Studio License Renewal Cost

[Jan Sælid]

>B.Marriot wrote
>I don't like the pricing plan, either, to be honest. There's no guarantee
that they will actually *do* anything >that matters to me in the year
following the subscription. I really don't believe in paying for bug fixes. 
>To me, I prefer the simple model that if you're fixing a bug, the
maintenance release should be free. If you're >adding features, then you can
charge for it. And generally you don't go adding features till you fix the
bugs.

This is the way to do it! Runrev is mixing new features with bugs. 

When I decided to buy Rev it had become 2.7. Before that I had some trial
versions and then I used the open source MC Ide. I wanted to be sure... Ok.
I bought 2.7 when I was sure - started to build the application I'm
building. After some time I discovered that 2.7 do not build for linux/unix
like the old ones. The website said almost nothing about this - quite the
contrary "Code once: Deploy everywhere". Now I'm using the new features -
and to build on linux I have to go backwards. I thought I paid for building
on linux - but that is not the fact. Do I have to pay extra for what I
"thought" I already paid for. Sure looks that way... But what will I get in
the next upgrade....U3! 


>I've already expressed my dislike of the pricing structure.  But expressing
it here on the mailing list does >nothing but cause unwanted and unneeded
dissension among everyone on the list and in the end, won't change
>Runtime's pricing structure anyway.

I don't understand why we shouldn't use this list to remind the developers
that customers shouldn't pay for fixes. That we really want to stick with
revolution because we all like it - but not at any cost. We are not friends
- we are customers. That doesn't mean we have to be unfriendly.

And as far as I can see in the responses on this topic. There are no enemies
here. I don't like to hear the usual "If you don't like rev use realbasic".
That almost sounds like camaraderie.

I'm only a customer. Aren't you?

Jan Selid