Should I pay to go from 3.0 to 3.1?

[tinjaw]

Interested in your thoughts.

Hello,

I don't remember which version I have. I don't remember when I purchased.

I will pay the $19.95 to get the new version.

That said...

I can only feel you yourself knows this isn't kosher.

1) If it is only an UPDATE from 3.0 to 3.1 (which is what a .1 increment is) than I should get it free if I own 3.x. Period. End of sentence. I paid for 3.x. It is mine.

2) If it is a significant investment in resource that you expended for things like cleaning up code, fixing bugs, or adding lots of (albiet necessary) code for small added functionality. That was an investment you made. Don't make me pay for it just to get a .1 increase in functionality.

3) If you made enough changes that it is worth an additional cost, then stand up and call it 4.0 and defend your choice to do so.

As it is now it seems you are too embarassed to call it 4.0 because you know it isn't worthy of that designation, but you did a lot of work and you want more money.

As a software developer myself, I don't care how much time/resources you expended to add funtionality. All I care about is the value to me, as the purchaser. If you hold back functionality in 3.1 and 3.2, etc. for version 4, so be it.

I am very busy, so I hope I have gotten my point across quickly. If you wish to discuss this more, I can write more later.

Either way, good product. Don't use it much, but that is the nature of my work. It is a good tool when I have a problem your tool addresses.

Peace,
Chaim


Quoting SweetScape Software <[email protected]>:

> Hello Chaim Krause
>
> SweetScape is pleased to announce the availability of version 3.1 of
> 010 Editor and we invite you to download it from the following link:
>
>     http://www.sweetscap...0EditorInstaller.exe
>
> Version 3.1 adds support for the UTF-8 character set, additional
> preprocessor directives (#define/#ifdef/#ifndef/etc), support
> for unicode strings in templates (wstring/wchar_t), the ability
> to run 010 Editor from the command line without a user interface
> (-noui), support for variable comments, support for arguments to
> structures, plus much more. The full list of changes is
> available on our website:
>
>     http://www.sweetscap...r/release_notes.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> UPGRADING AND PRICING
>
> If you purchased 010 Editor within the last year, you are
> eligible for a free upgrade to version 3.1, but if you purchased
> 010 Editor more than a year ago you will have to purchase an
> upgrade to use the new version. If you do require an upgrade,
> the new version can be used as a 30-day trial to see if you
> would like to upgrade.
>
> The easiest way to determine if you require an upgrade is to
> click 'Tools > Register' on the 010 Editor main menu.
> If using 010 Editor 3.0, you should see a line near the bottom
> that says 'Support/Maintenance (Free Upgrades) Expires:'. If
> the date listed there is before the official release date
> (February 16th, 2010), you will require an upgrade. Note that
> if you are eligible for a free upgrade, you do not have to
> obtain a new license and your old license will automatically
> work with the new version (yes, it is a smart license).
>
> To purchase an upgrade costs $39.95 for a commercial license or
> $19.95 for a home/academic license. Multi-user discounts are
> available and purchases can be made from our online store:
>
>     http://www.sweetscape.com/store/
>
> Note that you can only have version 3.1 or 3.0 installed at the
> same time and you can install 3.1 directly over 3.0 (no need
> to uninstall the old version).
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dormouse]

1) If it is only an UPDATE from 3.0 to 3.1 (which is what a .1 increment is) than I should get it free if I own 3.x. Period. End of sentence. I paid for 3.x. It is mine.

Only true if that was the upgrade policy when you bought.  Just because the most common policy now seems to have 'minor' version upgrades free with 'major' versions costing doesn't mean you can assume it will be true for all software. They seem currently to be operating a policy where upgrades are free for a year. It's up to them what the policy is (and I've certainly seen much meaner policies than this). And .1 increments on some apps are as big as 1.0 increments on others.

[tinjaw]

Only true if that was the upgrade policy when you bought.  Just because the most common policy now seems to have 'minor' version upgrades free with 'major' versions costing doesn't mean you can assume it will be true for all software. They seem currently to be operating a policy where upgrades are free for a year. It's up to them what the policy is (and I've certainly seen much meaner policies than this). And .1 increments on some apps are as big as 1.0 increments on others.

-Dormouse (February 24, 2010, 06:26 PM)

There policy is as follows:

Purchasing any product entitles you to free support and free upgrades for one year from the date of purchase.

And I am accepting that, and willing to pay.

However, the point that I am (poorly) trying to make is that I don't care if it takes two years to add 0.1 versions of functionality. I paid for version 3.x of the software and I expect incremental changes to be available to be. I shouldn't be "penalized" (as I see it) for being and early adopter. I also think that there is a difference between minor enhancements and adding new major features. If I purchased software that imports files and 3.0 imports TXT files and 3.1 imports CSV, well, that, in my opinion is keeping the software current and useful over the lifetime of that 3.x product. If you now add the ability to export files, well that is new functionality and should go into version 4.x. If I purchase 3.x and 4.x comes out within 180 days, then it is good customer relations/service to provide version 4.x free.

