Why should hobbyists be punished for this?richmond62 wrote: NOW, what actually happened was that the "Community" version was TOO SUCCESSFUL, and people are
NOT running like mad to buy the commercial version, as, for instance, that is not required for any sort of in-house development.
This presumes the reason they are not a commercial licence is because they are in-house. I am not sure about this argument.richmond62 wrote:1. Make the Commercial version MORE ATTRACTIVE vis-a-vis the Community version [after all, as far as I recall, currently the ONLY
difference is the ability to protect one's code - obviously that doesn't "Do It"] by introducing Commercial-only features.
This was not the Kickstarter offer. Are you suggesting they change from what was offered?richmond62 wrote:Those who are objecting should reflect on the fact that very many software vendors offer a cut-down free version and a feature-laden
commercial version of their product, without bothering to offer justifications/explanations to their end-users.
Are you suggesting the business types are using LC without stumping up for a commercial licence. So, the genuine Community users should be punished for the sins of the business types?richmond62 wrote:I don't believe the Community version will be "kicked into the long grass", it just will not have, as Kevin explained, various
extra-funky features that might be employed by business types who have more than enough money to stump up for a
AgreedLagi Pittas wrote:$499.00 a year isn't a lot if you are making a living with livecode.
I agree again. This "renting of software" has probably stopped me (only a hobby user) from purchasing and the thought of having to purchase any decent UI upgrade via. widgets.Lagi Pittas wrote:I ABSOLUTELY do NOT agree with the "If you do not Upgrade it reverts back to Community"
Agreed. Why hold features back from the Community edition, it will penalise the Community user and those that may be cheating from the business community or is the reason to coerce the community user into a commercial licence. If that is the plan then it was disingenuous from the Kickstarter beginning.zaxos wrote:My humble opinion since i haven't helped kickstarter campaign or ever bought any subscription not because i didn't want but because i couldn't .
Rising the cost to 500$ sounds fair enough to me, at least for those who are making money from it. As for holding features back from the community version, it really feels like forcing people that need those features to buy a subscription, even if they don't want to make money out of it. I really feel like your heading the wrong way.
Certainly without the knowledge you do not have the knowledge and therefore have to interpret what you see or keep thoughts to yourself but this is an important debate that needs airing.FourthWorld wrote:As a general rule useful in many areas of life, when we have a question that can only be answered by understanding someone else's intentions, it can be helpful to remember that intention is purely internal to the individual, and cannot be known from the outside.
Perhaps it wasn't the plan initially. I/you have no knowledge of the private thoughts of LC's CEO. Financially it may not be working out well?FourthWorld wrote:But as we apply to that LiveCode let's please keep some perspective on this.
It's interesting that XOJO a major competitor to LC also can't seem to be clear on it's licensing model changing from one model, to the next then back again.
Is it that these companies LC & XOJO:
1. Can't make any money?
2. Can't make enough money?
3. Make enough but are continually striving to make more? When is enough, enough?
If I did then I would.FourthWorld wrote:If you have other concerns about what you've written you can edit those.
Maybe for this one but what of the future? I believe all LC's UI items will become widgets.FourthWorld wrote:So while it's true that the specific features of the widget in question are still not known, they would seem fairly exotic and not likely all that critical for most of us.
Are certain widgets going to be kept from the community user because a nasty in-house developer somewhere may use them?
All the best