I haven't commented previously on this issue, and, note, I haven't
quoted anyone below. But, I think this whole debate is a tempest in
a teapot (or a rant in search of topic). Just what is the issue here?
Dan Shafer, a hero to many X-Talkers, including me, is concerned that
RR is
Dan sez...
I would have agreed until the last two revs. I am not personally
acquainted with the situation, but several friends of mine who teach
and study multimedia development at our local university have
complained bitterly to me in the past year about how MM has made
development in Flash
But it's not necessarily 'casting pearls before swine' ... (or, is it???)
Judy
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Tarting it all over town for just $99 gives too much away.
;)
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Perhaps the market was already saturated for this type of tool in that
given environment?
I regret that I didn't have a chance to ever work with LiveMotion (was
there a Mac version available??? I seem to recall seeing a box in the
department's SysAdmin's office, but when I inquired it was PC-only
No, I wasn't thinking of MS. It was Borland. I Have Learning Editions of
theirs.
Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank-
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 7:13:30 PM, you wrote:
I wasn't referring to the free and old C++ available. Recently,
they had Learning Editions of All their current
On Nov 27, 2005, at 2:42 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
But at the end of the day, Adobe couldn't find enough users who
didn't prefer the more professionally-oriented Flash to justify
keeping LiveMotion alive.
Products that have done well from the low end (which may mean, not
that
2 cents:
In an era where, if I wanted to, I could easily spend $5 on a cup of
coffee, an IDE such as Dreamcard at $100 seems very reasonable. If
you like what it can do, then spend more for the Studio version, etc.
I've no problem with the pricing as it stands in US dollars. I don't
know
In BULGARIA, coffee cost anywhere between 10 - 30 cents a
cup:
however the average family income (i.e. Mum and Dad
working) come to about $100. The average family are unable
to save.
However, this is wandering seriously OT.
Capitalism (a loose-fitting sort of economic something that
Bulgarians,
Yes, I have an OS9 version right here...
sqb
I regret that I didn't have a chance to ever work with LiveMotion (was
there a Mac version available??? I seem to recall seeing a box in the
Judy
--
stephen barncard
s a n f r a n c i s c o
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Without telling me how much each segment earns, it can only be
misleading to tell me what fraction of the taxes they pay. What is
the source of your information? Does it include the necessary detail
of incomes? I'm guessing it doesn't.
At 10:46 PM -0600 26/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At
Frank.
Can you give us an example or two of where this pricing is common
among development tools? I see feature-crippled and time-limited
evaluation licensing all the time, but I can't honestly think of a
single development tool that has a free learning edition that you
upgrade to so you
Frank-
Sunday, November 27, 2005, 4:34:17 AM, you wrote:
No, I wasn't thinking of MS. It was Borland. I Have Learning Editions of
theirs.
Interesting. They don't seem to be available from their website, and
Google searches don't come up with anything.
(I didn't really think you had MS in
The efficiency of the PC (oops! er, Mac) is practically without precedent since
the days of the first chipped-flint hand axe, so it is hard to get a handle on
what something like Revolution is worth. It feels to me that it is worth at
least as much as the modest computer on which I run it.
From my reading of what Frank wrote it wasn't a case of charging on a
delivery basis but allowing a cheaper entry to DreamCard, one that didn't
allow delivery. ie for $20 you can have DreamCard but whatever you create
can only run in your copy of DreamCard, if you want to deploy to other
DreamCard
I didn't mean charging per-copy distribution fees. I completely agree those
schemes are not well received.
All I meant was:
- 0 to develop inside the IDE, without the ability to deploy anything
- X to deploy anything, where X is the same number whether you deploy
1 or a million
Kay - well said - and, yes, you were the only one who Got the pricing I was
referring to with:
ie for $20 you can have DreamCard but whatever you create
can only run in your copy of DreamCard, if you want to deploy to other
DreamCard users you'll need the $99 version
Kay C Lan
David Coker wrote:
Revolution already *is* that later version with the advanced features. ;)
I think most of the users consider Revolution to be Enterprise quality and
is up to virtually any task that you can throw in it's direction. I know I
do.
Quick research:
DreamCard:
United States
Before I start my complaint about pricing, let me at least say that
I applaud the company for having a $99 price point for Dreamcard.
It at least opens the doors for more people to explore this
intriguing tool.
On the other hand, the pricing needs to go even further. In my 20
years in the
I'm a high school teacher and support my family single-income-style. I pay for
my software/hardware out of pocket [not even tax credit.] I'm also the world's
cheapest man; to wit we have had marital difficulties because I will not let
love stand in the way of conserving cash.
