Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Upgrade cycles — How often is too often?

(1/2) > >>

zridling:
We all know of a software app that is updated constantly. Not a problem. But I get pissy when a developer reduces his upgrade cycle to 10-12 months for major versions, primarily because they are seldom major upgrades, but "that time again" to make another truckload of dollars. Worse still are companies that have time-limited (often 12-month) license policies. I say major upgrades should occur every two years with everything in between being free updates. Am I wrong? Help me understand if so.

Scott:
I agree in general.  I often get really aggravated about this issue.  I can't stand fixed-length free-upgrade periods; it makes no sense.  So if you are a developer, and you take an extended vacation, then release an upgrade the day after my 12-month period has expired, I'm out of luck?

That's nonsense.  Upgrade eligibility should be based on version numbers, and nothing else--not time, not the name of the application, not cutesy new icons and toolbar button graphics, and not what company just bought it out and decided it's time to rake in some cash.

I can't stand when a vendor releases a major-version update, and the only changes are new, splashier colors, and a few token changes.  This happens all the time.

The sub-issue that pisses me off the most is when an application has bugs that get fixed in the updated version, but ignored in the old version.  That forces me to pay to obtain a fix to a product defect, and it puts a snarl on my face.

I wouldn't say that upgrades should occur every two years, though.  Upgrades should happen when upgrades are feasible and sensible.  How often depends on the product genre, the product itself, and on the people behind it.  If the current version of the product has significant issues, or a significant number of issues, fix them.  If you're working on a new version that does fix those issues, give people a free or seriously-reduced-cost upgrade.  And people who give up their personal time to help improve your product should always get a free update.

tenseiken:
Too often is when mouser updates a program 3 times in one evening. :p

Seriously, I don't like the idea of time-limited OR version-limited licensing periods.  I think that, ideally, the developer should price the product so that he can afford to accept a one-time payment.  If that's not feasible, then version-limited is the next best thing.  But I don't mean just changing some colors around between versions--if I'm gonna pay again, the developer needs to make me WANT to pay again, just like he did the first time around.

There's probably a better way to do it than just repeating the charge.  As Scott mentioned, a reduced cost for upgrades is a good idea.  That seems pretty fair to me.  Generally speaking, the core functionality isn't going to change from version to version, so since I've already paid for that, why not just charge for the new features?  The price could vary based on how much has changed between versions.

mouser:
i think scott and tenseiken hit it exactly on the nose.

time-limited periods of free upgrades are complete bullshit and should be outlawed.

i agree with tenseiken, ideally a program should be free upgrades for life, and thats a good way to build a good rep.

but if you make serious major improvements, then it may be reasonable to charge a small some for upgraders.
upgraders should get a minimum of 50% off upgrades, though i think 75% off would be more reasonable.

furthermore, this has to be contingent on the idea that serious bugfixes in old versions have to be fixed.  you cant verywell come out and say, our old version has this security hole, and you have to pay us to upgrade to fix it.

the bottom line has to be that if you are going to charge existing customers for an upgrade, it has to be 1) optional and 2) a real increase in functionality and 3) substantially discounted.  if it cant meet those 3 criteria then you are ripping off your customers, who should move to a company that cares more for its customers.

mouser:
there are really 2 issues here, right?  one is regarding charging for upgrades, and when and how.
the other is the issue where some companies release new version for publicity (but dont try to charge customers to upgrade).

the second case is not nearly as bad but it still gets annoying after a while.

some people get annoying with companies that release lots of betas..
i sympathize, but as long as they dont keep the program in beta for 6 months, it doesnt bother me.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page