Geoff, you are right on all points.
1. Don't buy before SP3 2. Don't buy maintenance (What additional services they offer to justify this expense?) 3. Return of bugs 4. Loss of features As you and other people on the forum probably know, I have been critical and sometimes hard on Protel/Altium in the past. Most of the times with a good reason and out of frustration. Recently, I have been quite happy with the DXP SP4. AD6 came with a surprise, as it did to many people on the forum. In AD6 I see a value in upgrading for the first time in a long time, if only it was working as advertised. The fact is that I am still waiting for a demo CD, almost two months after asking for one. In the meantime I had numerous conversations with hard-sellers from Altium who were pushing upgrade, training and everything that could be sold. My question is, if you can't send one demo CD to me, what else could I expect? If my company paid for the upgrade, how long would we have to wait for SW? People should be aware of volatile pricing scheme, as I have found out on this forum and from my own experience. They should ask around what other people are paying. Altium themselves should take action and sort this out, as it damages them in my opinion. I am sure there will be a value for money in it after SP3. Can you wait? And I oppose compulsory maintenance, at least until SW design becomes bug free and I get all the features I want in the first release. Regards, Igor > >I am really amazed at what Joe had to say in his message, as that is the >*first* time that I have ever heard of users being *required* to pay any >annual fee. So if you'll bear with me, I'll pass on my thoughts about >paying >for Altium's products. > >I know that an option had previously been provided for users to pay an >annual fee and ostensibly receive a superior level of support in exchange >for that additional outlay - but before now, any such fees, or any other >fees of a "maintenance" nature, have *not* been compulsory. > >As many (if not all) users now know though, those users who were naive >enough to surmise that paying that annual (subscription) fee would result >in >them being provided with a CD-ROM (containing AD6) *before* any other users >(who had *not* been paying such fees) eventually found out that they didn't >receive their CD-ROMs until *after* "first time" users (who had never owned >any earlier version) and the *other* (upgrading but *non*-"subscribing") >users had received theirs. > > >From what I, and others, have surmised, there was an unexpectedly large >number of "first time" users purchasing AD6, and the (initial) number of >CD-ROMs prepared was insufficient to supply all of the "first time" users >*and* all of the "upgrading" users. While the "right thing" for Altium to >have done in the circumstances would have been to have prepared yet more >CD-ROMs on an ASAP basis, it would seem that additional CD-ROMs were >prepared on a distinctly "non-ASAP" basis instead (and presumably to >minimise the outlay associated with preparing those additional CD-ROMs). > >Presumably a decision was made to provide the "first time" users with their >CD-ROMs on an ASAP basis to prevent them from wondering whether Altium was >a >"take their money and run" trader - but the "subscribing" users still had >to >wait until after everyone else had received their CD-ROMs. > >As there was an unexpectedly large number of "first time" users purchasing >AD6 though, that would have resulted in "windfall" profits for Altium - so >it was not as if they were so hard up that they had to prepare additional >CD-ROMs on an "as cheap as possible" basis; even if their directors had had >to use their houses (and/or other possessions) as security for a loan, they >still could, and should, have prepared additional CD-ROMs on an ASAP basis >instead. > >However, it would seem that they were quite happy to accept the additional >fees paid by their "subscribing" users, but then treat them as "second >class" customers - whereas those users (and most other people) would not >unreasonably have expected that paying the additional fees would have >resulted in them being treated as "first class" customers instead. > >But as I said earlier though, Joe's message is the first time that I have >heard of users now being required to pay any annual fee. So what is >supposed >to happen to any users who *don't* pay that fee; will they (just) lose the >ability to download the latest SPs, or will their licence expire (as well)? > >*If* users' licences expired, that would effectively mean that users would >now be *leasing* AD6 rather than purchasing it "outright" / "in perpetuity" >(as *has* been the case with all earlier versions); that would be a >*significant* change in licensing conditions, which all users *should* >accordingly be fully alerted to!!!! > >Having said that, I currently surmise that not paying the maintenance fee >would (merely) result in users losing the ability to download the latest >SPs. That type of change would, of course, *not* be as drastic as changing >to leased licences - but for all that, I still consider that most (if not >all) users would believe that if they purchase an application which is of a >buggy nature, then they are entitled to be provided with *free* SPs to >rectify its bugs, or at least the most "offensive" of those bugs. > >For some time though, SPs have contained a mix of bug fixes and new >features >(and the new features haven't always been bug free - and typically are >buggy). It would be one thing to effectively pay for new SPs if the >application was bug-free, so that the SPs subsequently contained *just* new >features - but most of us know that Altium's products (like most >applications for that matter) are *not* like that (i.e. bug-free). While >new >SPs customarily contain *some* bug fixes, there is nothing atypical about >bugs of a truly serious and/or obnoxious nature (such as those impacting >upon output generation and DRC checking) "enduring" for SP after SP after >SP - and even after succeeding new (major) versions. > >And to make matters even worse, SPs have sometimes been "regressive" to >some >extent, in that bugs which *had* been fixed in a previous SP have sometimes >been "reincarnated" in a following SP, or else functionality which had >previously been provided has sometimes been "down-graded", or "broken", or >otherwise gone "missing in action", in a following SP. > >IMO, to expect users to pay for such "service" would be adding insult to >injury. (Or should that be vice versa?) So perhaps somebody in Altium has >(since) figured out that seeking to impose a maintenance fee upon users >would not be a good idea, and it has since been dropped. > >If, however, that fee is for real, then I think that users would have a >very >good reason to resist it - and even that they *should* make every effort to >oppose it. So does anyone else have anything to say about this matter? (For >the record, I currently have a licence for AD4 (SP4), but don't have a >licence for AD6, and I'm not currently intending to upgrade.) > >Regards, >Geoff Harland. >[EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ realestate.com.au: the biggest address in property http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
