Mouser wrote:
Sadly, mouser's worst case scenario has been seen in the wild, but it is uncommon. I have mixed feelings about a developer announcing that a new version of an app is about to be released. It depends on their upgrade policy. If they have a 90 day upgrade guarantee, then there's no need for this kind of disclaimer. If they have an iron clad policy of all major releases requiring payment regardless of when the end-user bought the license (some developers that target enterprise clients don't even provide free point release updates - ESRI ArcGIS comes to mind - 9.1 to 9.2 is a paid update unless you've purchased a plan and this is on amodular package that's $1500 for the base - many of the modules are $1500 OR MORE!) , then I think from a moral perspective they should give prospective purchasers a warning. This makes sense from a support perspective as well. Surely it's easier/desireable to have as many clients as possible on the latest version, no? Anyway, while I invoke the word "moral" above, I don't think that there is any obligation that developers do this...
EDIT: added quote from mouser
Quote
BUT if version 4 costs $100
and version 5 costs $200
and the upgrade costs $150
Sadly, mouser's worst case scenario has been seen in the wild, but it is uncommon. I have mixed feelings about a developer announcing that a new version of an app is about to be released. It depends on their upgrade policy. If they have a 90 day upgrade guarantee, then there's no need for this kind of disclaimer. If they have an iron clad policy of all major releases requiring payment regardless of when the end-user bought the license (some developers that target enterprise clients don't even provide free point release updates - ESRI ArcGIS comes to mind - 9.1 to 9.2 is a paid update unless you've purchased a plan and this is on amodular package that's $1500 for the base - many of the modules are $1500 OR MORE!) , then I think from a moral perspective they should give prospective purchasers a warning. This makes sense from a support perspective as well. Surely it's easier/desireable to have as many clients as possible on the latest version, no? Anyway, while I invoke the word "moral" above, I don't think that there is any obligation that developers do this...
EDIT: added quote from mouser





