Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED?]

Want to talk about something that isn't covered by another category?

Moderators: Klaus, FourthWorld, heatherlaine, robinmiller, kevinmiller

tellboy
Livecode Opensource Backer
Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:31 pm

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED]

Post by tellboy » Thu Jul 02, 2015 7:58 pm

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.
Why should hobbyists be punished for this?
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 presumes the reason they are not a commercial licence is because they are in-house. I am not sure about this argument.
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.
This was not the Kickstarter offer. Are you suggesting they change from what was offered?
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
commercial licence.
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?
Lagi Pittas wrote:$499.00 a year isn't a lot if you are making a living with livecode.
Agreed
Lagi Pittas wrote:I ABSOLUTELY do NOT agree with the "If you do not Upgrade it reverts back to Community"
I agree again. This "renting of software" has probably stopped me (only a hobby user) from purchasing and the thought of having to purchase any decent UI upgrade via. widgets.
zaxos wrote:My humble opinion since i haven't helped kickstarter campaign or ever bought any subscription not because i didn't want but because i couldn't .
Rising the cost to 500$ 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.
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.
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.
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:But as we apply to that LiveCode let's please keep some perspective on this.
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?
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?
FourthWorld wrote:If you have other concerns about what you've written you can edit those.
If I did then I would.
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.
Maybe for this one but what of the future? I believe all LC's UI items will become widgets.

Are certain widgets going to be kept from the community user because a nasty in-house developer somewhere may use them?


All the best

Terry

FourthWorld
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 7041
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED]

Post by FourthWorld » Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:49 pm

tellboy wrote:
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.
Why should hobbyists be punished for this?
In what ways are hobbyists being "punished"?

What features have been delivered, or even promised, that are not going to be available in future versions of the Community edition?

Or is there some other concern here I'm unable to understand?

tellboy wrote:
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.
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.
We seem to be in agreement that neither one of us is in a position to presume other people's intentions, which makes it all the more surprising that you persist with questions about intentions that have already been answered.

This is why I suggest looking at the last two years of observable actions when assessing the earnestness of the company's open source commitment.

If you read my post, you saw that I very clearly acknowledged the importance of this sort of policy review for any dual-licensed project.

I think the only area we may differ is in my preference to focus on what is actually happening, and your frequent indulgence in slippery-slope assumptions about possible future maybes that run contrary to both observable actions and publicly stated commitments.


tellboy wrote:
FourthWorld wrote:But as we apply to that LiveCode let's please keep some perspective on this.
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?
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.
Already addressed, both by Kevin's candid discussion of development expenses and my own acknowledgment that making developer tools is a tough business.

Yes, LiveCode is very much like Xojo, Adobe, Apple, Allegiant, Sybase, Oracle, and many others who've found it challenging to make money in the dev tools game. But unlike most of those, LiveCode's tool is still in very active development.

If you have productive suggestions for improving the business model, preferably supported by your own demonstrated successes in this area, they would be well worth sharing.

In the meantime, we have a Community edition that is in parity with the Commercial edition, and public commitments stated multiples times from the company to deliver the full range of very significant features outlined in both crowd-funded campaigns to both editions, and we've seen additional features not previously discussed also find their way into the Community Edition as they roll out in the Commercial addition as well, with more to come.

All that's been suggested here is that from time to time the company may exercise the same right that Canonical, OwnCloud, and other successful dual-licensed projects have in developing some components under proprietary license.

Of course no one wants to see LiveCode become "open source in name only", and Kevin made that pretty clear, in his words here and his actions to date, which was enough to satisfy most of the readers here.

Sure, as I noted in my previous and apparently too-long-to-have-been read post, I believe it's good practice for all communities contributing to dual-licensed projects to maintain ongoing review of policies. But thus far we're not seeing anything particularly alarming here once we set aside imagined possibilities and focus on what's actually happening.


tellboy wrote:
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.
Maybe for this one but what of the future? I believe all LC's UI items will become widgets.

Are certain widgets going to be kept from the community user because a nasty in-house developer somewhere may use them?
Why presume that people using LiveCode productively within their businesses are viewed by LiveCode Ltd. as "nasty"?

It's that sort of unprofessional tone that I just don't feel is productive here.

