Suggestion: Non-Appbuilding Community Edition

[Dan Brown]

There will always be a subset of people that will circumvent paying for
software. I'm not convinced an endless battle trying to prevent misuse is
worth the cost of hampering the onboarding experience for new customers.
Unless you've cornered the market you really can't afford to be user
hostile.

Personally would keep it simple and have 3 licenses with no platform
restrictions

- Evaluation license (free)
Nag screen with 5-10 second timeout in IDE and standalones (show periodic
nag screens if the gui is hidden etc)

- Discounted license ( $80 ish, 1 full version cycle)
For non commercial use

- Commercial license (1 full version cycle)
For commercial use


I'd also get rid of any existing lifetime and lock in licenses (sorry, time
to clean house)

And I wouldn't advertise or offer any special behind the scenes deals with
support (sorry, that will just antagonise the paying user base)

Introduce breaking changes when it's necessary to move the language forward

On Sun, 5 Sep 2021, 08:57 J. Landman Gay via use-livecode, <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> You wouldn't necessarily even need that much. Tell them to install the
> free
> version and open your stack from the File menu. It isn't an app but they'd
> have all the capabilities.
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jacque at hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> On September 4, 2021 7:53:43 PM Alex Tweedly via use-livecode
> <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> > On 04/09/2021 15:36, David Bovill via use-livecode wrote:
> >> So the question here is why not do the same here - keep a
> free-to-develop
> >> “trial version” without the compilation framework and tools. I’m
> curious to
> >> the reasoning. The cynic in me would say that the assumption is that
> there
> >> are too few developers in this (non-game) market who would need the
> >> compilation / stand-alone-builder functions - so while game developers
> and
> >> companies might pay for commercial Unity 3D licenses - that is not true
> for
> >> Livecode developers? I don’t / like / buy that argument - so I would
> love
> >> to here good reasons or not adopting a Unity 3D style licensing model?
> >
> > I'm not familiar with Unity - so I'll answer just from a LC perspective
> > (and in many ways just reinforce what Kevin said in his response to your
> > original suggestion).
> >
> > The problem with a free, no-app-builder version is that you can do so
> > much with it.
> >
> > You can make it easy (or even trivial) for anyone to install and run the
> > stacks you create.
> >
> > 0. Either create your stack as a plugin, or create a plugin which gives
> > a menu of apps to run.
> >
> > Then instruct your users to:
> >
> > 1. Install LC (free-to-develop). LC's installation process is almost
> > hands-free.
> >
> > 2. download/run a simple installer script or shell script which will put
> > a stack into the (default location for) the plugins folder.
> >
> > 3. Run the IDE.
> >
> > 4. Follow the 3-click instructions to change the setting to start this
> > plugin when LC starts up.
> >
> > and you're done. It's not 100% as simple to install as a built app, but
> > it's not rocket science.
> >
> > And provided your stacks don't involve the menu system, users will
> > probably not even notice that they're in the IDE. Design your app to
> > look like it was "mobile-first" with its own menu built-in and 95% of
> > your users would be happy.
> >
> > Alex.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>