As I plan on selling software myself at some point in the future, I am interested in hearing from others. If time permits, I will attempt to write up something more on this.

[Shades]

[joke]
Microsoft did get away with that  
[/joke]

The list of changes/fixes appears to be extensive enough to warrant a version jump several digits, maybe even a 4.0. At that time their upgrade price could be justified. Right now it is not, I would not. If the list is extensive and it warrants only a one digit jump...well, in such a case it appears to me that you sold a quite broken piece of software to begin with and those repairs should be made available for free.

So no, I would not pay and I am agreeing with you, the worth of the upgrade lies (for a huge part) in the perception of the one that has to make the purchase.

[Dormouse]

the worth of the upgrade lies (for a huge part) in the perception of the one that has to make the purchase.

-Shades (February 24, 2010, 06:59 PM)

I agree with this completely. I don't care if the upgrade is a .1 or a 1. or 1 year or 6 years or a complete renaming. I'll only pay the money if I think the cost is low enough for the benefit I get. I'm quite happy sticking with old versions or only taking up one upgrade in 5. (And that's another source of difference: some software will offer the same upgrade discount however old your version is, others grade it carefully or only give upgrades from the version before.) What most irks me, is when I'm asked to pay for an upgrade when I made my purchase less than a year ago - I really don't care how big an upgrade is, I will resent that even if I pay. I see all the .1s & 1.s frequently just as figments of the developer's imagination ("I'm getting bored with th 5.01, 5.23 etc, I just make the next one 6.0" or "People seem to think I'm not developing very fast, I'll change the version number" or "I need a bit of cash right now, so I'll up the version").

[MilesAhead]

But the other question is, will they pay you if you downgrade?

It seems only fair.

[mouser]

as for reasonableness, i don't think one should get hung up on major vs. minor version number changes; different authors have different standards for what accompanies such changes.  some companies will base the change purely on specifically when they want to charge people for an upgrade.

in general, i think 1yr seems like a reasonable amount of time after which to ask for an upgrade charge, and 50% seems like a reasonable discount to existing owners.  of course i much prefer lifetime upgrades, i'm just saying what sounds about reasonable.

one exception though i think has to do with security or severe bug fixes -- no one should be forced to pay for such fixes, even if (or especially if) they took a year to fix.

[Darwin]

Seem like this is a subscription based licensing system in all but name. I don't particularly like this licensing model, but it's not unreasonable.

[MilesAhead]

I agree with Mouser that the label/version # doesn't really mean anything. I'm on another board where a beta application that has allowed free usage is going to go commercial.  The program works in its major functions.  All programs have some bugs.  But some of the denizens of the forum don't want to pay for "beta software" on principle.  That's fine but it's just going to be a relabel to V. 1.0.

To me the programmer has perfect right to charge if the program works and it is stable. If it's a "beta" because it keeps crashing, that's another matter.  But if it's just a "beta" so people can try it and report their experiences, I don't know why they would be sad if it works but the about box doesn't say "1.0" on it!  It must be the placebo effect.

[mouser]

Seem like this is a subscription based licensing system in all but name.

i think there is a key distinction one needs to make in terms of what is and is not a subscription based license.  as long as the previous version still works after the period, then i think you are talking about an upgrade price not a subscription fee.  it's only when the program stops working and you have to pay to continue using the software, that you have a subscription system.

where the line starts blurring is the case i mentioned -- where you might have a critical bug or security flaw, and don't get a fix unless you upgrade -- in that case you are basically being forced to pay or risk damage.

[wraith808]

^ Totally agreed.  It seems with the sheer number of license types these days, the real meaning of a subscription based license falls by the wayside.

[Darwin]

OK - put it that way and I agree with you (and wraith808)!

[Ath]

The real question ofcourse is: Do the improvements warrant the upgrade-price?

[wraith808]

I think a lot of people are hung up on version numbers also- version numbers are more subjective than they appear.  Put the idea of license type and version in a pot and stir, and you are bound to get a mess.  So in the end, I think that Ath has it right:

The real question ofcourse is: Do the improvements warrant the upgrade-price?

-Ath (February 26, 2010, 11:00 AM)

[myarmor]

This sounds like the exact same policy as IDM Computer Solutions has for UltraEdit/UEStudio..
i.e, versionnumbers doesn't matter, but the time after purchase does (they have 1 year,2 years or unlimited upgrades).
The last version released within the purchased upgrade period continues to work after expiry of upgrade period.

When I think about it it is also similar to Stardock's Object Desktop subscription (only that covers a whole sleuth of applications).

As long as this was the terms when you purchased it I don't see how you could argue (if it is timebased they can call the next
version 72.0 and it doesn't matter for those with nonexpired upgrade period).
As you can see that licensing model is used by at least one well known company/product I guess most of you have heard of.