Dean, I wish it were mine to give back.
I worked with/for a group. It is not my IP since it was not my code and even the stuff I did myself (not very useful anyways) was on contracted time. The contract was very specific about who owned the IP to any code developed. Technically, by contract I should not have any code in my possession at this point. The point is, the JIAX code could and has been easily modified to create a free Java web based IAX softphone if someone just did it. To me, that indicates lack of demand (in the opensource area anyways). Thanks, Steve Totaro Dean Collins wrote: > Steve, > I'm confused about why you decided not to use your development or offer > it back to the community? > > If you've got it and don't want to use it I'm sure there are some people > on the list that would like to see what you've done and implement it on > a no-support basis. > > > Regards, > > Dean Collins > Cognation Pty Ltd > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +1-212-203-4357 > +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial). > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-biz- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Totaro >> Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2007 10:49 AM >> To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion >> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Ribbit.com ? >> >> Dean, >> >> I think you may be right on the money with JIAX and the real demand >> > for a > >> web based phone. I worked with a group that "fixed" the freely >> > available > >> JIAX code (by Mikael Magnusson http://www.hem.za.org/jiaxclient ) but >> > had > >> no interest in giving the code back to wild, nor selling it. It did >> > not > >> take a few good Java guys very long to get it working the same as >> > Mexuar's. > >> I was able to compile a workign jar from source myself with a few >> > changes > >> and I am not a Dev guy, let alone a Java guy at all (but it took me >> > the > >> better part of week). >> >> I think that the demand is not really there (yet). Most real world >> > people > >> would rather pick up a real phone and dial a toll free number than don >> > a > >> headset with mic and make a call via browser. I think it has some wow >> > power > >> to "our kind", but I think the average Joe would not use this until >> convergence is more complete to avoid putting on headphones (like a >> bluetooth link from PC to a hardphone or cell). >> >> It is similar to many companies that I consult for. The people in the >> company want to know the bare essentials to use the phones. Sometimes >> > the > >> higher ups are interested in advanced functionality but more often >> > than not, > >> they just want something to replace (insert phone system here) in >> functionality with a few remote phones or remote offices. During the >> > sales > >> cycle however, they are wowed by the possibilities which certainly >> > helps and > >> stands out from the crowd since there are no material nor licensing >> > costs, > >> just time. >> >> Thanks, >> Steve Totaro >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dean Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:42 AM >> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Ribbit.com ? >> >> >> >>> My suggestion was a $25 one off license per simultaneous call. >>> >>> Eg you run a small asterisk server in your office where people may >>> > use > >>> it from time to time then it's a one off $25 fee. >>> >>> If you run a website with a community of users who get together to >>> > chat > >>> with each other and want to restrict it to 10 people at once then >>> > your > >>> fee would be $250 >>> >>> And lets face it if you cant/wont pay $25 then you aren't really >>> > serious > >>> at any price. >>> >>> The question in the founders mind always was....how many people >>> > actually > >>> want to buy this product (at any fee) and how many would use it if >>> > it > >>> was free but really don't want it bad enough to fire up a paypal >>> > account > >>> or similar. >>> >>> At the end of the day Tim spent a long time developing the >>> > application > >>> (and at only 125k in size it's a work of art), office space, rent, >>> > food > >>> and telephony, sales people/tech support salaries all cost money. >>> > Mexuar > >>> needs a return on their investment to cover their costs and a profit >>> return. >>> >>> At the end of the day they chose to go with the high end unlimited >>> > use > >>> for a single reasonable fee of $US2,000 which means any service >>> > provider > >>> or large company could implement it quite easily and they offered an >>> > ASP > >>> service for one off licenses with a monthly fee. >>> >>> What confuses me about this whole space is JIAX. >>> >>> If there is an existing free application available, albeit free and >>> > not > >>> perfect, why haven't more people chosen to spend time fixing this or >>> offered bounties for it's improvement. >>> >>> At the end of the day maybe there just aren't as many people looking >>> > to > >>> use this functionality as 'perceived' and my proposal is wrong. As >>> > it's > >>> not my investment I think the founders of Mexuar made the right >>> > choice. > >>> Will be interesting to see if a lot of people chime in on this >>> discussion and I'm shown to be right and there is a market for $25 >>> > per > >>> simultaneous call licenses. