paying for bug fixes (was Re: [ANN] Installer Maker Plugin 1.7.8)
lfredricks at proactive-intl.com
Sat May 5 14:43:40 EDT 2012
> > 3b - Alter your cost structure to cover the updating of old
> > Everyone pays more.
> That's a good point. No matter which way you look at it the
> user must pay for the maintenance and support of the software
> for the developer to stay in buisiness. By limiting the free
> update period the developer can lower the entry point price
> which financially benefits the user.
Right! Ive found some developers don't think this through and, find out they
are losing money in a big way. They end up not supporting the product at all
> With mergExt the user has the clear choice of purchasing 3
> months of access or 1 year of access. The price is higher for
> the year but much cheaper per month. When the user logs in on
> mergExt.com they see how much time they have remaining and
> that they can get an extra 20% off if they buy more time
> before their current access ends. It's early days yet and
> still evolving but it is all seeming to work for both myself
> and the group of developers who have signed up to support the
> effort so far.
That works out well, though one problem Ive seen with variable time periods
is that if you do not update regularly, some customers will feel burned. Ive
noticed you regularly update your products so I think you have a good system
Another vendor I know of (withhout naming names) updates every 90 days, but
if a beta period doesn't resolve a bug in that time, they do not extend it.
As a result, you can end up with people who beta test a fix, hoping to get
it ASAP. But it doesn't fit into that time period, so it gets rolled over
into the next 90 day period. They don't get the fix after testing it, and
also may have to pay again. It works for some folks, but wow, it makes some
Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server
More information about the Use-livecode