New Pricing

[Richard Gaskin]

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.

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.

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