[OT] Xojo

[Earthednet-wp]

When I was considering a move to Livecode, after spending some time with Corona, I looked fairly seriously at Xojo. The attraction was the programming language syntax. But when I looked deeper, it was behind LC in multi platform support and the discussion forum showed problems with basic features. Pretty much similar to LC, tho. Anyway, I am happy with my decision to invest my effort in LC. The open source aspect, the refactoring of the basic engine to make it more robust, the modernization supported by the Kickstarter success, and the dynamic user community continue to validate my choice.

It's simply a great product that is going to continue to improve.
Best,
Bill

William Prothero
http://es.earthednet.org

> On Apr 10, 2014, at 7:05 AM, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:
> 
> Sri wrote:
>> Importantly, Xojo's license terms are much better. You don't lose the
>> commercial license if you stop renewing annually. You simply stop receiving
>> the updates.
> 
> That can indeed be beneficial for some, but now that LiveCode also offers an open source option like most modern programming languages, in practical terms the difference in proprietary licensing affects only a relatively small subset of users.
> 
> Most professional devs who need to deploy proprietary works upgrade annually to keep current with the latest features.  For that segment the cost remains about what it was before.
> 
> Nearly everyone else can use LiveCode Community Edition at no cost at all.  For those folks the cost has dropped infinitely, to zero.
> 
> It's only the subset of developers making proprietary works who need a Commercial license, and most are doing so under a business plan that brings in far more revenue than is needed to cover the cost of renewal.
> 
> For such commercial works, the cost of an annual license should be the least of their concerns.  To remain a viable product the work should be producing a positive ROI that also accounts for their own development time, marketing costs, etc., adding up to far more than the $500/yr for the other 80% of the app delivered by the RunRev team in the engine.
> 
> If a project isn't financially viable enough to even cover a Commercial license fee, it may be worth considering releasing the work as open source instead.  The audience will be much larger, and the project then has the opportunity to also benefit from outside contributions.   And with the larger audience, if the proprietary licensing fees were pulling in less than $500/yr, you might even find that a donation link or grant funding opportunities may bring in more revenue under open source than the licensing fees did.
> 
> Having come from the xTalk family of languages where all the great ones were old enough to have been proprietary, many LiveCode devs have relatively little experience with the world of options open source deployment opens up for us all.
> 
> I was one of those, and it's only been in the last few years that I've come to appreciate how open source can be a good option for many projects.
> 
> --
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World
> LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
> Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
> Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys
> 
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode