New Pricing

[Richmond]

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.
>