The background
Oh, Happy Day!
Judy
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Ken Ray wrote:
This was the same philosophy espoused by Scott Raney, when he was selling
MetaCard for $999 and nothing else... of course, that was until RunRev
picked it up...
:-)
___
use-revolution
On Nov 26, 2005, at 2:12 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Personally, I think Rev is priced too low.
Sh... don't talk that too loud, I am trying to sum some money to
buy a new license and pounds are expensive ;-)
Cheers
andre
___
use-revolution
I am one of those free HC to paid HC to paid SC crossgrade to paid
Rev enterprise crossgrade to paid Studio downgrade to paid DC to paid
DC upgrade. My gosh, I have owned one of every license! Personal
circumstances kept me from ever using the first Enterprise license,
and I would never
On Nov 25, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
RealBASIC Standard $99
RealBASIC Pro $399
Macromedia Flash: $699
Macromedia Director: $1,199 (per platform)
I decided a while back not to get involved with tool politics in this
forum (it has caused ill-will in the
Well-said, Preston! I'm adding this to my quotation list for my
positive reminders of why I do what I do.
On Nov 26, 2005, at 12:04 AM, Preston Shea wrote:
A thousand bucks to set up your own contracting business? You gotta
be kidding!
~~
Dan
I honestly do not believe that a single small company -- and RunRev
is small -- can do a great job of serving both the professional
programming market and the hobbyist/Inventive User market. The needs,
expectations, demands, support requirements, feature sets,
documentation needs, training
Frank.
Can you give us an example or two of where this pricing is common
among development tools? I see feature-crippled and time-limited
evaluation licensing all the time, but I can't honestly think of a
single development tool that has a free learning edition that you
upgrade to so
Frank...
Supplementing my last post with a response to this
On Nov 26, 2005, at 2:41 AM, Frank R wrote:
ie for $20 you can have DreamCard but whatever you create
can only run in your copy of DreamCard, if you want to deploy to
other
DreamCard users you'll need the $99 version
This
There's no such thing as bug-free software.
And the company has recently begun doing a fantastic job of squashing
bugs, so they get the message that they need to be more bug-free.
On Nov 26, 2005, at 4:03 AM, David Burgun wrote:
Before they do that they need to get all the bugs out of it,
On 26 Nov 2005, at 21:01, Dan Shafer wrote:
I've been racking my brain the last 48 hours and I cannot come up
with a single development tool company that has succeeded at doing
this since Borland's very early days. I'd be delighted if someone
could point me to a real exception to that
Dennis
A well-thought-out and appreciated post.
But, as with others who have offered this viewpoint, I am compelled
to ask you to provide even one example of a development tool company
following the strategy you describe below that you say is being used
by the most successful
Dan, this is an innocent question, not intended to provoke or
contradict, but where do you think Rev is currently falling down with
regard to either pro developers or inventive users?
As a hobbyist/inventive user (an excellent phrase, btw), I feel very
well served by Rev, though perhaps
Dan Shafer wrote:
Not only can I not think of a single *development tool* company
following the strategy of trying to serve two markets with a
single product, I can't even come up with a single successful
software company doing that.
Agreed 100%.
If a tool has any potential to appeal to pros,
On 26 Nov 2005, at 22:03, Mark Smith wrote:
Dan, this is an innocent question, not intended to provoke or
contradict, but where do you think Rev is currently falling down
with regard to either pro developers or inventive users?
Hard one to answer as RunRev do do a VERY good job at trying
David Bovill wrote:
1) Lack of the large number of professional grade commercial
plugins or open source libraries available compared to other platforms
(this seems to be changing slowly).
They're out there, just poorly cataloged. RunRev currently only lists
components they resell, and
David Bovill wrote:
What I would love to see is RunRev let go substantially of the
professional coders end of the market, by adopting an innovative open
content strategy
Letting go of users able and willing to pay top dollar to pursue a
customer self-qualified as less willing to pay seems
On 26 Nov 2005, at 22:18, Richard Gaskin wrote:
David Bovill wrote:
1) Lack of the large number of professional grade commercial
plugins or open source libraries available compared to other
platforms (this seems to be changing slowly).
They're out there, just poorly cataloged.
David Bovill wrote:
On 26 Nov 2005, at 22:18, Richard Gaskin wrote:
David Bovill wrote:
1) Lack of the large number of professional grade commercial
plugins or open source libraries available compared to other
platforms (this seems to be changing slowly).
They're out there, just
For some time I have been toying with the idea that software should
be sold on an income-weighted pricing scheme. If Richard can afford
to pay more for Rev than Andre, it is in large part because he lives
and earns in USA rather than Brazil.
