Name: LanScan
Rating: 0.5 (3 reviews)

l'app gratuita è terribile, quella a pagamento non si può provare (app store)

Like

Version 5.0

Big Johnson

02 October 2017

That logo is just ducky. I didn't know this was a children's game.

Like

Version 4.3

Nice

Like

Version 4.3

djcz

20 May 2014

Hopefully, you have plans to update the paid version, as well?

Like

Version 2.3

1 answer(s)

iwaxx

05 September 2017

Not sure in which version you are now, never seen comments on MacUpdate as haven't been notifed.
Will have a look more often right now...

Enjoy our apps!

Like

Just a FYI about this app: The list it provides includes arp cache entries. This is a bad idea, because it will show no longer available devices. If you use this app, clear the arp cache before (sudo arp -a -d) "scanning". It gets even worse, if you did a broadcast ping before.. Also lacks the possibility to chose the interface to scan. If you have several interfaces up (incl. VPN and such), it's kinda random which interface the apps scans. So, well, a nice entry-level tool to make a fast scan, but beware of ghostly arp-entries.

Like

Version 2.2

1 answer(s)

iwaxx

06 May 2014

You're absolutely right. But we can't manipulate ARP entries without admin's privileges. In our network analyzer application Debookee, we're gonna implement what you say. (it includes an enhanced version of LanScan) Debookee is not on the AppStore, thus allowing us to ask for admin privileges and capturing network traffic

Like

Panpagan

15 March 2013

Only per AppStore? No thanks.

Like (1)

Version 1.6

1 answer(s)

iwaxx

27 November 2013

Try Debookee, our other app which includes a LanScan plugin, and it's not on the AppStore.

Like

Akjim

21 April 2012

Making this available ONLY through the app store is another example of short sighted authorship. Single source supply through only Apple? What a slippery slope you tread! We need distributed sourcing and we need robust fully functional applications not crippled by the requirements imposed by Apple. If you won't provide me these things I'll do without. I hope more people will see the dangers of Apple's app store and opt instead to use Macupdate as their preferred source or download directly from the developer. I'd love to try LanScan, but I won't go to Apple's app store.

Like (8)

Version 1.0

10 answer(s)

iwaxx

10 August 2012

Hi Akjim, Thanks for your feedback. You're definitely right concerning the single source of supply with Apple. That's the reason why we just created a profile on MacUpdate to be able to interact more with users. Mountain Lion and GateKeeper restricts more and more applications coming from other sources and we now need to have an Apple certificate to be able to launch non-Apple-Store app by default on 10.8. We'll see in the future if they'll tight us to Apple Store more till the iPhone extremes. Meanwhile, why didn't you contact directly our support to express this ? We can't read all the forums on the net to look for users feedbacks ! Would be a pleasure to provide you a version of LanScan. We're not ready to propose it globally yet, but per user request, no problem. Thomas

Like (6)

B-Jefferson-Le-Blanc

01 November 2012

@ Akjim: what do you want for free? If the App Store makes it easier for developers to offer free apps, then I, for one, can't complain. For paid apps it's another matter. For them, not try no buy makes more sense.

Like (4)

nutjob2

02 March 2013

Have to agree with that sentiment. The feeling that Apple wants to take control of every aspect of my life is overwhelming. I go out of my way to discourage the use of these sorts of products, they're the lemmings of the software industry.

Like (2)

Sir1963

20 October 2013

HUH ? The Apple Store policy of buy once and use legally on 5 machines is brilliant, and since the App Store came into being I have bought MORE software than ever before (as in Apps I have paid money for) for this exact reason. The "single source of supply" remains the same, its the developer ! As soon as developers drop support/sale it does not matter where you got it from, the result is the same. This applies to open source too, 99.9% of the population are NOT developers/programmers so having the source code is irrelevant to them. I was not that long ago that I used VersionTracker as my source of other software, that site has become worthless to me which is why I am now here, buy MacUpdate is still prone to the same financial choices versionTracker had and could devalue/disappear one day too.

