However - to survive in this world of ours one needs SOME money, be it
an individual or a company.

OK RS is still around, but Winning Recipe?

Just because you are still around does not mean a winning recipe. How
many copies of RS is sold per week / month / year at this stage?
Enough to keep even TWO people in a wage? Are the guys developing RS
ALSO involved in other areas?

On 8 November 2010 11:57, aidan o driscoll <[email protected]> wrote:
> However - to survive in this world of ours one needs SOME money, be it
> an individual or a company.
>
> OK RS is still around, but Winning Recipe?
>
> Just because you are still around does not mean a winning recipe. How
> many copies of RS is sold per week / month / year at this stage?
> Enough to keep even TWO people in a wage? Are the guys developing RS
> ALSO involved in other areas?
>
> Aidan
>
> On 7 November 2010 20:20, Jean-Sebastien Perron <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's not about how much you gain money, it's about how much you spend.
>>
>> RS is still around because they kept the spending low.
>>
>> What you are kind of saying Martin is that you would favor a software based
>> on it's users/community/popularity over the software itself.
>>
>> In 10 years RS will still be there with a few redefining revolutions here
>> and there.
>> From day 1 (RS 1.0) to today they have kept it the same.
>> When you have a winning recipe you don't change it.
>>
>> What good is money if you cannot survive in difficult times and risk loosing
>> it all.
>>
>> The only thing that can change is YOU and US.
>> We can do more.
>>
>> Jean-Sebastien Perron
>> www.NeuroWorld.ws
>>
>> On 10-11-07 11:50 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure you´re right, but somehow that´s the whole point, right?
>>>
>>> If Realsoft is basically just two people - and this proves to be not
>>> enough - than it should be checked if other options are available.
>>> And this just roughly correlates to the price of the product.
>>> If the expenses are doubled and so are the earnings generated by RS3D,
>>> then the equation much likely evens out - at least.
>>> To, for example, have an investor who gives money for marketing and
>>> development but also wants a percentage of the income, should at least
>>> generate the same amount of income for Vesa and Juha as is generated now,
>>> simply through increased sales, while the price could probably stay the
>>> same.
>>>
>>> Let´s face it - leading software publishers only demand high prices
>>> because they can.
>>> Because their software is the leader.
>>> If for example you compare Photoshop to some of it´s (theoretical)
>>> competitors, you will find that some of them sell for only five percent (!)
>>> of Photoshops price; while offering about 80% of Photoshops capabilities.
>>>
>>> But even if RS3D cost fifty or a hundret bucks more, users would buy it if
>>> they saw that the increased functionality was worth it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Datum: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:57:40 +0000
>>>> Von: leee<[email protected]>
>>>> An: [email protected]
>>>> Betreff: Re: SDK/ sites down/ frustration/Realsoft
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've been using RS a long time, albeit not quite as long as Mark -
>>>> just since V2 on Amiga - but like Mark, the way that RS works fits
>>>> me just right (even though I'm not as active as I used to be, I
>>>> still get the occasional idea for a pic and manage to 'dribble' out
>>>> a few new pics each year.)
>>>>
>>>> I think that one of the important factors that needs to be
>>>> remembered concerning RS is the price/performance trade-off that it
>>>> offers.  RS hasn't been produced by a large organisation, with
>>>> extra staff dedicated to promotion; it's pretty much just a two-man
>>>> show.
>>>>
>>>> I think the bottom line is you pays your money and takes your
>>>> choice.  If you want more support, beyond that offered by other
>>>> users, then perhaps you need to pay more to a larger organisation
>>>> that uses that extra money to employ promotional staff.
>>>>
>>>> LeeE
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to