I have a couple of educational titles being sold
Michael Lew wrote:
For some time I have been toying with the idea that software should
be sold on an income-weighted pricing scheme. If Richard can afford
to pay more for Rev than Andre, it is in large part because he lives
and earns in USA rather than Brazil.
I have a couple of
Dan Shafer wrote:
But, as with others who have offered this viewpoint, I am compelled
to ask you to provide even one example of a development tool company
following the strategy you describe below that you say is being used
by the most successful companies today.
And I'll expand on that
Borland. I can't swear they still do it to this day, but in recent years, they
were doing Learning Editions that had lots of function, but you couldn't
legally sell apps built with it.
But, seeing how much dialog this generated, I really I wish I never started
the thread. :)
On Nov 25, 2005, at 8:04 PM, Michael Lew wrote:
For some time I have been toying with the idea that software should
be sold on an income-weighted pricing scheme. If Richard can afford
to pay more for Rev than Andre, it is in large part because he
lives and earns in USA rather than Brazil.
On 27/11/2005, at 9:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have a couple of educational titles being sold by my University
that cost the same number of Australian dollars to Harvard as they do
to universities in Africa. It doesn't seem fair. Perhaps software
prices could be adjusted for the
Dan,
I know you qualified that as *development* tool, but I am just
thinking *tool*. I don't look at Dream Card differently than
Elements, or a low end CAD tool, or an outliner... All are
consumer tools to me. I look at the utility of each to me to solve
one type of problem. Being a
Frank-
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 2:40:06 PM, you wrote:
Borland. I can't swear they still do it to this day, but in recent years,
they
were doing Learning Editions that had lots of function, but you couldn't
legally sell apps built with it.
Borland makes their 5.0 compiler freely
On Nov 25, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Michael Lew wrote:
At the moment, in your country and mine, the very wealthy pay very
little tax.
The top 1% earners in the US pay 34% of the taxes.
The top 5% earners in the US pay 54% of the taxes.
The top 50% earners in the US pay 97% of the taxes.
If a
on Sat, 26 Nov 2005
Dan Shafer wrote:
Can you give us an example or two of where this
pricing is common among development tools?
I see feature-crippled and time-limited
evaluation licensing all the time, but
I can't honestly think of a single development
tool that has a free learning
I wasn't referring to the free and old C++ available. Recently, they had
Learning Editions of All their current development tools - Delphi, C++, Kylix,
Java.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank-
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 2:40:06 PM, you wrote:
Borland. I can't swear they still do it to
I've been racking my brain the last 48 hours and I cannot come up with
a single development tool company that has succeeded at doing this
since Borland's very early days. I'd be delighted if someone could
point me to a real exception to that rule, but absent that, I maintain
my position.
Richard Gaskin wrote:
Gray Matter used to be
that source, but they closed their doors many years ago, and today only
Macromedia themselves can afford to be the central repository.
Yeah, and the guy that ran Gray Matter was a crook. Took a bunch of
money from us, and others. Turns out he's
It would be interesting to see some statistics from the company re:
regular, paying customers and per license type. Perhaps the reality is
counter-intuitive, but to what extent does Rev have an in with the big
programming companies?
It seems a conundrum. It would seem that the company has
Frank-
Saturday, November 26, 2005, 7:13:30 PM, you wrote:
I wasn't referring to the free and old C++ available. Recently,
they had Learning Editions of All their current development tools -
Delphi, C++, Kylix, Java.
Well, let's see...
C++ Builder *30-day trial* version 6 is dated March
Good question, Mark.
I'm not sure RunRev is falling down with respect to either market at
this point because neither market has yet reched the point where its
demands pose a problem.
If you run through Bugzilla and this list I think you'd find that the
vast majority of current users are
Richard
On Nov 26, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Pros need pro tools, and even hobbysts aspire to professional-
looking results. A strategy that appeals to the high end will
appeal to both.
Ultimately, that's probably true. It's another way of saying
Inventive Users
You put your finger on it for me, Richard. I developed a detailed
strategy for doing just this for another company (one that's no
longer in business, not because they adopted my proposal) and have
shared that with RunRev privately. There is a model I believe would
work but it requires
That's a wonderful sentiment and a princely idea, Michael. But it
would pose a serious administrative nightmare, particularly for
software downloaded over the Net where you can't even know where the
buyer resides!
I have on more than one occasion made one of my products available to
I agree, Alex, but they remain two separate products. Last I checked,
you can't buy Elements and then get credit for an upgrade to Photoshop.
