New(?) Idea for Standalones

[Richmond]

I despair . . . how could one lower oneself to two fingers of 'whiskey'?

Just now I am enjoying a glass of whisky (without the offending 'e').

Richmond.

On 27.03.21 20:29, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
> 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?
>