On 11 Jan 2010, at 13:19, Stefan Reitshamer wrote: > I agree it's too complex. > Instead of making users calculate how many licenses they may need, could you > just offer a few price points, one per target user type? > Maybe home users would buy the Home edition with 2 seats and 5 connections; > small-business users buy the Small Business edition, etc. > That seems like a good idea. I would like to keep control over the connection limit without making it too odious for everyone. The users and the connections just stack up when additional licences are added. So If I have one or two price points/combinations you can just add what you need, whether it's connections or users.
> Also, you could perhaps require a license only for people doing the writing. > People could run the app read-only without a license. > Another valid suggestion. This makes it even more complex though. So I will have to think through the implications here. I am considering a browser connection with limited functionality, so perhaps a read-only style licence makes sense there. Thanks a lot. Both arq and iPhotoSync look like worthwhile apps. > My iPhotoSync app has a similar problem to yours I think -- it's only > valuable if more than one person is using it. Those are the 2 approaches I'm > considering. > > - Stefan > www.haystacksoftware.com > > > On Jan 11, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Martin Redington wrote: > >> Seems way too complex for me, and reminds me of various corporate software >> licensing models. >> >> I think I'd probably just drop the connection concept all together, and >> license it per seat ... >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, [email protected] < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I am trying to finalise the licence scheme for a network app. >>> It would be useful to know if the following proposed licence scheme makes >>> sense or is too cumbersome or just plain stupid. >>> >>> The app permits access to shared network tasks. >>> The licence model consists of 2 fundamental elements: >>> >>> 1. a user seat >>> 2. a network connection >>> >>> The standard licence contains, say, 2 seats and 5 connections. >>> >>> This means : >>> 1. 2 simultaneous networked users. >>> 2. connected to a maximum of 5 application instances. >>> >>> Additional licences may be added in combinations of seats and connections. >>> So, an extra user can be added to allow say 3 users on 5 connections. >>> Or, extra connections can be added so that the existing 2 users can access >>> say 10 instances. >>> >>> The standard licence is quite generous I think (2 users, 5 connections). >>> But it seems pointless to produce a network app without giving the >>> purchaser the ability to use it effectively on a small LAN. >>> On the other hand, I do want to retain control over the usage. >>> >>> Pricing is not fixed yet but I would imagine that a connection licence >>> would be a less than a user licence. >>> >>> Any thoughts or experiences appreciated. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Jonathan Mitchell >>> >>> Developer >>> http://www.mugginsoft.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.mildmanneredindustries.com/ >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> MacSB email guidelines: http://tinyurl.com/2g55d6 >> Use MacSB-Talk for off topic messages: >> http://groups.google.com/group/macsb-talk >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > MacSB email guidelines: http://tinyurl.com/2g55d6 > Use MacSB-Talk for off topic messages: > http://groups.google.com/group/macsb-talk > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
