> Perhaps they are after money.. perhaps not.. but as > users should we be asking a fee to beta test (or alpha > test) their software ? > > If your in the beta test program why not consider > this? > Afterall whats good for the goose is good for the > gander > > Simon
I think that they are "after money". :) The question is whether the new fees are reasonable, given that users have been able to download SPs and addon servers for free up until now. A bit OT, but bank fees in Australia have been controversial for some time. The banks claim that in the past, their wealthier clients cross-subsidised the remaining clients, and for an assortment of reasons, including a more competitive financial services market, they need to impose fees on more of a "user-pays" basis. But what is making the general Australian public angry is high levels of profits reported by the banks, together with long queues being the norm for those who need to interact with a teller, and the CEO of one particular bank who gives a very good impression of being totally politically naive. It could perhaps be argued that Protel users have not done too badly to date, in that they have been provided with SPs, addon servers, and utilities such as Camtastic 2000 Designer's Edition, without having to specifically pay for these. In spite of that, Altium's shareholders have still done pretty well for themselves, so it is not as if Altium has to change its charging policies in order to avoid financial oblivion. For all that, *perhaps* Altium could still justify introducing new fees, on grounds such as better securing their long-term financial viability. But the question still remains as to whether the *magnitude* of these new fees is reasonable. (SPs do contain some new features, such as the new .Printout_Name Special String in SP6. But another aspect of SPs is bug fixes, and it is questionable whether users should reasonably be expected to have to pay for these to be rectified. After all, MS has released SPs for assorted versions of Windows, and users can download these free of charge.) As for beta testing, my impression is that beta testers are regarded as being in a privileged position, as they get an earlier "look in" at what new features the next version of software has to offer, and the opportunity, to some extent, of influencing what new features are provided (and/or how these are implemented). But Altium's ATS policy could well change the attitude of at least some would-be beta testers. Giving up time to look at new software (and provide feedback on this) without re-imbursement is one thing, but it could well be another if beta testers are still required to also have to pay for any bug fixes and new features which are released between new versions. Time will tell what attitude Altium takes to beta testers, but I am guessing that unless a sufficiently large number of would-be testers revolt, Altium will not provide any re-imbursement to them (either in the form of payment for feedback provided, and/or discounts for upgrades or ATS fees). I am still thinking about whether I would be prepared to be a beta tester for free. But it would not be just my decision, as I am not self-employed... Regards, Geoff Harland. ----------------------------- E-Mail Disclaimer The Information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are confidential and not for public display. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
