|
Hi
Lucian,
I will
need to speak to my clients ( I can't remember if they purchased the Flex
License at v1 or v1.5 ).
I'm
sure that there is an amicable agreement that can be reached - price increases
are an ongoing problem for everyone around the world but particularly for the
small to medium whoever/whatever. Although larger companies must be careful to
count the pennies (therefore looking after the pounds) they are in a much better
position to find the cash to make larger purchases if it makes sense in the
bigger picture.
I
imagine ( and I may be wrong ) that most of us are a little disturbed by not
being able to see a price on a tag. Hardly anyone in the UK is used to haggling,
and personally I'm not keen on squeezing as much out of someone as I can. I am
not the one who authorises purchases, and I imagine that most of us here are in
the same boat.
It
just feels very uncomfortable seeing a price tag for a small bag of sweets, a
price tag for a large bag of sweets, but for medium and jumbo bags you have to
haggle with the shop keeper. I'm not saying its wrong - I just think that lots
of developers like me have a hard time having to go back to the people who make
the purchasing decisions and trying to get them to pay an unknown but
considerable amount of money for something that they are not sure that they
want, and we are the ones that have to persuade them that they want
it.
For my
part, I sold Flex based on the knowledge that my clients wanted to develop their
webapps using the Flash Player. My experience of creating webapps in the Flash
environment was most unpleasant (especially when having to work with
designers that can't program and aren't at all tidy!) so I pushed the fact that
the webapps would be developed much much faster using Flex than with Flash.
Yes, there has been a bigger learning curve than I thought, but if I had tried
to do this using Flash only - well I think that I would be in a hospital room
with nice padded walls to dampen the sound of my screaming!
I love
Flex. And I'm glad someone else has bought it for me to work
with.
Kind
Regards,
Simon
Fifield
Maintenance will be
calculated based on the CPUs or Quick Start price if you go that route. . I
think that’s pretty consistent with other software industry
norms.
I’ll make you the
same offer, Simon. Where you have serious projects running, lets talk directly
and find a way to make this work out.
Lucian
From: Simon
Fifield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:49
AM
To:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Flex 1.5
price
My clients have also
stretched themselves to purchase the 2cpu license, which cost more than
the Dual Processor server they purchased to match the
spec.
Now that the license
for Flex is either 1 or 4 cpu does this mean that my clients are going to have
to more than double the original purchase price when they need to renew their
maintenance license?
Or will the 1 cpu
license cover the whole server? (i.e. does cpu mean server or does it mean
processors?)
-----Original
Message-----
From: Matthew
Shirey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 March 2005 18:17
To:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Flex 1.5
price
What about a 2cpu license? Please
answer. Your 'starter kit' is
overkill for us. If our price is based on a minimum
4cpu price, then
this is no
longer a joke at all. We will have to drop Flex and
never
look back. We will
have wasted months of training and actual
development time. This is NOT a price I can justify
to anyone.
We're seriously
disappointed in Macromedia at this time. We're a
very
small shop and its starting
to look like Macromedia does not care
about the little guy at all
anymore.
--
Matthew
On Thu, 31 Mar
2005 12:00:13 -0500, Darron J. Schall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Jeff Steiner
wrote:
>
> >Lazslo, while the
samples look great, is still based upon Flash player
5
> >(Beta 3 of Lazslo is
player 6). It is one of those things where you have
to
> >wonder - how does
Lazslo know what to extend of the Flash Player.
The
> >people that are
contributing to it make guesses and try to extend
the
> >capabilities as far
as they can, but they are still limited in their
> >knowledge. I have never seen an API to the
Flash player made readily
>
>available to the public. Also - as the Flash Player gets more
complicated
> >it will
become more difficult to code hooks into the player to
give
> >developers the
same functionality that is provided by Flex, and Breeze,
and
> >Flash,
........
>
>
>
>
> As a Flash developer,
I'd like to chime in here..
>
> The fact that Lazslo works
on Flash Player 5 really isn't an issue. In
> fact, I'd say it's a bonus! Here's
why:
>
> * Because Lazslo outputs
to Flash Player 5, it has a larget target
> audience. See the penetration
stats:
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html
> -- FP 5 is 97%. FP7 is 82% - so apps created
in Laszlo have a better
>
chance of being viewed
>
> * There are no "older is
slower" arguments. The v7 player will play a
> v5 swf faster than the v5 player, because the v7
player itself is faster
>
than the v5 player.
>
> * The internals are
abstracted away. Right now your Lazslo code
> publishes to .swf, but it's not tied to the Flash
Player in any way -
> there
are no MovieClip references, etc in your lazslo code. In
fact,
> you don't even use
ActionScript, you write in _javascript_.
There's
> nothing to stop
someone from writing a new "player" and with a few
> tweaks to the Laszlo compilation process you could
have output for that
> new
player.
>
> When you develop an
application, do you really care about the internal
> API calls of Flash Player 7? If I'm a Lazslo
developer, I say no.. I
>
know what tags I can use in my markup, I know what the APIs are, and
I
> use them and get a
*working* .swf file. As long as it works, that's
all
> I care about. If
SWF5 is all it takes to make it work, then that's
cool.
>
> Is there anything in v7
SWF that would benefit Lazslo apps? Not
> really. Some of the new things added in FP 7
over FP 6 is case
>
sensitivty, depth management functions (getNextHighestDepth..) ,
context
> menu, etc,.
The biggest change would probably be embedded video,
and
> that may be a show
stopper for some.. but it's rare that an
> "application" needs video in it. FP 6 adds
some things over FP5 like
>
ShardObjects, so I can see how upgrading to v6 in that respect would
be
> benefitical. FP 6
also added different event handlers than FP5
> (.onPress, vs on (press)) - but that has 0 effect on
how I code my
> Lazslo
markup. The FP6 style event handlers are meant to make AS
coding
> easier, but Lazslo
doesn't care about that because it has it's own
> coding model.
>
>
The fact that Lazslo accomplishes what it does on an old version of
the
> SWF format is not a
drawback, it's a benefit. There's really no
reason
> to use SWF7 if
everything you need to do can be accomplished in
SWF5.
> The fact that Lazslo
separates itself from the Flash Player is another
> benefit as well.. If something should ever
happen, maybe legal issues
>
or whatever, Lazslo can output to, say, Java applets or whatever,
since
> the code is all
abstracted from the VM and the compilation process
> handles the dirty work of putting your code into a
format the VM can
>
understand.
>
>
-d
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
