Here at my place the Igors, minions and henchmen are eager for the darzLab shingle to hang out and we put some products and freebees in the window. Many of these will support folks developing in LiveCode. So, this is important to me.
We here on this list are small small shops and want to have fun and make big bucks. The strategy in upgrades and bug fixes might be such that encourages fun and big bucks for all involved. Most of us cannot handle a lot of public branches in development. The approach of "upgrades for three months" puts a cap on the total burden of selling something. That encourages products. If we see the developer as being diligent, then it is a good thing. Many bugs will be fixed, perhaps our favorites. In a sense, we are paying for a reputation, a diligence. In a community as ours, this approach has merit. Using your example, Mark, it might be that 1.3.7 will never come. The bug in 1.3 goes away in 1.4 because a simpler new way of doing a portion is created. Fixing the bug in 1.3 to make 1.3.7 might be an inefficient use of resources. If 1.3.7 never comes, then essentially 1.4, even with new features, can be interpreted as "give me more money" for the bug fix. If resources are applied to create 1.3.7 or 1.3.8, then 1.5, what we really want and will pay for, might never come. For a small shop, a strategy might be taken in which the 1.3 line no longer has bug fixes and the focus of resources is on 1.4. This is hard on one who bought in at 1.3.7, though perhaps the overt bugs have been pretty thinned out. That person might like the 3-month upgrade approach. As much as we think we do, we do not pay for bug-free products. Of course, we do have expectations and obligations. I do not want to diminish that. Agreements are important. Trade is important. However, we can view what we do as "money acts" in which we encourage fun and profit for us, ours, and even for our neighbors and traders. If this mad scientist does put some products in the store window, I would hope they are of good quality and I will work to fix bugs. However, I don't want that to be open-ended. So, I'm eager to learn what those who buy products from each other in this community expect from others in terms of bug fixes and upgrades and paying more money. Dar Scott dba Dar Scott Consulting (services) also Fearless Leader and Mad Scientist darzLab (products) On May 3, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > Peter- > > Thursday, May 3, 2012, 6:43:27 PM, you wrote: > >> Personally, I am averse to having to pay for a release of a product where >> the ONLY changes are bug fixes and there are no enhancements, no matter how >> long I've owned the product. I don't know enough about this situation to >> know if that's the case or not. > > No, that's definitely *not* the case - Mark's been adding lots of > bells and whistles to this thing as time goes on. And I don't want > this to be an ad hominem on Mark or on InstallerMaker. > > I'm bringing up what I hope is the more abstract question of charging > for bug fixes. I don't do that and I certainly don't think it's > standard industry practice to do it. It's more of "you have version > 1.3 of our software, we have version 1.3.7 available for download with > several bugs fixed. Or you can upgrade to version 1.4" rather than "oh > yeah... that feature doesn't work... give me more money". > > -- > -Mark Wieder > mwie...@ahsoftware.net > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