In that way, they are similar to Apple's iMovie-Final Cut Pro and
GarageBand-Logic Pro product mixes.
On Nov 26, 2005, at 2:35 PM, Alex Tweedly
Frank...
On Nov 26, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Frank R wrote:
But, seeing how much dialog this generated, I really I wish I
never started
the thread. :)
Why? This kind of dialog is helpful and meaningful and for a lot of
us who develop in Rev, this is the only place we can discuss such
Chipp
I would have agreed until the last two revs. I am not personally
acquainted with the situation, but several friends of mine who teach
and study multimedia development at our local university have
complained bitterly to me in the past year about how MM has made
development in
Really? Man, I knew that guy when he was at Macromedia. I can't
remember his name off hand, but that's a startling story.
Dan
On Nov 26, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Chipp Walters wrote:
Richard Gaskin wrote:
Gray Matter used to be that source, but they closed their doors
many years ago, and today
Dan Shafer wrote:
I maintain that without a significant improvement in the out-of-the- box
experience for DC, the company will never reach broad enough appeal to
reach critical mass among the Inventive User marketplace.
One can hope.
Another reason the readers of this list are glad I have
Dan Shafer wrote regarding Flash:
I would have agreed until the last two revs. I am not personally
acquainted with the situation, but several friends of mine who teach
and study multimedia development at our local university have
complained bitterly to me in the past year about how MM has
Before I start my complaint about pricing, let me at least say that I applaud
the company for having a $99 price point for Dreamcard. It at least opens the
doors for more people to explore this intriguing tool.
On the other hand, the pricing needs to go even further. In my 20 years in
Adjusted for inflation and the price of gas, Turbo Pascal would sell
for $99 today.
You're right on the money.
Best,
Jerry
On Nov 25, 2005, at 3:07 PM, Frank R wrote:
Turbo Pascal was sold in huge quantities because it was a $49
product that many could afford.
Frank,
I won't argue your points. I'm sure others will.
I will say that rev is the best solution I've seen and worked with. I
pay for great software like Photoshop, Illustrator, and Revolution
and they have MADE ME MONEY, so I don't mind paying for them.
I'm sure after 30 days you could
Frank R wrote:
Before I start my complaint about pricing, let me at least say
that I applaud the company for having a $99 price point for
Dreamcard. It at least opens the doors for more people to
explore this intriguing tool.
On the other hand, the pricing needs to go even further.
Hello Frank,
It's been a long time since I posted to the list, but I thought I'd add my
perspective in regards to pricing.
You wrote:
The pricing that has Built companies has been - price it low to draw people
in,
get the revenue later with advanced features and with deployment licensing
costs.
Frank.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I don't *entirely* agree but I
don't think you're off the deep end, either.
You said, I'm going to finish evaluating this, and I'm going to
start my project, but I won't be done in 30 days, and my journey will
probably end there. Maybe
Thanks, Dan, and others for the dialog on this.
I just have seen so many times in my life products that had So much potential
for a larger base, only for it never to happen because of the steep entry costs.
The $99 entry point for Dreamcard is certainly good - and better than the
WHOOO!!! I would definitely not go for this. The hassles alone
trying to license for deployment only to find out the product I try
to sell has no chance in a big market or any market. That is too
much. I would not buy a tool like that. I much prefer a couple
hundred dollars to create
David Coker wrote:
Quick research:
DreamCard:
United States Dollars = $99
Revolution:
United States Dollars = $299
Some comparative data:
RealBASIC Standard $99
RealBASIC Pro $399
Macromedia Flash: $699
Macromedia Director: $1,199 (per platform)
Toolbook Instructor:
Good points, Richard.
On Nov 25, 2005, at 8:12 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Personally, I think Rev is priced too low.
I can't say I disagree.
Back in the 80's -- I know, that's SO last century! -- there were two
Smalltalks on the market. Digitalk sold for something like $99.
ParcPlace
Frank
Not one major development tool has ever succeeded charging for
runtime delivery. Not one. You buy a C++ compiler, you don't pay the
compiler maker for each copy of your app. Companies that have tried
runtime royalty deals over the years -- and there have been many,
with a
On 11/25/05 10:27 PM, Dan Shafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People who pay $99 for a development tool expect
to learn it in a few hours, master it in a few days and hound tech
support unmercifully at no cost. People who pay $1,000 for a
development tool take it and their work seriously,
On 11/25/05, Dan Shafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And with so many free (open source and otherwise) compilers and IDEs
out there, it would be suicide for anyone to try to charge per-copy
distribution fees in today's market.
Total agreement here.
I've got a whole tool chest full of other
75 matches
Mail list logo
