New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Richard Gaskin]

Roger Guay wrote:

 > On Mar 26, 2021, at 5:35 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
 >
 >> What are you looking for?  When were these "good ol days"
 >> in which one could run stack files without an engine, and
 >> how did that work?
 >
 > In the good ol days, I could build a standalone for the Mac,
 > Windows and Linux and distribute it willy-nilly. Now I have to
 > jump thru intolerable hoops (at least for the Mac) to give
 > someone my standalone. if someone (hint. . .hint) could build
 > a Livecode reader app for dirt cheap or even free w advertising
 > that would run LC standalones, everything would be right in the
 > world again!
 >
 > I think my martini is showing...

After I read that I poured myself two fingers of whiskey and sat back 
enjoying the memories you conjured. Good thoughts. Thanks.

In those days we made software for single users to run on a single 
computer running one brand of OS.

The web had barely been invented, the Internet not yet privatized for 
general use, and "cloud" was still called "mainframe".

It was a much simpler time. I miss those days myself.


The hoops we now jump through to deliver apps are OS vendors responding 
to an evolving need to establish trust in hostile connected environments.

As software opportunities have expanded, they've for everyone, good and 
bad actors alike.

My response to Alex was apparently too long to be read, but I touched on 
this in third block, re "security", re implications for a player as well:
http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2021-March/263948.html



 > This conversation has given me some focus and clarification of the
 > basic idea. Here is what I would love to see: A LiveCodeLight
 > downloadable from the mother ship.

Why specifically from the mother ship?

Or to put it in business terms, which features/bug fixes would you be 
willing to see dropped so the company could commit to making and 
maintaining yet another project?

In addition to the opportunity cost to the company, there's also the 
segment who would use it as an alternative to maintaining a current 
license, resulting in at least some degree of revenue cannibalization.

And while the upside is non-zero, it's limited to a slender subset of 
promotional value opportunities which could more easily be attained with 
nearly any marketing strategy at lower cost, and in ways that more 
directly feed their funnel.

Moreover, a player produces no direct revenue, but maintenance and 
support obligations create immediate (if modest) direct payroll impact.

Free software isn't free to make and maintain.


 > LiveCodeLight would be a stripped down version of the community
 > edition that would not open the IDE, but would open and run stacks.
 >
 > Thanks, Brian for the idea.
 >
 > Is that a cool idea or what?

Also addressed in my earlier post (some day I'll learn to write less here).

The close of that post suggested this might make a good community 
project, and described how simple it could be if anyone here really 
wanted something that rudimentary.

But (for the reasons also described in that post) it would have to be 
with Community, which raises two questions not yet answered in any 
subsequent reply:

How many who would use a generic player would be willing to relicense 
their works under GPL, as would be required if distributed via the 
GPL-governed Community Edition.

And with Community's role in LC's business as a sort of freemium offer, 
how many projects might one want to distribute with a player which use 
absolutely none of any features found only in the proprietary editions, 
Indy and Business?

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com