Like (4)

B-Jefferson-Le-Blanc

21 October 2013

@ Sir1963: I was with you until you said that "MacUpdate is still prone to the same financial choices versionTracker had and could devalue/disappear one day too." Every product or service is subject to financial pressures - and choices. That's the nature of a free market. There's no reason MacUpdate should or could be free from the market risks that face everyone else in business. As for the Mac App Store, the reactions seem to depend on whether a person sees it as a glass half full or half empty sort of thing. In fact developers have the same opportunities to market their software as they've always had. The App Store hasn't shut down any of these channels. If anything it shines a positive light on developer distributed software. If you read the "small print" posted by many developers, you'll see that the App Store version of their software is limited in ways their own distros are not. Of course you may only see this if you check it out on MacUpdate first. The App Store doesn't list apps as crippleware - though perhaps it should. MacUpdate itself is a testament to the free market. As far as I can tell, most software listed here is not distributed via the MAS. Even most OS X updates are available as they've always been, as standalone packages from the Apple Download page. At worst the MAS is a mixed bag. Among its strengths is an almost complete absence of malware; among its weaknesses are the limitations it places on some developers. As for Gatekeeper, it's quite simple to disable it if you need to. You choose the level of security it provides. It doesn't impose anything on anyone. I use plenty of software that is not yet Apple certified. I just right-click an app the first time I run it and choose Open. If I choose to launch it, it will no longer be blocked by Gatekeeper, no matter what my security settings are. Some people find these extra steps to be a nuisance. I see them as a small price to pay in an increasingly insecure cyber world. For example, I just got my notice from Adobe about how their servers were hacked and an unknown number of customer accounts may have been compromised. It's easy to be mad at Adobe for this lapse in security, but it's a certain sign of the times. Given these times, in my opinion Apple is justified in battening down the hatches as securely as they can - and they are providing an essential service to the large majority of their customers by doing so. In the past Apple was guilty of taking security issues too lightly. And they were roundly criticized for it. Now they are taking security seriously - and they are criticized for this too. This tells us more about the critics than it does about Apple.

Like (1)

Sir1963

21 October 2013

@B. Jefferson Le Blanc. My post was about the sentence by Akjim "I'd love to try LanScan, but I won't go to Apple's app store. " and from Panpagan "Only per AppStore? No thanks." For free software (and paid) it makes sense to use the App Store for a developer: They don't need to host it, Have no traffic for downloading it, They don't have to worry about securing a server from hackers, They get analytics of the number of unique downloads. Updates/bug fixes are easy to distribute, all current users get notified. Customers without technical know how can get (and pay) for a wider range of software. Security (from malware) seems to be higher . I dont agree with All of Apples T&C but it is a model that seems to be working extremely well for lots of developers and customers. The part about MacUpdate was that relying on it as your information centre for software is STILL a single source of supply that is probably more at risk (like versionTracker) than the App Store. I check MacUpdate daily, and many is the time I have seen a piece of software listed and I have gone on to buy it from the AppStore.

Like (2)

Akjim

21 October 2013

Many developers understand the importance of selling directly, outside the MAS and those I support. They are also wise to sell through the MAS as well, it's good marketing for them. Selling direct bypasses Apples commission from the MAS. Selling direct allows the developer to provide trial software. I will not purchase software which has no trial period and the MAS does not permit free trials. Buying direct means the developer can provide recent buyers with perks e.g. free upgrade to the next version for recent purchase, such is not permitted through the MAS. Buying direct means the developer can provide more functionality, otherwise prohibited by the MAS. There are potential, simple benefits to purchasing through the MAS for those who wish to do so. Let the MAS exist, use it if you wish. I will purchase only from those who also sell direct and include trial periods. I've seen too many market hyped, dreamware bits of software that does not perform properly to have any further interest in trusting the developers marketing statements.