I have no more time for Henny Penny presumptions. I'm happy to help with anything that's actually happening, but if you want to continue to use this forum for your own personal imaginings then you have the floor, and I won't disrupt your posturings with a another reply. There's a world of more productive things I could be doing, so if you'll excuse me I'll go do them now....
Richard Gaskin
Community volunteer LiveCode Community Liaison

LiveCode development, training, and consulting services: Fourth World Systems: http://FourthWorld.com
LiveCode User Group on Facebook : http://FaceBook.com/groups/LiveCodeUsers/

richmond62
Livecode Opensource Backer
Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 3830
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:17 am
Location: Bulgaria

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED]

Post by richmond62 » Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:50 pm

I'm not really sure why the previous posting seems so aggressive to me, but it does, and because of that I feel the best way to respond is to address each objection individually.
tellboy wrote:
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.
Why should hobbyists be punished for this?
Well, for starters what is this word "punished"? Runtime Revolution have provided, Free-of-charge the sweat of their collective brows, and you have the 'neck' to
complain about being 'punished'. What you are doing is looking a gift horse (and a bloody good gift horse) in the mouth. Punishment implies that you have done something wrong: as the Community version of LiveCode is Free and may be downloaded by anyone you can hardly be punished as you have done absolutely
nothing.
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.
tellboy wrote:This presumes the reason they are not a commercial licence is because they are in-house. I am not sure about this argument.
No it doesn't: all that I am stating is that the single difference (that of being able to secure one's code from prying eyes) doesn't seem to be
a sufficient incentive for end-users to pay for enough commercial licences to generate the revenue RunRev require to keep going.
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.
tellboy wrote:This was not the Kickstarter offer. Are you suggesting they change from what was offered?
Kickstarters (as has been discussed previously) do not involve either an implicit or explicit contract between donors (and that IS what people who
contribute to Kickstarter campaigns are; they are not purchasing anything - well, except, possibly, a "warm-fuzzy" for a few minutes). What RunRev offered
WAS an Open Source version of LiveCode, and as far as I can see that is what they will continue to provide. If they decide to add some twiddly bits
onto their commercial version I don't actually see how that violates some real or theoretical promise.
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
commercial licence.
tellboy wrote: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?
Nothing of the sort. I am stating that Kevin has stated, very clearly, that he envisages adding some twiddly bits to the commercial variant of LiveCode, and not
adding those to the community version. I am stating that as far as I read what Kevin wrote, those twiddly bits are going to be bits used by businesses (rather than, for instance, school teachers) who can well afford to pay for a commercial licence or several.
Lagi Pittas wrote:$499.00 a year isn't a lot if you are making a living with livecode.
tellboy wrote:Agreed
Lagi Pittas wrote:I ABSOLUTELY do NOT agree with the "If you do not Upgrade it reverts back to Community"
tellboy wrote:I agree again. This "renting of software" has probably stopped me (only a hobby user) from purchasing and the thought of having to purchase any decent UI upgrade via. widgets.
I, too, don't like this. I own LiveCode 4.0 and 4.5; they don't expire, and when I want to make code-protected software I use them. Of course I have to cope
with the fact that they don't have all the features later versions of LiveCode have.
zaxos wrote:My humble opinion since i haven't helped kickstarter campaign or ever bought any subscription not because i didn't want but because i couldn't .
Rising the cost to 500$ 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.
tellboy wrote: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.
"penalise", "coerce", "disingenuous" . . . in 1969 I had a friend who when he said such things as "bloody hell" would be told to wash his mouth out with soap by his mother.

Certainly, as I stated above re "punish"; "penalise" is used here very oddly as Community users (whether they contributed to the Kickstarter or not) are, legally at least,
even if not morally, owed nothing whatsoever by RunRev: Community users cannot be "penalised" by RunRev.
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.
tellboy wrote: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.
Not really: I'm going to be hanged for killing the man next door regardless of what my intentions were.

Anyway:

1. Kevin's intentions are clear: he needs to make more money to keep his company going. If he doesn't there won't be a FREE version at all!
FourthWorld wrote:But as we apply to that LiveCode let's please keep some perspective on this.
tellboy wrote: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?
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.
RunRev have been messing around with their licensing model (well, I don't think they actually have a 'model') for at least the last 15 years (ever since I have
been working with their product), and I assume, even if they don't say it directly, the reason for that is that they, like almost every other business there is, have to
toe the thin and difficult line between not over-pricing their product and paying their bills. I run a tiny private ESL school in Eastern Europe: I know what my
monthly expenses are, and I know what the market can bear: but if I don't get enough kids turning up in September what shall I do? Lower the prices, and risk
things? See, life, unless you live in some state-supported cloud cuckoo socialist state (at which point there are other, less obvious taxes to pay) is all to do
with income and outcome.
tellboy wrote: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?
LC and XOJO are in direct competition, and with many other programming systems.
FourthWorld wrote:If you have other concerns about what you've written you can edit those.
tellboy wrote:If I did then I would.
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.
tellboy wrote:Maybe for this one but what of the future? I believe all LC's UI items will become widgets.

