On 08/21/2012 03:50 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Richmond wrote:
> 1. No way am I going to pay a monthly fee, as for, say, 4 months I
> may do nothing, and then,
> all of a sudden, I may have to prepare 5 stacks.
>
> 2. Yer, right, I could go on and on.
And indeed you have, for about half a dozen posts.
Count yourself lucky! Normally I go on far longer!
Meanwhile, just two days ago Kevin wrote:
Nothing has changed in the new store for existing customers,
for any license type. The same pricing and upgrade policy
applies.
He went on to clarify that the new pricing only affects new customers,
and that RunRev will be clarifying this further on their web site
shortly:
New customer continue to have access to all the same
commercial licenses/upgrades plus new easy pay as you
go options. We'll work on making the information clearer.
> 108. This reverts to my earlier question as to why RunRev aren't
> prepared to market earlier versions
> (say version 4.0) at a relatively reduced rate to folks like the
> example above.
Why version 4.0 specifically? Why not version 3.0, or 2.0, or 5.0?
How does it benefit the company to create expectations of support for
older versions?
Should the company take on the additional expense of back-porting bug
fixes to your preferred version?
What if the version you prefer differs from the one I prefer, or Monte
prefers, or Ken prefers? Should RunRev explode their costs
exponentially by back-porting to all previous versions?
And since Kevin has already clarified that the new pricing doesn't
affect existing customers, are you really just asking for a "set your
own price" model?
Some companies do that (the Humble Bundle game packs are a good
example, even more noteworthy because Linux buyers tend to pay more
than Mac buyers in stark contrast to popular myths about the Linux
market). Most do not, however. Many different companies use many
different pricing models.
As customers, we can choose the features and pricing models that work
for us.
You've noted HyperStudio and Python, and both are excellent tools. We
can still choose those when we want what they offer.
But to expect RunRev to adopt the pricing models of other tools seems
as unlikely as expecting those tools to offer the same features as
LiveCode.
Use what works for you.
This morning we heard from a relatively new voice who seems to like
the new options - Jose Valle wrote:
> The PAYG model seems to me one of the most important and better
> decisions taken. Being an ocassional developer using LiveCode
> monthly payment model it is something I could afford, in other
> way will have to choose other platform, I spent some time with
> Corona last year because the same reason.
Thanks for chiming in, Jose.
Unless I misunderstand something, it seems all RunRev has done is add
new options, in ways that leave the old options in place.
Use what works for you.
_______________________________________________
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
