Richard,
>Actually, Rev has been in development looooong before it came on the radar
>of most HC users.
--I remember a certain MC individual *vehemently* insisting that there was
nothing wrong with MC's interface when, in fact, there was.
> Rev represents far more than a "fix" for MC. It's really taking the engine
> in an entirely different direction, aiming to make the power of the MetaTalk
> interpreter attractive to an very different type of developer than MC Corp
> is focused on.
--I do not intend to disagree with your statement. But 'fixing' the
interface has been a welcome improvement to at least some of us ;-)
> But HyperCard was not a $100 tool.
--But that's what it sells for. For a purchaser, it IS a $100 tool.
> Market succeesses like Flash suggest that HC was worth at least three times
> what it was selling for.
--A common wisdom of the business world is that a product is worth what it
sells for for a majority of the people buying it. In any case, you are
making a different argument than I am making. I do not argue your
perceived value of HC, MC, SC or anything else -- I am merely stating that
given that people can buy HC for ~$100 and SC for ~$130 (?), that those
users are not going to 'see' the 'value' of Rev, which is marketed to
them as a replacement tool with added value, as being well-priced at 3 or
10 times the cost of what they're using now. HC developers are using HC,
not Director; therefore pricing comparisons to Director are irrelevant to
this potential user base.
> Apple heavily subsidized HyperCard, selling it so far below market value as
> a tradeoff for what they saw as a strategic benefit for the OS/hardware
> platform.
<snip>
> When we look at other offerings in the same feature category as RunRev, we
> see a favorable comparison:
>
> Director $999 - single platform
> Director $1800 - dual platform
> ToolBook $2495 - single platform
--Again, you are arguing feature category and I am arguing product
category. The above argument makes *perfect* sense when trying to convert
users of Director or ToolBook; it fails, however, when trying to convert
users of HC & SC. And the latter *is* actively courted!
> It sounds like there may be an argument for another product with a more
> limited feature set for that category. What limited feature set would be
> acceptable? Would limiting the standalone builder to single-platform
> deployment provide what you need?
--Perhaps.. Although Win-Mac cross-platform would be nice.. Payment for
a longer script limitation would be perfectly accceptable.
--Here's what has always confused me:
(1) Both Rev & MC have tried to woo the HC community.
(2) Both Rev & MC have stated an active interest in the educational
community.
(3) Whenever members of either community have noted that the pricing
structure is not suited for their particular community, they're then (and
only then) told that the product is REALLY geared towards professional
developers who should be prepared to pay professional prices. This
leaves people frustrated. Imagine shopping for a car -- the sales ad
lures you in with attractive pricing on, say, compact cars but when you
arrive, you're directed to the BMW section and told that this is what you
should expect to pay for a 'real' car while the salesman points out what
Mercedes Benz' cost.
> > At best, you'll get a lot of pirated copies. At worst, I'll end up
> > going with an OSX-native Supercard because at least it's affordable
> > and will likely do most of what I/we need it to do.
>
> I don't think that would be a conflict. SuperCard is agressively priced,
> and if you're only developing in an educational environment and just for Mac
> OS and don't need other RunRev features or performance, SC is a good value.
--Wouldn't the Rev folks prefer that all those sales went to them instead?
Why else hire somebody to create a policy to lure the K-12 market?
Respectfully,
Judy Perry
