Robin, In this day and age, wherever possible, we would distribute apps with or without Central via the web anyway, so I don't see software distribution as a valid argument.Geoff is spot-on when he says that "There isn't any software -- you have to build it. So you're adding insult to injury by asking folks to pay for a license to distribute software you would like them to develop in your products, products for which they have paid money already.""
The power of Central for me is being able to bring all my disperate flash apps into one place, allowing users to then choose which to use/display depending on their business needs, and allowing Central to do it's stuff by "blasting" data between those apps. The user stays in one place and is constantly updated on the information that is important to them. It is not about distribution. MM have said that the biggest market to crack for them is the non-experts which is why they now have products such as Contribute and Breeze. Central could also have a big impact in this area by making it easier for non-experts to have a browser-like environment for data apps as well as an easy try/buy process to populate it with useful apps. Who knows - maybe Central could take a share of the browser market for those only interested in specific data?? The point is, if you make it easy and cheap for everyone to develop and distribute apps within Central, then it has a chance of being the next big thing, but if you discourage developers because of price, they won't develop for it and Central will not progress. It feels like MM is trying to make a quick buck from a few corporate customers that may be able to afford the licensing, and not looking at the long term picture - just my opinion.... Anyway - I am not angry - just very sad that this great product seems to be heading for the same place as Generator and Spectra. - I hope I'm wrong. Hilary BTW, it Wentworth AHS (WAHS) not Western Sydney AHS (WSAHS) ;-) www.bridel.org "Robin Hilliard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Geoff Bowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > The software distribution mechanism is great but then that implies you > > have software to distribute. There isn't any software -- you have to > > build it. So you're adding insult to injury by asking folks to pay for > > a license to distribute software you would like them to develop in your > > products, products for which they have paid money already. > > Don't quite get this. Say you're developing a VB application. You have to > build it yourself, then you have to deploy it to 1,000 desktops. There's a > whole industry out there that builds remote deployment software for this > sort of situation. Most people wouldn't find it insulting that they charge > you money (usually lots) to help deploy software that you had to build > yourself - the software is still saving hundreds or thousands of hours spent > deploying the software manually by operations staff. > > At one of the call centre projects I worked on there was a team of five FTEs > to manage software deployment in a four hundred seat call centre. Now, > technology has improved since then, but say it's one person on that team > today, with a 50k package (inc super, training etc). That's $50,000/400 > seats = $125 per seat per year. All I'm saying here is that automatic > software deployment is worth something (not necessarily $28/desktop/year, > just "something") > --- You are currently subscribed to fugli as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
