Rev_rant part 2

[Dave]

On 10 Nov 2006, at 17:43, Bernard Devlin wrote:

> Dave said:
>
> >>
> I think it's really sad that this is the case, and, the new
> way of selling support or updates compounds that problem and makes it
> harder to sell (in my experience).
> <<
> It might make it harder for you to sell.  That doesn't mean that  
> (overall) it is a less profitable way for Runrev to function.   
> Indeed, I think maybe some clarification is required here.  If you  
> are renewing an existing license, Rev is really insignificant as a  
> business expense.  If you are buying a license for the first time,  
> you no longer get the free 1 year of upgrades that earlier  
> licensees got.  Well, sorry for those people who are a little late  
> to the party - maybe you should turn this around and consider that  
> existing users of Rev are being rewarded for the past good sense  
> and loyalty.  Believe it or not, I actually agree with you that  
> this change in pricing seems like a backward step for Runrev - but  
> neither you nor I are privy to their thinking, and I just assume  
> that if it does not work as they expect they are shrewd enough to  
> make the necessary changes.
>
> Now, what are you referring to WRT "the new way of selling  
> support"?  I don't think that the costs of support have changed,  
> and furthermore, as I pointed out in an earlier email, the cost of  
> support incidents from Rev are remarkably low compared to the other  
> support options for products I use/have used.
>

You are looking at this from the position of "knowing" that you are  
right. Try to convince a department that is using (say) RealBasic.

> >>
> It may help to realize that there is a big distinction made (both at
> RunRev and with seasoned RunRev developers that have come to the
> environment via HyperCard/MetaCard) between the IDE and the Engine.
> This means that more support effort is put into developing/fixing the
> Engine than the IDE. The problem with this is that new customers do
> not see this distinction until further along the RunRev route and
> treat it as one big package.
> <<
> There is no reason for new users to be aware that there is a  
> separation between the engine and the IDE (in fact, there is every  
> reason to keep that complication away from new users). We are in  
> the enlightened position that the engine and the IDE can be  
> separated, hence the availability of other IDEs (all still provided  
> by the same engine).  That doesn't mean that Runrev have neglected  
> the IDE, as far as I can see, so what makes you say "more support  
> effort is put into developing/fixing the  Engine than the IDE"?  I  
> just looked at the change log files that came with 2.7.4 and they  
> are both 8kb in size, but there are far more bug fixes listed for  
> the IDE than there are for the engine.

There are literally dozens of bugs in the IDE that have been there  
for the three years plus that I have been using RunRev.

The problem is when a new user sits down in front of the IDE and  
after a little "playing" their (say) Application Browser Window will  
not appear, they blame the whole RunRev envorment not just the IDE.  
It just gives an impression of instability in the whole environment,  
they think that the App they develop may have similar bugs. Couple  
that with the fact that they are now expected to pay "extra" for  
support, means they think twice before paying the license fee after  
the trail period.

All the Best
Dave