Like

Sir1963

21 October 2013

@Akjim This software is FREE, how much more do you need to trial it ?

Like (1)

Akjim

26 October 2013

I don't use the Apple App Store, period. What I need is for developers to recognize the need and demand for direct downloads for all of their applications. This benefits the developers and provides the consumer benefits as well. This discussion ends now.

Like

B-Jefferson-Le-Blanc

26 October 2013

@ Akjim: This discussion ends now because you say so? And who are you exactly? The blog moderator? No? Too bad. Because the discussion will end when no one wants to comment further - or the actual moderator locks it down. As for what you need, obviously most developers couldn't care less. In respect to how much developers benefit from providing direct downloads, are you a developer? No again? Then how, pray tell, do you know how much developers benefit from anything? This app, like many others on the MAS, is offered for free. Providing direct downloads costs developers a lot and pays them nothing. The MAS is a less expensive way for developers to distribute free software - and advertise their skills - and helps Apple build brand equity in the MAS. So for both Apple and developers it's a win/win proposition. Which is why it has been so successful. For users like you who refuse to patronize the MAS, even for free software, you're hurting no one but yourself. Judging by your attitude, you resent the pain and inconvenience of boycotting the MAS, but it's a self-inflicted wound. You'd like to think otherwise, but no one is responsible for your pain but you. For commercial software, on the other hand, I generally - but not always - insist on a no try no buy policy. Even here the MAS offers advantages to developers of low priced programs, who have to balance the potential loss of business due to not hosting their own downloads against the savings they get from using the MAS - and the potential gain from using an A-list distributor. Like MacUpdate, the MAS offers a centralized location for people to find apps they might want or need. MacUpdate has fewer limitations than the MAS, but I haven't seen any comparisons of the number of apps offered by MacUpdate and the Mac App Store, so it's impossible to tell what difference, if any, that makes. The MAS is flashier than MU and no doubt is more appealing to unsophisticated users in particular. And there are many millions of those unsophisticated users out there, if MAS sales figures are any indication. In my opinion there is room in the marketplace for both MacUpdate and the MacAppStore, which offer different approaches to software marketing. Other outlets, like Downloads.com on CNet, are far less appealing, to me at least, yet they seem to be prospering as well. Indeed, I think they have improved their format, apparently due to competition from the MAS - even the Windows side of their web site seems to have been cleaned up. If that were the only impact of the Mac App Store it would be worth it. It is this variety of software distribution channels that benefits users. If you don't like one, you're free to try another. Personally I like MacUpdate's approach: They list software from a number of distribution channels, including the MAS. I'm free to choose what I like, and developers are free to distribute their apps as they see fit. That works for me. While I prefer the option to try an app before I pay for it, I don't hamstring myself by only patronizing developers who offer trial versions. YMMV.

Like (1)

Great application. Identifies each and every device on the net (just hit a couple of times on the Scan button). The only feature I miss is the ability to assign names to the different MAC numbers (devices).

Like (3)

Version 1.0

1 answer(s)

iwaxx

15 October 2012

Hi Osos10, LanScan Pro is now out with the ability to resolve and assign custom names as you wished. Check it out: http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/45453/lanscan-pro http://www.iwaxx.com/lanscan Thomas

Like (2)

Great app, does what it says and the price is perfect. For the price it's tough to beat, a few more features like hostname would be great.

Like (1)

Version 1.0

1 answer(s)

iwaxx

15 October 2012

Hi Y-Guy, LanScan Pro is now out with the ability to resolve and assign custom names as you wished. Check it out: http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/45453/lanscan-pro http://www.iwaxx.com/lanscan Thomas

Like (2)

Excellent App! Just straight in use, it has found all the devices on my network, even barcode scanners and virtual machines. Thanks to do that for free !

Like (1)

Version 1.0

LanScan

Overview

Features

What's new in LanScan

Join over 500,000 subscribers.

LanScan Screenshots

10 LanScan Reviews

More from Network

App of the week

Apps you might also like