep the app updated to work with changes Apple makes to its OS each year, till the time they release a paid upgrade? Therefore, are you not expecting them to keep the software updated without getting paid for it?

For this type of software: I want to pay once for the software and pay for the upgrades as I need them (even if it costs me more in the long run compared to subscription). If Bear team decides that the next features will be AR + OCR detection + Community Note Sharing + whatever random features I wouldn't need in a notes app, then I wouldn't pay for that. But if I stop paying for Bear, that means I lose the essential feature of a Notes app which means I can no longer use Bear.

Contrast that with Transmit. I don't need Transmit 5. I haven't personally bought Transmit 5 and I can keep using Transmit 4 with all of the features (even syncing still works) with the understanding that Panic will no longer update version 4 and that's fine by me. I'll probably will personally upgrade to Transmit 5, but in the meantime, Transmit 4 still works great.

I cannot reasonably argue for any entitlement towards any update to software that I was given in lieu of the money I was charged, do you agree or not, to this simple statement

Disagree. If I bought the latest version of Transmit and it didn't work with the latest version of macOS that's been out for several months, there should be an update to address it. If you disagree with this, then you're essentially saying scamming users is ok.

How do you think the developers are paying for the costs of keeping the software you paid for 7 years ago, updated to support the latest and greatest on the platform?

Panic was able to do it. They did it by not making Transmit the only software they sell, which is what the Bear team should do. I would love to see what the Bear team can come up with next after Bear. I'd say finish up the next several major features of Bear -> sell it for $20-$30 -> build the next app -> return back to Bear at a later time for new features and fixes for a new paid upgrade.

Hell, if the Bear team builds a suite of productivity apps, then their subscription model could make sense for their products.

 

[macintoshmac]

Disagree. If I bought the latest version of Transmit and it didn't work with the latest version of macOS that's been out for several months, there should be an update to address it. If you disagree with this, then you're essentially saying scamming users is ok.

I agree with all your replies. Reasonable and sound. However, this one.

What I said was that say we bought T4 in 2011 when it was supposed to work on Mac OS X 10.7. When I said entitlement towards free updates, I meant that we bought it then and it was frozen for us, because we bought it in 2011 and paid up till 2011.

What you said was buying latest version of T4 working on latest version of macOS. No, that brings us into the present. If I buy version 4.5 I pay for development until today. You bought version 4.0 which you paid for until 5 years ago when you bought it. My point was, developers don’t have any reason to appease customers with keeping them updated and investing manhours releasing updates to software already paid for when the customers bite them in their own asses when it comes to paying.

It is then far better to say we are giving you 1 software for this version of macOS and you have bought it to work until this version of macOS. Should something need working we will release a new version, meaning we’d have spent manhours on it that you wouldn’t have paid for. So the new customer gets the latest version but you will have to pay $5 to use your software on the next version of macOS. Not fair? I’m only talking of effort versus remuneration for developers and value in terms of updated features and stability for customers.