On 21/08/2012 14:09, Richmond wrote:
Why version 4.0 specifically? Why not version 3.0, or 2.0, or 5.0?
I used the word 'say'.
I would like it if Runrev offered all previous whole-number versions
from 2.0 onwards with a rider
that NO SUPPORT is offered
Offered or not people who pay expect (with some justification) to be
supported.
There's the unwritten implication that version 2.0 is just as good as it
ever was.
That's true if running on Windows XP SP1 or OSX 10.1, but as these
operating systems have changed I'd expect things to break. Therefore,
releasing old solid number versions would start to consume resources again.
Remember GOG.com? "Good Old Games"? They didn't just let you download
the bits of old games, they rereleased them, suggesting at a minimum
recompiling, but likely testing and the whole lot again.
It would bring RunRev some modest revenue from people who have neither
the money to invest in the latest version, nor the requirements to have it.
I disagree. While it might bring in money, you'd have to work to
convince me that there'd be enough revenue to pay for itself, while also
reducing the numbers of people that pay for the new versions of the
software.
But, I'm humble enough to admit I can be (and am often) wrong.
Why not propose to runrev that you'll finance the release of older
versions of software? If it's a money spinner, you'll do okay out of
it, and runrev won't have the support issues for old versions of the
software?
-Ken
_______________________________________________
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
