I sent Barry an 'off-list' e-mail this morning and he called me today, Sunday. I sure wouldn't exactly call that the Ipswitch way of doing business; would you?
We upgraded to v4 and it didn't hurt. We're staying with the maint model (not the subscription) and that's not going to hurt a bit, either. Seems to me, Declude is trying to evolve the product to a new level, but unlike Ipswitch, they aren't telling the current customer base to go pound dirt. In contrast, they are trying to bring the current customer base along for the ride. From the standpoint of this list, I think we have just read too much negative into this situation, probably due to the bad taste from the Imail ICS fiasco. I'm convinced that Declude is trying to do the right thing for the product and especially for their existing customer base. It is a good thing. You may have noticed that we have been invited multiple times to call them on the telephone to get our questions answered. I'd suggest that there is more mileage in doing just that, than there is in feeding the list with speculation, hyperbole and self-indulging dissertations about how you'd run their company, product and how much smarter you are . . . Sunday, February 12, 2006, 5:06:50 PM, David Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DB> Hi Ben, DB> Thanks for your post. And as I have posted before the point on the naming DB> convention is well taken, however I would like to stress one important DB> comment which you highlighted. >>>I think most of us expect that you will eventually try to force us out of DB> SAs into annual licensing. DB> We highly value our current customer base and we have no intention of DB> forcing you to an annual subscription if that were our intention we would DB> have done so at this time. DB> When making the decision to change the pricing model we took into DB> consideration our current customer base and how this would effect you, this DB> is why current customers have the best of both worlds and largely benefit DB> from the change by being able to upgrade their declude level at a fraction DB> of the original cost and still maintain the original service agreement DB> model. DB> If anything existing customers have gained by the change. I don't think DB> there is one customer who can claim to be worse off regarding their DB> licensing than before. But as expected with any change we also understand DB> (to quote a cliché) "you can't please all the people all the time". We are DB> aware of the impact that Ipswitch had when changing their pricing model and DB> we have done our very best to ensure that we did not do the same. DB> Do we listen to our customers ? Of course (why else would I be posting on a DB> Sunday evening when offices hours are Monday - Friday), in fact we encourage DB> you to call and to talk to us about your concerns, the Declude team is DB> highly customer focused and take into account everything that is posted on DB> these boards and appreciate your feedback and thoughts concerning Declude. DB> So to make a long story short. If what has been posted still does not DB> address your concerns please call us. DB> Thanks DB> David B DB> www.declude.com DB> -----Original Message----- DB> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DB> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of IMail Admin DB> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:18 PM DB> To: Declude.Virus@declude.com DB> Subject: Re: [Declude.Virus] [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 3.0 / 4.0 DB> Hi David, DB> I've been reading the posts from you and Barry, and while I understand what DB> you're saying, there are aspects that leave me confused, and are confusing DB> others. DB> Normally, when a software product version changes from 3.0 to 4.0, that DB> represents a significant change in features, not in pricing or pricing DB> schedule. When a company wants to market the same product with two DB> different pricing schemes, they use other way to distinguish the choices, DB> such as "Declude Protection Service" and "Declude Protection Software". In DB> your case, you are calling the current set of products, when supported by DB> SAs, as "Version 3.0", and the same set of programs, when purchased as part DB> of a subscription service, as "Version 4.0". So your NAMING scheme runs DB> contradictory to the 25 years standards of the software industry. I won't DB> say that no one has done it the way you are, but I've never seen it and I've DB> been around a long time. DB> So the first big problem is that you are using 3.0 and 4.0 to identify two DB> different pricing schemes, and all of users keep thinking that there must be DB> also be feature differences (because to us, that's what 3.0 => 4.0 means). DB> So people (including myself) have a hard time understanding that there is no DB> functional difference between 3.0 and 4.0. Moreover, most of the us suspect DB> that there will be more differences in features in the future. DB> The second problem is your new pricing scheme. All of us existing Declude DB> owners have our SAs, so presumably it's not an issue for us. However, I DB> think most of us expect that you will eventually try to force us out of SAs DB> into annual licensing, which we don't