Revisiting the idea of simplifying the DC big app license key stuff

[mouser]

Yeah i was suggesting that donors with a license key can choose exactly when to check for updates, automatically and/or manually.

And that non-donors would no longer need a license key, but would be REMINDED every so often (every 30 days) to "click here" to run an update check, with a "Please consider donating" message shown at that time.  Or reminded to consider donating if they manually invoke the update check.

At least that's one idea.

[jgpaiva]

Just to add some perspective, here's how what we have now works:
   for donors: download, insert key, never worry again
   for non-donors: download, get nag after 1 month, sign up for forum, get key, insert key, get nagged again in 6months, get key, never worry again

As for what we are now looking at:
   for donors: -pretty much the same thing-
   for non-donors: download, get nag after 1 month, ignore or check for update, get nag again in 1month (repeat)

Now, isn't this system even more annoying than what we have now? I'm starting to think that if we go this way, DC's software might turn into crippleware. Actually, now that I think about it, what we have now is more annoying since if the user does not insert the key, he gets a nag until he does, right?

[mouser]

what we have now is more annoying since if the user does not insert the key, he gets a nag until he does, right?

Yes. What we have now essentially REQUIRES people to go get a (free) license key or they will be nagged to do so.  At that point they can download a 60 day license key from the site without signing up, or a 6 month license key (that turns permanent after 1 more visit) which turns off all "nags."

The new idea has a couple of key changes:

• First, no "free" license keys -- they won't be needed any more.  No programs would nag you to donate or visit our site to get a free license key.  All programs would work fully and never stop, and not nag on startup, etc.
• BUT, every 30 days, non-donors will see a COMBINATION "please consider donating" and "update check" dialog, which will guide them through performing an update check/download and at the same time ask them to consider donating (or let them click to cancel the update check).
• My thinking is that combining the reminder to consider donating with the update check could be a win-win, in that it's providing a function to the user and reminding them to consider donating at the time when it's least annoying and most likely to be something they are open to.  But i could be wrong.
• If they *manually* check for updates (or just install updates) more frequently than every 30 days, we could either skip the reminder message entirely, OR show it at those times, not sure which

[jgpaiva]

I have one more advantage for the new system: no more confusions with "free keys", which apparently make people think we have keys to programs other than DC's apps, and sometimes makes them believe that these keys last forever.

One more note: it should be clear (in that same dialog) that after a donation, the program gets automatic updates that only alert when there really are updates.

Regarding nags on manual updates, maybe we could do this: when the program is updated, it can display a one-time nag when it starts up, asking to considered donating.

[barney]

I don't think this is a good idea, especially for people who have lots of DC apps and are already a donor.

Quick clarification -- I meant to say that such messages would not be shown to donors who have put in a license key.

-mouser (February 23, 2011, 08:28 AM)

What you mean is that donors get automatic update check (with no nags), whereas the "free users" need to manually update (and get a "please donate" message when they do?)? That actually doesn't sound half-bad

-jgpaiva (February 23, 2011, 08:41 AM)

I'm curious about the overhead.  Would this be done from within the app, or would it be email/display from DC?  If the former, seems that would put additional load requirements on the developers; if the latter, I might not have read that email, or not have been on DC for a while, thus be unaware of an update to resolve a current glitch.

The idea is great, but the implementation could be dicey  .

One (1) thing you might do is establish a page visible after login listing most recent upgrades for each member.  As long as they got the app/key through DC, you'd know which upgrades to post.  Or it could be just a blanket list of upgrades, with a request to non-donors to donate if they download?

The more this is discussed, the more complex it seems  .

[jgpaiva]

So, what happened to this?
I am working on a new update for GridMove and was seriously considering using it, if possible.

[mouser]

If you want I can show you how to use the license key dll.. Maybe you can code some generic ahk helper functions for interfacing with it.  Let me build a new version of it.  But maybe the big first question is whether we should stick with the license key approach.. or maybe use it only during update checking..

[Josh]

How long are we going to discuss the possible license key change? Not to be a naysayer, but I see quite a bit of talk about a lot of things here, and often times it will go on for weeks with no real discernable outcome or change ever being enacted.

I realize a license key style change is a big deal, but I say we put it to a vote and implement. Pick the top 3 ideas, put it to a vote, and run with it rather than talking about it ad nauseam.

[jgpaiva]

I was talking about the check for update thing, if it was to replace DC updater helper, it'd be really simple to integrate with GridMove.

[mouser]

I'm afraid i'm one of those people that needs to cogitate and chew on ideas for quite a while before i am ready to pull the trigger.. i can see why it might be annoying but sometimes it takes me some time and discussion before i can really see whether a change is needed and in what direction.

[mouser]

I was talking about the check for update thing, if it was to replace DC updater helper, it'd be really simple to integrate with GridMove.

ah yes, well the idea was to build these features INTO dcuhelper so yeah that would be a seamless move -- perhaps I should focus on adding some of these proposed options to enhance the update helper to support some of these update-related ideas and leave aside the issue of license keys for the time being.

[jgpaiva]

I was talking about the check for update thing, if it was to replace DC updater helper, it'd be really simple to integrate with GridMove.

ah yes, well the idea was to build these features INTO dcuhelper so yeah that would be a seamless move -- perhaps I should focus on adding some of these proposed options to enhance the update helper to support some of these update-related ideas and leave aside the issue of license keys for the time being.

-mouser (March 09, 2011, 07:33 AM)

Yeah, having all the key-managing and etc. incorporated into dcuhelper would simplifyintegration with any member program. Also, I really like this scheme you were describing in this thread.

Why are you afraid of this new scheme?

[worstje]

I am personally against dcuhelper holding all sorts of license key stuff. Why? Because not all applications lend themselves to the same sort of licensing scheme, or even want to bother with it.

JottiQ is my obvious example. It is not a tool I want to use any sort of license keys on. Why? For one, it is not a tool the user wants to spend time in - it is supposed to work with a minimum of the users attention being taken. Unlike updates, license key prompts are not something the user benefits from. Monthly renewable keys, etc.. they don't fit in my eyes. Compare that to tools like FARR, SSC, CH+S and GridMove, and they are actively being used by users who do more than simply 'start' the application with a single click. Second, the majority of the tool is actually not mine as it runs on Jotti's servers. Any sort of licensing would give off a totally wrong idea.

Updates and licensing are not remotely the same thing. Don't contaminate a good product with bloat.

Sorry for the messiness of this post; I am tired and having a bit of trouble expressing my thoughts on the subject.

[mouser]

I hear ya -- sounds like at the minimum, we need to keep a lean and mean version of dcuhelper that doesnt include any new options.  But that doesn't mean we couldn't build a version of dcuhelper that does a little bit more and is just a drop in replacement.

[skwire]

I hear ya -- sounds like at the minimum, we need to keep a lean and mean version of dcuhelper that doesnt include any new options.

-mouser (March 10, 2011, 12:21 PM)

Agreed.  I have no intention or desire to add license keys to any of my apps.