> I'd also get rid of any existing lifetime > and lock in licenses (sorry, time to clean house)
That would clean house all right! Hand grenade style. We'd be getting to the point of serious self-harm. It can't be any more harmful than abruptly pulling the rug from under the feet of your largest user demographic. If revenue is the root of livecodes problems then I don't see why a small demographic of lifetimers is exempt from an update in policy that seeks to increase the paying subscription count On Sun, 5 Sep 2021, 15:32 Curry Kenworthy via use-livecode, < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > This seems headed for trouble again if we're not careful. > > We must avoid repeating the same history: > > 1. Added work for LC Ltd without compensation* > 2. Buggy struggling main product due to #1 > 3. Overcomplicating things > 4. Burdening those who pay with the extra expense > 5. *Added work for ourselves without compensation; > (That was the previous "bright idea" remember?) > > Cutting out the free Community version is a smart move. > $10/mo hobby is pretty darn cheap. Everyone can afford that. > > (Some end-clients want OSS, but only half of those know why. > The other half are only repeating something they heard.) > > A demo is beneficial, and calendar-time-limited demos suck. > Thus, unlimited-calendar-time demo could be the way to go. > 10-line scripts suck too. Non-standalone might be the way. > > But as Alex said: > > > You can make it easy (or even trivial) for anyone > > to install and run the stacks you create. > > Yep. Even easier than your example; no plugin necessary. > A shortcut to your stack, and it launches the IDE. > Not that much different from a full desktop app. > I could make it near enough to please most users. > Then we're still encouraging nonpayment for LC. > So we need an additional limitation. > > But now we're getting into bad ideas... > > Terry: > > > what if only licensed versions of LC could produce > > and run distributable/shareable stacks while the free version > > could only run stacks produced by that particular instance of the app? > > That's getting nowhere. Two separate communities to support > (plus the sucky problem of Community-can't-run-this-stack) > so extra work for free, and it's begging to be gamed. > > I can probably still make a great "app" experience. > This repeats all or most of the old problems, > and even discourages using the $10 version. > > Worse still... > > Dan: > > > Introduce breaking changes when it's necessary > > to move the language forward > > We tried "cut off the old hair" memes already, remember? > That was part of the open source breathless refactoring excitement. > Result: twice the bugs with a quarter of the performance for years. > Plus tons of added work for us and our clients to update stacks. > > Some people went out of business, others used tons of time or money. > Many of these misguided repeating memes simply need to die! > Better to kill a meme than to see more people get hurt. > > LC is not an OS. Breaking changes have been a major pain in the rear. > Almost as bad as the extra bugs and performance problems. > > To have a future, we need a firm stable foundation to build upon. > Not encouraging an ever-shifting mire. Recompiles, yes. Rewrites, no. > If maintaining is not easier in LC, people will go use other tools. > We've seen that already. We need to learn from experience. > > Likewise... > > > I'd also get rid of any existing lifetime > > and lock in licenses (sorry, time to clean house) > > That would clean house all right! Hand grenade style. > We'd be getting to the point of serious self-harm. > > This one is not so bad, though: > > > Nag screen with 5-10 second timeout in IDE and standalones > > Nix the standalones; free should be noncompiling, at least for desktop. > But nags can be useful. And a possible mobile solution, > but it would have to be combined with one more limitation. > > Today's users are quite willing to tolerate some nags. > If LC Free competes against its own $10 version, nobody wins. > We're back to a buggy underfunded main product. > > I've been too sick (good old Delta) to follow the whole thread, > just read the last few messages, and will probably not be able > to follow the rest of the discussion for a while either. > This post is all I can muster. > > But let's learn from the old mistakes, eh? > Many things which sound great ... aren't. > Repeating them makes things ... worse. > Let's not nuke ourselves again in the process. :) > > Happy coding, and hopefully I'll be back in action after a few days. > Hoping this doesn't head right off the cliff while I'm down sick! > Wish I could give this the full attention it deserves.... > > Best wishes, > > Curry Kenworthy > > Custom Software Development > "Better Methods, Better Results" > LiveCode Training and Consulting > http://livecodeconsulting.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
