Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Upgrade cycles — How often is too often?

<< < (2/2)

Scott:
You know that some of your review winners don't meet these upgrade criteria, right?  (And that some of the same ones that shit this bed also spam their customers...)

I think free lifetime updates is a great thing from the standpoint of an end user, but I never expect them.  If I buy software, it's because I feel that what I see, now, is worth the price, now.  I don't feel entitled to the benefits of someone's labor forever.

Eternal betas are another issue, and I think it's a sign of half-assed authorship.  If you need 7,000 public betas for one major version, you're an idiot.  Software that shitty should be fixed internally before going public.  But I also think some authors keep their software in "beta" just to cover their ass.  "It screwed up?  Oh well, it is beta, remember.  Yes, I did charge you, but too bad!"

mouser:
we've reported on upgrade policies in an ad hoc manner - it would probably be good if we made an effort in reviews to say clearly what the program upgrade policy is.

tenseiken:
I'm not completely sure about all of the others, but on the FTP server review, we did take upgrades into account on making our decision.  But that's not the deciding factor, as you pointed out, in choosing software.  The biggest question is 'do I need it enough right now to pay $x for it?'  I think the same should apply to updates--'do I need these new features enough to pay $y for them?'  Hence the whole 'pro-rating' thing in my previous post.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page