Are certain widgets going to be kept from the community user because a nasty in-house developer somewhere may use them?

All the best

Terry
"All the best" . . . Doesn't come across that way.

tellboy
Livecode Opensource Backer
Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:31 pm

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED]

Post by tellboy » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:52 pm

richmond62 wrote:"All the best" . . . Doesn't come across that way.
Just like some of the posts I have read from yourself but.... that's just richmond?


All the best

Terry

Newbie4
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:17 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED]

Post by Newbie4 » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:15 pm

some thoughts and ideas....

It seems to me the driving force for adopting LiveCode as your programming language and taking the time to learn it is one or a combination of reasons for many new users:
  • It is multi-platform. What you build will work on PC, Mac or Linux. There is no overly dominant platform anymore, so if possible, you have to cover all of them or decide to write for just one platform at a time.
  • It works with both Android and iOS. If you are thinking of writing an app for both, this is the only logical choice. Otherwise, you have to choose between the two, or learn two difficult languages. (be careful, there are other options to LiveCode here)
  • You have an idea for a program that would help you and make your life easier. There is nothing currently available and you do not want to pay for someone to write it. You would like to try your hand at writing it yourself and maybe learning a little programming in the process.
On the negative side:
  • It is an unknown language. No one has heard of it and everyone recommends something else.
  • Will I be able to do what I want with it? Many of us have all started with a new language only to learn that we can’t do what we want with it.
  • Is the learning curve too high and where will I get help when I get stuck?
  • Is the free version restricted and I will have to upgrade to the “Pro” version and how much will that end up costing me?
Without going into a analysis of all the above points, I would like to recommend the following progression:

1. Community Version:

Make it easy to start using LiveCode. Free is always good. Have a full featured Community version and plenty of “Getting Started” lessons - simple and fast to give new users a quick start and a taste of success. This is basically what we have now.

Make it clear that it is free and supported. Offer a “Donation” button where they can donate to help defray the cost of development and support of the free version. Many people are willing to “pay” for value received. (I don’t know if this is against open source guidelines or not).

2. Publishing Option:
This is for hobbyists, Do-It-Yourselfers, students, first time programmers, dreamers. Offer an additional, “next step” pricing level where they could create encrypted version to give away or put on the Apple or Google Play store. You could make it a 1 month limited version for a token fee ($25 which would not discourage anyone). Of course, this is after they have developed it on the open-source version. The only stipulation is that they advertise it a a LiveCode application.

This would give many people a chance to officially publish their programs/apps without giving away the source code. They can “test the waters” with the Apple or Google Play stores, by selling it or just giving it away to their friends and potential customers. It would be their "Proof of Concept" and their "Badge of Success". It would generate some revenue for LiveCode and be a nice middle ground price-wise.

If their app gets downloaded enough, they will be more apt to purchase a year’s license to support it (for fixes, upgrades, more versions, etc). Right now, many people stop at the free version because the next step to ‘selling’ their app is too big of a commitment ($$$) and too big of a step of confidence.

It would also bring a lot of attention and name recognition to LiveCode. As people see the LiveCode name, they will be more apt to give it a try and possibly become paying customers. $25 from start to a finished viable product is a step that most people would be willing to commit to.

3. Developer’s/Professional Option.
This could remain as much as it is now. The keys to this level are support, access, quicker fixes, and maybe more professional tools/group tools. Commercial grade widgets has been mentioned. Price it according to what the market dictates

The key is to not scare anyone away from trying LiveCode and yet provide a smooth path for them to become yearly licensees.

Refrain from asking for money all the time. That just concerns people as to the long-term prognosis of the company. Users get wary of all the extra fees for every little lesson, academy, etc. They may start but are reluctant to continue
Do not keep offering “Deals” or Freebees. That just creates a sour taste for those who just bought or are long term supporters. Future customers may tend to wait for a better deal to come along

If you do develop better lessons, templates, etc., put them in the public domain and make them free and available. That will keep current customers happy and the word will spread that you are a good company that really supports the product and the users.

