I can't say much about this controversy because I am relatively new here,
but so far I found what I was looking for with AB and I think the price is
relatively affordable and the community is great, and I appreciate what
Tomasz is doing with the program.   I am 100% satisfied.  This may not be a
great argument in this discussion, but this is my best one.  AB rocks!

Louis


2008/5/29 brian_z111 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>   To be fair:
>
> People have forgotten the point that you maintain bug free backward
> compatibility going back a long way and you don't force people to
> upgrade.
>
> They have also forgotten the main point that for all of us AB is an
> educational, hobby business, business or employment cost and compared
> to other costs in those categories AB is peanuts (trading has the
> lowest overheads of any legal business that I know off).
>
> I agree you do spoil us.
>
> I don't know of any other product that I have purchased where I can
> give the CEO an opinion, let alone try to demand that a certain
> feature be designed into the next model (all or most succesful
> businesses do carry out market research, using focus groups, but none
> that I know of do it across the board, day in, day out, the way that
> you do).
>
> brian_z
>
> --- In [email protected] <amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>, "Tomasz
> Janeczko \(groups\)"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Major upgrade is the upgrade that adds major number of new features.
> > Each our 0.01 beta is more "MAJOR" than major releases of other
> T/A softwares.
> >
> > Therefore it is more than justified to call 0.1, MAJOR upgrade
> especially considering the fact
> > that AB version number consists of THREE parts:
> > X.WY.Z
> >
> > Where
> > X is incremented just when W generates carry over (9->0)
> > W increases with major release that is cumulative version of TEN
> previous
> > (beta) versions each containing a couple of NEW features
> > Y increases with each BETA that contains NEW FEATURES
> > Z increases with versions that contain only hot-fixes and bug-fixes
> >
> >
> > You are just spoiled receiving FREE upgrades for FOUR years, even
> though
> > I originally promised that 5x0.10 major release cycle will span
> only one year.
> > It was my goodwill to add MORE new features in each and every +0.10
> increment.
> >
> > If I was doing business "IT industry standard way" I would add ONE
> new feature
> > per 0.10 upgrade. Instead you got a couple of new features every
> 0.01 BETA.
> >
> > So our 0.10 is SUPER MAJOR release as compared to "IT standard".
> >
> > Now $99 is a fee for 12 month period if there are more 3 or more
> than 3 0.1 releases
> > during 12 month period. Other companies would charge you more than
> that
> > for EACH upgrade.
> >
> > Frankly speaking I would love to purchase the software that uses
> > the same upgrade policy as AmiBroker, but I don't find any (among
> ones
> > I am interested in). Everyone charges for each and every upgrade
> and the sums
> > are much larger than that.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tomasz Janeczko
> > amibroker.com
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "original_nightstalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[email protected] <amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:21 PM
> > Subject: [amibroker] Re: RC1 telling me my reg has expired
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Apologies - let me correct the misunderstanding. I didn't mean to
> > > imply that I HAD been paying $99 for every 12 months. But from
> now
> > > on, according to the website, $99 is the upgrade fee for the next
> 12
> > > months. In other words, to stay fully up to date, would cost $99
> per
> > > year. At least, that's how I read the info on the website.
> > >
> > > I'm not for one moment trying to imply that Tomasz doesn't
> deserve the
> > > income - of course he does. I've been a fervent AmiBroker user,
> fan,
> > > and recommender for several years and will continue to do so.
> > >
> > > It's just that we're starting to get into the realms of the Law of
> > > Diminishing Returns, where the outlay goes up disproportionately
> to
> > > the amount of new features that I actually need or would use.
> > >
> > > I'm still very happy with my v5.09 beta - it does everything I
> use it
> > > for without a hitch. So I'll simply keep on using it.
> > >
> > > The version numbering is something that I find a little
> confusing -
> > > I've been involved in computers for over 35 years, and MAJOR
> upgrades
> > > usually involve an increment in the number to the left of the
> decimal
> > > point. Minor upgrades increase the number to the right of the
> decimal
> > > point. That has been the de facto standard for version numbering
> > > throughout the IT industry as I've known it since the mid-1970s.
> > > Hence my somewhat befuddled surprise that 5.10 was considered a
> MAJOR
> > > upgrade. I'd have called it version 6 if that was the case.
> Version
> > > 5.10 would normally be seen as an UPDATE rather than an UPGRADE -
> if
> > > you see what I mean.
> > >
> > > Gee - I really hate to be picky - it's not usually like me at
> all ;)
> > >
> > > Hope that has cleared up my statement about paying $99 per year -
> > > referring to the future from now on, rather than the past until
> now.
> > >
> > > Regards, Pete, Brisbane, Australia.
> > > ====================================
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected] <amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "dingo" <dingo@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Not trying to beat you up about your decision but I seriously
> doubt
> > > you've
> > >> been having to pay for upgrades every 12 months. You might want
> to
> > > revisit
> > >> that.
> > >>
> > >> d
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Please note that this group is for discussion between users only.
> > >
> > > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
> > > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> > >
> > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
> > > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
> > >
> > > For other support material please check also:
> > > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>  
>

Reply via email to