Download LC Community: trapped.
james at thehales.id.au
Thu Mar 9 22:11:13 EST 2017
> Most SEO brings people to the .com site, so those on the .org site are
> the subset who specifically went there to get the open source edition of
> LiveCode. The conversion rate there is understandably much lower than
> on the .com site.
> After all, someone at the .com site is there to look for a proprietary
> product. Their interests are very different from the subset who move on
> to .org. The visitors at .com expect that if they like what they see in
> LiveCode they'll pay. They're predisposed to conversion.
I still don't understand why this distinction was made.
Although my professional buying was in the tertiary sector I always went to a .com sites unless it didn't exist. Many of the solutions we investigated over the years were both open source and no cost to education as well as proprietary for commercial use (which may include education depending on the context of usage.) None that I can remember had two websites. Indeed it was always of value to be able to directly compare the no-cost to cost versions to see if the propriety offer was more suitable.
This is no longer possible on the LC .com site. It used to be.
The last time I looked at the .org site it was very much a poor cousin to the .com site.
None of the resource pages were to be seen, just a list of the community communication channels.
The membership option is new. (Well recycled) and a great idea.
Although I did notice one component being access to nightly builds.
Is this true?
More information about the use-livecode