If you want, put them into a community library and ask a token, yearly “library” fee like $10 - 25. That gives them unlimited access to lessons, academies, templates, etc. That will create some more income and may lead to more attention and be good for marketing. (“We have a user base of xxx users”, “We have a library of “xxx” lessons, templates, etc)

First goal is to get the user base up. Then as the users become more successful, they will upgrade and purchase the tools, versions and support.

Does this make sense?
What have other successful software companies done to succeed? Maybe we can draw from their experience
Cyril Pruszko
https://sites.google.com/a/pgcps.org/livecode/
https://sites.google.com/a/setonhs.org/app-and-game-workshop/home
https://learntolivecode.com/

malte
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Ostenfeld germany
Contact:

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED]

Post by malte » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:24 pm

Even though I did not receive the original mail, I really do not see where the problem is. Might be in the wording.

If we are talking about commercial widgets that are "bundled" with the commercial license there is nothing I can see that would be morally "wrong" with that model, as long as both the commercial AND the OSS version of the engine support everything that would be needed to create such a widget. If so, all that would be needed by a kind soul in the community to provide the same functionality to the community, would be the time to build a free competeting widget. Period. I doubt that there will be many to go down that route though. Most will just be sitting there waiting for the "free" goodies to arrive.

After all RR still need to run a business and I am really happy that I do not have to wear Kevins hat. If I were in a position to suggest things I might suggest the following:

Follow the commercial widget with commercial licenses strategy. It is a good one. But do not actively prohibit community users to be in competition with your widgets (free or commercial)

Make it easier to donate.

Make it easy to "sponsor" a feature.

Make it easy to "sponsor" a bugfix. (your service with priority fixes is AWESOME, but I bet most people do not even know there is an option)

Reconsidder subscription model and maybe offer a non expiring license (at the cost of a pro license we had back in the day) on top.

Make it clear that you offer (those and more) services on top of selling licenses.

Considder offering support contracts to business users.

Maybe not even 2 cents worth.

Best,

Malte

Lagi Pittas
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:32 pm

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED]

Post by Lagi Pittas » Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:00 am

Some excellent ideas from Newbie4 and Malte

But it just seems we are talking to ourselves - Notice we are not saying its' a massive amount IF you are making money , but if you are ready to create an app and you are a school kid - the very people you are trying to reach it's a problem.
Newbie4 suggestion of a $25 "toe in the water" amount is brilliant - but will TPTB take notice?

No-one from LC Towers has responded to probably my major gripe - that I don't own it. If you go to the XOJO forums you find griping about the fact that XOJO wants a yearly but don't guarantee any updates for that year.

As I said if there are bugs that are still there from the early days that annoy me why should I pay hoping that they will be fixed? I can still write viable programs with a language that hasn't been updated since 2004 - I still thing think there are a large number of developers with money who have been orphaned or at least been abused from VB6, Delphi, Filemaker, Paradox, Access , FoxPro, Clipper. Too much talk about apps alienates the bread and butter developers who have MSDN accounts and corporate customers who can pay. LC gives them the option of adding a development environment that allows apps to interface to their "real-world" invoicing, stock control, ERM, Payrolls that have been running for years on these "old decrepit" languages.

How about piping in Heather, Kevin Neil?

Regards Lagi

MaxV
Posts: 1574
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:20 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED]

Post by MaxV » Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:51 am

I can't believe so much discussion on license prices.
You can't understand that the real problem is audience. Nobody knows livecode.
I live in Italy, 60 millions of people, and just 15-20 people knows it.
I started a blog, a facebook group and more to attract italian developers, but the main difficulty is livecode website, it is total unattractive and now incomprehensible.
I see that lacks all main important keys to make a software (open or closed) a successful programming language:
  • advertising (journal, google adsense, facebook, etc.)
  • reviews each year on the main journals (mac, windows, linux and Android)
  • an attractive and clear website
  • many code examples and real cases. LC blog posts seems a teenager diary, there aren't any code example. We must attract developers! Moreover finding example codes using lc website is quite impossible, so I use only google search.
  • youtube videos
For example Libreoffice succeeded openOffice only hiring a professional market developer and spending a many money just for spreading libreoffice.
If the audience doubled, prices would break down.
Livecode Wiki: http://livecode.wikia.com
My blog: https://livecode-blogger.blogspot.com
To post code use this: http://tinyurl.com/ogp6d5w

Newbie4
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:17 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED?]

