Business Application Framework

[Richmond]

On 12/08/15 22:51, Lyn Teyla wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I agree with many of the posters to this thread thus far that it would appear to be a mistake to offer, at this time, solely with the Business license, additional features such as built-in GIT compatibility, OOP and MVC.
>
> I would go one step further and suggest, if I may, that it might, perhaps ;), be a good idea to have feature parity across all licenses, with the sole exception being password protection (but only due to its obvious incompatibility with the GPL).

This is what everybody expected when the Open Source version of LiveCode 
was released.

>
> Having feature parity would serve not only to reduce confusion, but also to allow the entire LiveCode community (paid + open source) to flourish more rapidly, which is one of the goals of LiveCode Ltd. These announced additional features are useful to many, not just Business licensees.
>
>
> Just the built-in GIT compatibility alone, for example, would bring about the following benefits:
>
> 1. The open source community would flourish, with both individuals and groups all over the world sharing their code on GitHub. People link to their GitHub pages from their websites. Many would come to know that LiveCode is such an easy yet powerful language. This is a free and potent marketing channel i.e. more $$$ for LiveCode Ltd.
>
> 2. GIT is not only useful for groups, but also individuals, including Indy licensees. GIT is utilized for version control, with users benefiting from the automatic documentation of code changes, which is valuable for a wide variety of projects.
>
> 3. The presence of public GitHub repositories allows LiveCode to project a more professional image to the coding community and decision makers at all levels, including single-member decision makers, attracting those who would not otherwise have considered LiveCode as a candidate for their projects. So again, more $$$ for LiveCode Ltd.
>
> 4. Developers who are familiar with other languages and GIT would find built-in GIT compatibility to be a plus, and the lack of one (and having to use a third-party tool for such) to be a minus. More developers = more $$$ for LiveCode Ltd.
>
> 5. GitHub pages are known to be an excellent way for developers to attract prospective employers. More employment opportunities = happier developers = happier employers = even more $$$ for LiveCode Ltd.
>
>
> With regard to object-orientation and MVC:
>
> 1. Whilst such concepts might sound imposing to some, it helps draw programmers who are already familiar with these concepts, and who expect to find them in any professional language offering. Here's an example:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/50811-5908638845246656513
>
> 2. As with built-in GIT compatibility, just having these features would help bolster LiveCode's image to just about everyone — developers, the general public, and decision makers alike.
>
> 3. For users who think these features are unnecessary or too complicated, they could always choose not to use them, just as they don't use any other feature that they don't want, while users who need them can jump right in — everyone's happy.
>
>
> With regard to bringing more value to the Business license:
>
> 1. There might not be a need to do that using "features" specifically. Since there are the the $500K + single-member restrictions for Indy licensees, those who get a Business license get it not because they want more features. They're making more money, are legally obliged to pay more, can afford to do so, and therefore do so.
>
> 2. I agree with Brahmanathaswami that a good way to differentiate the Business license is the inclusion of a higher level of support (which was indeed already mentioned in the announcement). Since Business licensees pay more, they're entitled to enhanced and priority service. Sounds reasonable.
>
>
> With the above in mind, in the following comparison chart:
>
> https://livecode.com/products/livecode-platform/pricing/
>
> Feature parity would mean making the following items available to all licenses (green ticks across all columns):
>
> - Business App Framework (which could be renamed as appropriate)
> - Cloud & Data Sync
> - PDF Viewer
> - Mobile camera support
>
> All other Business-only items (enhanced support and services) would remain untouched.
>
>
> I believe the increase in the number of coders using LiveCode as a result of implementing feature parity would result in benefits to LiveCode's bottomline that far outweigh anything (if any) that would be gained by offering certain features only to Business licensees.
>
> This is because doing the latter would possibly serve mainly to alienate the open source community (no expected features like GIT, OOP and MVC) as well as Indy licensees (ditto, plus the recent increase in price).
>
> At the same time, the coding landscape is rapidly changing, with Apple open-sourcing Swift, and Microsoft aggressively laying cross-platform bridges, and with all native features included.
>
> Everything that I have suggested here is intended to be viewed as an attempt to ensure the continued prosperity of LiveCode Ltd.
>
> I hope LiveCode Ltd can take into consideration these items as well as any additional feedback provided by posters to this topic.
>
> With warm regards,
>
> Lyn :)
>
>
>

Richmond.