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Dean Collins >>> Cognation Pty Ltd >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> +1-212-203-4357 >>> +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial). >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-biz- >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Rubenstein >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2007 7:33 AM >>>> To: Mike Clark >>>> Cc: Asterisk -Biz >>>> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Ribbit.com ? >>>> >>>> $5 per end user is way too much for little Web apps like >>>> >>> chatrooms or >>> >>>> sales/cust-svc chats, or anything where a given random user from >>>> > the > >>>> public on the Web isn't going to return at least $10 a year in >>>> > profit > >>>> from which that license can be paid. Even $5 per running instance >>>> > is > >>> too >>> >>>> high. The problem isn't so much the price, but just a per-instance >>>> > fee > >>>> as a limit to scale. >>>> >>>> The solution is a license fee on a middleware server with >>>> >>> traffic >>> >>>> capacities, and a free client. But if the middleware does't offer >>>> >>> value >>> >>>> of its own (beyond being the "key" for the clients to work), then >>>> > it's > >>>> going to be a nuisance. In any case, the client should be free. >>>> > Which > >>> is >>> >>>> one impediment to widespread development, which is a reason it >>>> > isn't > >>>> here yet. But since there is some development, with those bizmodel >>>> constraints, I'd think there'd be several options already for >>>> > "webpage > >>>> voice" integrated with the PSTN. These same business constraints >>>> > don't > >>>> seem to have eliminated any number of free clients floating around >>>> > and > >>>> seeing lots of use. Which are then harnessed to support business >>>> >>> models >>> >>>> relating to the business, not to the software used by the business. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 07:20 -0500, Mike Clark wrote: >>>> >>>>> They key is not creating a barrier to entry. It would be ideal if >>>>> > I > >>>>> could license a "Mexuar-like" client in small lots of 5 or 10 at >>>>> > a > >>> price >>> >>>>> of around $10 per license. You might even give away a "free" >>>>> >>> developer >>> >>>>> pack of 2 licenses so folks can easily get started. This all >>>>> > enables > >>> the >>> >>>>> little gut to get in the game, and then maybe hit a homerun >>>>> >>> resulting in >>> >>>>> thousands of licenses. >>>>> >>>>> Dean Collins wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But Mike the question remains how much is it worth to you to be >>>>>> >>> able to >>> >>>>>> do this? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Dean Collins >>>>>> Cognation Pty Ltd >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> +1-212-203-4357 >>>>>> +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> > [mailto:asterisk-biz- > >>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Clark >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, 17 December 2007 5:22 PM >>>>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Commercial and Business-Oriented >>>>>>> > Asterisk > >>>>>> Discussion >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Ribbit.com ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Matthew Rubenstein wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dean, how would you describe Mexuar, with its embeddable >>>>>>>> >>> but >>> >>>>>>>> proprietary IAX applet, in that context? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...snipped a bunch.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not Dean, but I'll comment here.I evaluated Mexuar and >>>>>>> > really > >>>>>> liked >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> it, but they had no good mechanism for a small developer to >>>>>>> > get > >>>>>> started. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> They wanted a substantial up front licensing fee to get going. >>>>>>> >>> OTOH, >>> >>>>>> if >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> you turned out to be successful, it was a good deal because it >>>>>>> >>> was a >>> >>>>>> one >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> time fee. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ribbit has a totally different model as they are a full blown >>>>>>> >>> ITSP and >>> >>>>>>> have provided a Flex/Actionscript API to their Flash phone >>>>>>> >>> component >>> >>>>>> at >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> no charge to developers. I have an app ready to roll as soon >>>>>>> > as > >>> they >>> >>>>>> are >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> completely live. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would love to see a similar type API to a Flash SIP or IAX2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> component >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> where I could access my own Asterisk or Freeswitch server. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike Clark >>>>>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> (C) Matthew Rubenstein >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