Post by Newbie4 » Fri Jul 03, 2015 2:40 pm

I agree with MaxV. RunRev needs to get the word out and improve their website.The more people that look at it and try it, the more people likely to become developers.

I speak at many conferences here in the US about LiveCode as a developer language, a teaching language or simply as a programming language - depending on the conference - educators (MSTA, ISTE, MSEA), technical (MICCA,MSET,PUWT), scientific/STEM (NCSSS, NAGC), computer science teachers (CSTA, CS4HS), etc. The rooms are packed and they come away excited but I do not know the take-up or follow-through to them becoming paying customers. That falls on the website, RunRev and LiveCode itself.

I know of one professional developer tried to switch from Delphi to LiveCode but he gave up after learning LiveCode. To convert his software packages, he would have had to buy a number of add-ons/externals (e.g. report writer, etc). He tried the free trials of a few of them but had problems with the packages and the support. It proved to be too expensive, too fragmented and too long of a process. He ended up converting to another platform and rewrote at least one of his packages in the new language in two months. (Another lesson to learn? - concentrate on fixing all the bugs, adding features that most people would welcome (report functions, etc) and polish to the language)

Suggestions:
Make it clear and easy to build something with LiveCode. (website, lessons/examples.) Don’t overwhelm them with versions, choices, tutorials and complicated examples)
Make it easy to be successful (Publishing option - see my previous post) Give them a chance to show off what they did and share with friends. Let them promote your product
Make it easy to become a professional developer. (Pricing, support, quick response to bugs) Keep it clear and concrete. No more playing games with special offers, pressure selling or other pleas for more money.

Has anyone analyzed the numbers and close rates? Where is the breakdown in the transition from new trial to paying customer? We do not have access to those numbers. So the best we can do is offer suggestions and advice from our vantage points. ...and hope the are listening and paying attention.
Cyril Pruszko
https://sites.google.com/a/pgcps.org/livecode/
https://sites.google.com/a/setonhs.org/app-and-game-workshop/home
https://learntolivecode.com/

Lagi Pittas
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:32 pm

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED?]

Post by Lagi Pittas » Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:06 pm

HI Maxv

If you notice the last few posts were not just about licensing, it was about suggestions to LC Towers to get their act together web site/ money streams nad going after real developers not just backroom wannabes (I'm sorry but it's true)
If you make a games like everybody else you ain't gonna make a living from it - businesses still want bespoke software - and they have the money.

Marketing isn't just blog posts it's about making contact with industry movers and shakers - It's showing people that they don't need Java (the s*tiest language I ever bothered to look at, up there with Perl (powerful but read only at least Lisp and Forth have a reason) and ASP - sorry, opinions come free)

A lot of people writing games might just decide to learn swift and now its going to be open sourced well? ... so forget about the games - the money is in the sort of projects that Todd does - sounds like he will be bringing in more than LC soon
(Reverse Takeover? lol)

Still no answer to the lease/buy question

Best,

Lagi

malte
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Ostenfeld germany
Contact:

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED?]

Post by malte » Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:46 pm

Lagi Pittas wrote: It's showing people that they don't need Java
I can not disagree more here (from experience ;-) )

Java and liveCode are such a dream team! Java on the server side (with all the libraries that come with it) to build a business server and liveCode to build the front end to communicate with said server. my biggest client runs exactly such a scenario and it is just wonderful. Remember there is 100ets of thousands of Java developers out there, and they all face the same problem. Java just sucks at building GUIs. liveCode really shines there, but is not as strong as Java is on the server side.

Winning over a couple of 100ets of though would help big time, but that would require for RR seing a market there of course. :-)

Best,

Malte

Lagi Pittas
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:32 pm

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED?]

Post by Lagi Pittas » Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:45 pm

HI Malte,

Yeah a bit quick there - I know you can program anything you want in Java and yes I could code it if I wanted to - It's the one language I hate for its verbosity - I didn't mind C or C++ -. It stood on "C's shoulders and dropped the Baton. Ruby and Python I like easier on the Eyes.

