Ben Rubinstein wrote:
> - will the purchaser of a Standard license for version X be able to update
> to a Standard license of version Y for less than the full cost of a Standard
> license of version Y, where Y = X + 1?
> It's also likely to lead to delayed purchasing decisions - why buy 1.0 now,
> if 1.1 will be out soon and I'd throw away _all_ the cost of 1.0?
That was exactly my first thought on seeing the 1.1 deal. For people who buy
1.0 now, they should get 1.1 free, or perhaps pay a very small upgrade fee
to appeal to those who want to buy 1.0 now to get rid of the scripting
limits right away to work on an urgent project. Otherwise, they'll just wait
for 1.1 to be released anyway before purchasing a license.
For those who purchased an earlier version, not so recently, there should be
a standard range of upgrade savings based on the version they are upgrading
from. (Currently only one version, of course.) This would be best if it were
a set rate or percentage, or at least a system that one could predict
accurately enough so that people can budget ahead for the future.
> I think this does require some close attention to what the 'Pro' package
> represents and costs. RealBasic (I'm sorry to keep mentioning RB, but it is
> the most immediately obvious comparison - apart from MetaCard) makes the
> distinction by functionality - from memory the Standard version is Mac only,
> the Pro version adds compilation for Windows, and some additional DB
> functionality.
The great thing about MetaCard and Revolution is that it really runs (IDE
and all) on all platforms, and you can use them all with the starter kit. If
any changes are made to the pricing strategy, they shouldn't be limits to
cross-platform use at the Starter Kit level. I think the script limits are a
great idea and a great basis for the pricing model, and I hope they continue
to be the basis.
Personally, if a new license showed up tomorrow priced in the range of $150
or below, with yearly upgrades $100 or below, and a somewhat larger script
limit, I would definitely choose this package. Not everyone may feel the
same way, but that would do it for me. I wouldn't want to get very much more
than the Starter Kit for such an inexpensive license; I would just want to
have a bit more convenience in scripting, and the satisfaction of being
registered and supporting Rev and MC.
Sure, I can aim for $350 and $300 yearly as a goal to reach or a gamble to
take, and I hope to be able to do that very soon, but a smaller package
would be a sure thing, a no-brainer for me that I would know I could afford
and justify, for the initial purchase and each year afterwards. I'm sure
there are many others in the same situation, so a license like that would
very likely bring in a new crop of users.
Would it take away from the Pro and Standard registrations? I think the
number of people able to register a smaller license would be much more, and
that would make a difference even at the download stage, since people often
check out the price to see if it's in their ballpark before even
downloading. And if the limitations were still there, just made a bit more
comfortable compared to the Starter Kit, I think every developer who could
afford the higher licenses would still purchase them; anyone with a
successful business would still go with the completely-unrestricted version
so he could get on with his work.
The only people who would want to pay less for a still-limited version are
the ones who can't easily afford or justify the price of the Pro and
Standard licenses, and is willing to have a bit less convenience for less
pressure in the financial area. So I believe that adding another level of
pricing would just benefit Revolution and bring in a lot of new hobbyists
and small developers, without changing the rate of enrollments for the
current licenses that appeal to the larger developer.
> (eg the new database externals might be rolled into the Pro
> license)
It's true that the database capabities wouldn't be needed for as many
hobbyists and small developers, but on the other hand, it might be a step in
the wrong direction, limiting the ability for people to try and use all
features to the extend that is practical with the Starter Kit. I think only
a small clarification or simplification to the upgrade policy would be
sufficient to remove the current problems in that area. In fact, although
the first year for Standard license is confusing, it still is a good deal
when you work out the figures. I think Ben's suggestion for a standard
upgrade savings, such as 100 to 200 for an upgrade of 1 or 2 versions, would
clear up the confusion.
That would work, I think. One other possibility is just to give Standard
users free upgrades for the first year, too. After the first year, the
Standard and Pro yearly upgrade coverage fees are the same, but include a
different level of value--support and documentation. So, it wouldn't be
unfair to consider the difference in the initial licenses to cover that
difference in value, and drop the differentiation as far as upgrades are
concerned. After the first year, Standard users have to match the same
upgrade price and get less for it, so for the initial purchase, it seems
like having to purchase separate upgrades is overdoing it--the difference in
value is already there. However, if it's necessary to retain the current
lack of included upgrades for the first year of the Standard license, at
least there can be a clear, consistent upgrade savings.
> As users, our interest is not simply to persuade RunRev to drop the price,
> but to get it right.
Exactly. I think if the issue is thoroughly studied, the data would indicate
everything to gain and nothing to lose from one more low-end level of
pricing at $150 or below. And ironing out the few wrinkles in the upgrade
policy would also help, from the downloading stage where people are checking
out pricing and policy before starting the download, to the stage where the
user is already using the Starter Kit and looking seriously at the policies
to think about a purchase.
Anything confusing or that potentially seems unfair in the pricing and
upgrade policies (even if it is really not that unfair, but takes too much
careful study to understand the good points) will limit your downloads, the
number of users that stick with you after trying out Revolution, and the
number who buy a license. Likewise, an additional low-end pricing level
would increase downloads, users who stick, and users who buy that low-end
license--as well as the number who work their way up and eventually buy a
high-end license.
Curry Kenworthy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
