On 5/16/06 3:39 PM, "Evan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > .... With media centers > becoming more popular, your notion that "there is no logical third > machine" is going to become less and less true. Apple realizes this > with FairPlay and the iTunes Music Store, which is more flexible and > doesn't impose a 2-machine limit on downloaded songs. (Yes, FairPlay > is limited, but the limit is more reasonable.)
True, but software != downloaded song. If you dislike DRM on principle, you can always buy the original CD (making sure it doesn't have anti-copy protection first, of course) and rip it to Ogg Vorbis. Oh, iTunes doesn't natively support Ogg Vorbis? No matter: you can get a QuickTime plugin from Xiph.org to rip and play it ... though you may (read: probably will) have to manually manage what's playing, unless you're a clever code-monkey (I am not) and can write your own frontend (what else is AppleScript Studio for?) ... and so on, and so on, ad nauseam. It boils down to a simple question: How much are you willing to pay for convenience? (Noticing that you have a .Mac account, it must be at least $99 per annum, unless you got a deal. I have one, too.) > ... If Microsoft pulled this kind of bait-and-switch, I guarantee > this group wouldn't be the "amen chorus" it has been today. As one of those pedants, I'd like to remind you (and the list) that Microsoft wouldn't pull this kind of 'bait-and-switch'. Their licenses have only allowed "one copy, one machine" use for as long as I've dealt with them: 1994, MS DOS 6.22 / Windows 3.1, until I switched to Mac around the turn of the Millennium. If you want to run their software on more than one machine, you have to buy multiple licenses. Whether they choose to enforce this restriction or not has always been their choice -- setting aside the technical workings of such license-compliance enforcement schemes, for the sake of argument -- but the terms and conditions have always been there. Therefore, I find your example a bit too contrived to adequately convince me. > Secondly, I did not realize it was incumbent upon me to suggest > reasonable alternatives to Bare Bones' current sales model. I, as the > customer, have a right to say that their current model doesn't work > for me. I did suggest an alternative, and then people complained that > this didn't work for Bare Bones. I forgot that as the customer, my > duty was to ensure that I use the product in a way that satisfies > Bare Bones, not the other way around. Silly me. I apologize for ever > suggesting such a thing. Bare Bones has the right to tell you to roll it up and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. They would be complete idiots if they suggested such as thing -- but they could. They haven't, which can only mean one thing: they aren't complete blithering idiots when it comes to running their business. Gosh, they even read and reply to customer comments on a Talk List that they set up and run. Compare that with a certain design company -- which shall remain nameless (only because I can't remember their name) -- that did this to clients and leads on a routine basis. It was, if I remember correctly, one of the first casualties of the dotcom bubble burst (explosion, whatever). Vincent Flanders mentioned them in his second book Son of Web pages that suck. I'll post again when I find the reference, and hold up the guilty for ridicule. > ... > Next time there's a paid upgrade for BBEdit, I will re-evaluate their > license and decide whether my needs can be better met by other > products. Hopefully, by then, Bare Bones will have realized that > there are current and potential customers out there who use the > product in different ways, not just The One True Way Bare Bones > Engineers Have Decided You Must Work. I would happily pay a > reasonable amount more for a license that accommodated my usage > patterns. Right now, that's not an option, because the 10-user > license is overkill and prohibitively expensive, and I simply don't > think it is fair that a "single user" (me) should have to buy TWO > "single user" licenses to the tune of $400 for a text editor. You should do this *anyway*, with every purchase that you contemplate, especially when your decision will affect your productivity. Again, how much are you willing to spend for convenience? (Remember that you'll encounter a learning curve and lost productivity if you choose to switch to another editor. Depending on the worth of your time, that could add up to the cost of a second user license. In that case, a simple ... nay, naïve ROI calculation suggests that you'd be better off just buying another license ... at least until the next upgrade cycle, when you lather, rinse and repeat.) > In the meantime, it is a sunk cost, so I will continue working around > the product's artificial restrictions until it becomes so frustrating > that I'm driven to purchase the much cheaper TextMate. That's your choice: please make it a reasoned choice, not just an "I'm pissed off and and want to make Bare Bones suffer by losing my business" choice. I, for one, have not yet come up against any 'artificial restrictions' ... but I'm merely one voice of many. Kurtis A loyal-but-always-evaluating-the-competition customer > remainder of message deleted by KK, on May 16, 2006 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Have a feature request? Not sure the software's working correctly? If so, please send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not to the list. List FAQ: <http://www.barebones.com/support/lists/bbedit_talk.shtml> List archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/BBEditTalk.lasso> To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