But what would be great is if RR made it easy to use all those libraries (and Python's) - now that would be my idea of heaven (after they've added the data binding, open language, and dot notation :) )

Best,

Lagi

trevordevore
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:06 pm
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Contact:

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED?]

Post by trevordevore » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:13 pm

This has been an interesting thread. Pricing a product is always difficult. Below are a couple of thoughts.

If LiveCode, Xojo, and others are all experimenting with their pricing plans it probably means none of them have found a model that is sustainable yet. That doesn't surprise me. Trying to sell development seems to be a tough market. Everyone using the tools thinks the whole world will want to use the tool as well. But the rest of the world doesn't seem to feel that way :-) I don't know what the best approach is, but I would venture to say that trying to sell any solution for something like $25 is not going to cut it. Selling a product to people is really hard. Creating a cross-platform development tool, learning materials, offering support, creating marketing campaigns, and everything else that goes into creating and selling their product is really expensive (in terms of money AND/OR time) to do right. Personally I don't see a pathway to having a sustainable business if you are trying to price yourself so low that anyone will try it. Even if the low-priced options are only a portion of your total sales, every sale brings an obligation to the person you sold to. That obligation requires support and other resources to manage.

The idea that you can sell a low priced item to a lot of people often seems like it will work. "If we could just sell a $25 solution to 10,000 (number I pulled out of a hat) people that would be great. We could make $250,000! Surely there are 10,000 people out there that will buy our product." The reality is very different. (For one thing, $250,000 won't last you very long so you need to find another 10,000 people, and then another...) Trying to sell to everybody at a low price means you have to have access to a large number of people all looking to solve the very problem that your product solves. And they have to be willing to pay you to help them solve it. I don't know how many people are out there that want to learn programming but apparently it is really hard to find them and get them to pay you money.

I love the philosophy behind LiveCode. They want to have a programming tool that is powerful yet accessible to all who are interested in learning to program. That idea brought in funding and we now have an open source version that anybody can use. But that idea isn't one that can bring in money to sustain the product. LiveCode needs to appeal to businesses that make money with LiveCode. They then need to sell LiveCode to these businesses at a price that doesn't leave money on the table. $500 may sound like a lot of money, but LiveCode isn't going to survive if they are primarily selling licenses at that price. They need to find ways of getting $5,000, $10,000, $20,000, or more/yr out of companies who get a lot of value out of their product.

Now, lest everyone think that I am against having low priced software that people can use, I am not. But I really, really, really want to see LiveCode succeed and they need money to do that. That means I don't want to see them overextend themselves and I want them to have predictable income. If they can provide business add-ons that allow them to enter into larger contracts with businesses then I am all for it. The open source engine, which benefits from business investments, continues to be actively developed. When LC 8 becomes the mainstream version then open source widgets can be developed by anybody as well. An entire eco-system can exist around software that is available at no monetary cost to the user. Yes, there will be some people that fall into middle ground of needing the commercial engine but don't have the money to pay for it. Perhaps the final pricing that LiveCode comes up with won't make sense for them. But a company can't be all things to all people or they eventually shut their doors. A company with a sustainable business model can eventually widen the umbrella, however, and bring in more and more people.

To close, if you ever think that LiveCode isn't actively fixing bugs or working on the open source engine, just take a look at their github pulse page:

https://github.com/runrev/livecode/pulse

If you want even more updates, check out the pages of the various engineers. Lots of progress is being made on the IDE, a browser widget, a brand new getting started interface, cool widgets, and more. I'm hoping LiveCode comes up with the right business model to keep their incredible progress moving along.
Trevor DeVore
ScreenSteps - http://www.screensteps.com

Levure Application Framework: https://github.com/trevordevore/levure
LiveCode Resources for Developers: http://livecode.bluemangolearning.com

Newbie4
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:17 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED?]

Post by Newbie4 » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:46 am

There are companies successfully marketing languages and tools. Delphi, around since 1993, has no free version. The starter version is $217, the upgrade is $993 and the top Architect version is over $4,000. The company, Embarcadero Technologies, seems to be doing fine.

LiveCode is at a disadvantage because the free version is all that many people need. There is no reason for them to upgrade to the Indy or Business licenses.