want. Moreover, most of us worry that DB> your new pricing scheme will not be accepted by your customer base, and that DB> could lead to the death of Declude. So while I may not be directly impacted DB> by version 4.0, I have good reason to worry about the future success of DB> Declude and whether I can expect you to continue to provide a growing and DB> satisfactory product. I may have to look at alternatives just to protect my DB> future. DB> The third problem that you haven't addressed at all is your poor timing. DB> You know that the vast majority of your users are current/former IMail users DB> who are still stinging from their fiasco, and yet you walk into the same DB> stupid trap, with the same lack of forethought and customer communications. DB> You also do this at a time when a lot of your clients are upset about a lack DB> of true improvements (how about just a stable, current product??). So you DB> have all of these customers who are losing patience over your upgrades, who DB> are still upset at Ipswitch, and then you ambush them with this new scheme. DB> Any wonder people are upset? DB> I really suggest you take a good, long look at the troubles experienced by DB> Ipswitch over the last year, and decide if you really want to go through all DB> that. And if you do, then change the names to something besides 3.0 and DB> 4.0. DB> Ben Bednarz DB> BC Web DB> ----- Original Message ----- DB> From: "David Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DB> To: <Declude.JunkMail@declude.com>; <Declude.Virus@declude.com> DB> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:37 AM DB> Subject: RE: [Declude.Virus] [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 3.0 / 4.0 >> Let me quote myself on point 5. >> >> "EXCEPT that 4.0 runs as a single product with Declude EVA PRO, Junkmail >> PRO >> and Hijack. Where as Version 3.0 still supports 3 individual products." >> >> As to NO major differences, there are NO major differences in >> functionality >> but rather minor differences which have to do with integration into >> SmarterMail 3.0 which makes it a little easier for New Customers which I >> will explain in greater detail with the notes I promised in point 7, but >> again these differences do NOT effect existing customers. >> >> David B >> www.declude.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Brown >> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:23 AM >> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com; Declude.Virus@declude.com >> Subject: Re: [Declude.Virus] [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 3.0 / 4.0 >> >> Saturday, February 11, 2006, 9:47:07 AM, David Barker >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> DB> [Snip] >> >> DB> 5. With regards to Version 3.0 and 4.0 there is NO major difference >> DB> in functionality except that 4.0 runs as a single product with >> DB> Declude EVA PRO, Junkmail PRO and Hijack. Where as Version 3.0 still >> DB> supports 3 individual products. >> >> DB> [Snip] >> >> DB> 7. I am pulling together some additional release notes on a >> DB> comparison between version version 3.0 and 4.0 which I hope to have >> DB> available next week. >> >> DB> David B >> DB> www.declude.com >> DB> [Snip] >> >> Items 5 & 7 are contradictory, to the extent that no comparison, as >> promised >> in 7, would be needed, if the only difference was, as quoted in 5. >> >> >> ---- >> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc. >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.inetconcepts.net >> (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049 >> ---- >> >> --- >> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA www.declude.com] >> >> --- >> This E-mail came from the Declude.Virus mailing list. To unsubscribe, >> just >> send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and >> type "unsubscribe Declude.Virus". The archives can be found >> at http://www.mail-archive.com. >> >> >> --- >> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA www.declude.com] >> >> --- >> This E-mail came from the Declude.Virus mailing list. To >> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and >> type "unsubscribe Declude.Virus". The archives can be found >> at http://www.mail-archive.com. >> DB> --- DB> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA www.declude.com] DB> --- DB> This E-mail came from the Declude.Virus mailing list. To DB> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and DB> type "unsubscribe Declude.Virus". The archives can be found DB> at http://www.mail-archive.com. DB> --- DB> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA www.declude.com] DB> --- DB> This E-mail came from the Declude.Virus mailing list. To DB> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and DB> type "unsubscribe Declude.Virus". The archives can be found DB> at http://www.mail-archive.com. ---- Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.inetconcepts.net (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049 ---- --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA www.declude.com] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.Virus mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.Virus". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