In my previous post, I was not necessarily advocating a $25. version for the masses. I was suggesting an easier transition level to the Indy license. After building their first app/program, most people are not ready to commit to a yearly license, classes and a sizable sum of money. Give them a chance to experience a little success first. Have a "Publish" or "Test the Water's" level. Make it a reasonable sum ($100) or a single-use or single-platform version where they can encrypt/publish for $25. (1 program or 1 time or 1 platform, ??). It would also identify their apps as LiveCode apps - either with a watermark or a written stipulation that they have to state that they wrote it with LiveCode. The publicity would be a benefit

Let's take 2 scenarios:
Students, people just wanting to learn how to program and ones out to write a program for themselves to solve a problem may never be interested in an Indy license. They already accomplished their goal. They wrote a program/app. Now they would like to share it with friends. They may not want to let them see how easy it was to write, or to copy their code and use themselves. The person who wrote a program to solve a problem or do something useful would also appreciate the encryption in case they wanted to sell it later on. They could give it out to their friends while keeping it as their own

side note: Since they got the software for free, they may be more than willing to pay back something to the company. A small fee or even a "Donate" button may result in some nice, unexpected income. Most people do not mind paying for "value received".

Those who have the interest in writing an app or program for profit is the other scenario. They are usually not so sure that anyone will pay for their program and may be reticent to commit any more resources or money. They finished the program but the are not sure that it is good enough. Let them produce 1 encrypted/publishable version and test the waters.

Once someone downloads/pays for the software, the writer has his/her "proof of concept" and will probably seriously consider an Indy license. It just takes that first sale or download to convince you that you did good and are on your way. They will need the Indy license at least, to fix bugs, provide new features and upgrades and possibly new programs.

Giving away your secrets (source code) and not being able to publish it to the App store leaves an unfinished feeling. Yu can not celebrate your victory in learning to code and of producing something real and useful. A middle level like this will add closure and set them up for the next license level. It will also ease the transition to that next level. Right now it is too big a step for many people.

Anyway, it is at least worth considering (and discussing?)

Thanks
Cyril Pruszko
https://sites.google.com/a/pgcps.org/livecode/
https://sites.google.com/a/setonhs.org/app-and-game-workshop/home
https://learntolivecode.com/

FourthWorld
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 7041
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Recently we've been investing ....[SOLVED?]

Post by FourthWorld » Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:13 am

Newbie4 wrote:There are companies successfully marketing languages and tools. Delphi, around since 1993, has no free version. The starter version is $217, the upgrade is $993 and the top Architect version is over $4,000. The company, Embarcadero Technologies, seems to be doing fine.

LiveCode is at a disadvantage because the free version is all that many people need. There is no reason for them to upgrade to the Indy or Business licenses.
Delphi is #10 on the Tiobe Index, but it's among the very few of the 100 there that are available only under proprietary license. Most of the languages there are available under open source license, and I believe it's fair to say that Delphi's success has to do more with Borland's role in the early days of the PC than with anything that's happened since.

Today developers have come to expect that development tools are open source. Even if we wanted to try to ignore that ~90+ languages on the Tiobe Top 100 list are FOSS, today LiveCode already has a GPL edition, has taken cash and code contributions for it, and has publicly stated a long-term commitment to its ongoing development, so it's not practical to consider attempting to discontinue it at this point.

Yes, any developer who chooses to release code under open source license is doing a very generous thing. In LiveCode's case the dual-license policy makes pretty good sense because it addresses two very different markets: when a project's goal is to share code to contribute to the world's knowledge the GPL is an excellent fit. Other projects may have different goals, and for them the proprietary license remains available just as it has for the last 23 years (the original version of the LiveCode engine was MetaCard, born in May 1992).

As Trevor noted, anyone running a business selling software will find that $499/yr is one of the smallest expense they have, certainly a bargain for having so much of their code for so many platforms delivered to them tested and ready to go.

For those whose business model isn't sufficient to cover $499, there's likely little point in keeping the source closed anyway because the business would already be inviable at that point. Probably better to find other means of monetizing the effort, through donations, or services, etc, than to try to eek out a living on such small sales revenue.

FWIW, Red Hat closed more than US$1 billion in revenue last year - not bad for a company that gives away its OS. :)

And thankfully, even if LiveCode doesn't require it, nothing is stopping anyone from donating $25 to the project if they choose.
Richard Gaskin
Community volunteer LiveCode Community Liaison

LiveCode development, training, and consulting services: Fourth World Systems: http://FourthWorld.com
LiveCode User Group on Facebook : http://FaceBook.com/groups/LiveCodeUsers/

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”