Livecode Create - thoughts?

[kevinmiller]

I was Manager Licensing and Procurement for a large Australian University before retiring and I can say that this licensing model for such a product as LC would not get a look in. Certainly a per seat charge for users is fine, but having that charge the same as the development seat, no.

Over 70% of businesses are using SaaS software these days, a percentage that grows every year. This is no different. The Cloud is baked into our new solution by default and does have ongoing costs. (You can choose not to use it but the majority of the new user user profiles we are aiming at is likely to want it.) The charge does not usually work out the same as the developer because volume discounting very quickly kicks in. Of course we can't sell to all organizations, however there are plenty out there for whom this is a reasonable and accepted model these days.

All of that said, for existing customers in good standing with larger installers who need assistance please contact us directly.

[kevinmiller]

If I employ Richard to write an app for my workplace, I would expect to pay a fee for a scoping exercise, a development fee and a maintenance fee for ongoing care (or some other equivalent process).
However now, I and whoever else uses this app, will have to pay developer licences. Suddenly Richard's cost will spiral and what would be maintenance costs will increase by $10K - $25K per year. Knowing this, I would be looking elsewhere to get this done cheaper so that maintenance costs are manageable.

There is no "win-win" with the internal users cost structure as it stands.

If your employer contracts Richard to work on the apps then installs them internally then there will be per-user fees. If you contract Richard to work on the apps, keep the IP then sell them, you can apply the apps per sale model.

There is an exception to every rule, however generally corporates that need apps have budgets to create them and the speed of delivering them is paramount. If you think we're expensive, check out Appian at $75 per user per month, minimum 100 seats so starts at $7500 a month! They are doing extremely well. The Create platform has a built in cloud and so many new capabilities that will help corporates build, deploy and update apps much more rapidly. Check out the video on the front of the Future page for a comparison between Classic and Create - and Classic is already amazingly quick!

Now you're going to tell me that the NHS has no money and it wouldn't work there - but honestly the Classic licensing model doesn't work there either! They aren't paying your license fee. And you can still create these apps in your own time in the new model.

Sounds like a fascinating piece of research you did those years ago btw!

[kevinmiller]

LiveCode has implemented a wide variety of licensing schemes in the years I've been a user. Since I believe v2.7. And I cannot recall a single one that has not been the subject of controversy. I've seen people seemingly go out of their way to generate confusion and doubt where things were really not difficult to understand, and clamor for another license model which when subsequently implemented had them calling for something that sounded quite like the one they were just complaining about. All the while Kevin and Heather have always shown saintly patience and generosity towards us.

I've seen a few people here generate hypothetical edge cases and ask questions which strike me as disingenuous and obtuse. Maybe it's bad manners for me to say this, but I don't believe that's very helpful. I've also seen a couple of developers whose use cases seem clear but also unsustainable under the proposed new model. You know who you are, there's no need for me to mention names. But in the release announcements and licensing terms laid out, Kevin has made clear offers to entertain such use cases on an individual basis. That can only happen in private conversation, not in these forums. Only be explaining directly with LiveCode your use case and the questions and concerns you have and what you envision as viable solutions do you have any hope of resolution.

For each and any of you who have a clearly definable use case which presents a problem and for which you can propose a viable solution, directly approaching LiveCode is the only real hope for resolution. It is possible that through the discussion of real problems and real solutions for them that refinements to the licensing models and terms may also occur which could benefit other users and the company moving forward.

Thanks very much for this level headed and helpful post. I appreciate that change can be hard for many. It can take a bit of time for people to get your heads around it. The stats are that companies that change their pricing 3-4 times a year do best - fortunately let me reassure you we have no stomach for large-scale changes that often!

It's important because as a vendor of development tools, what we do impacts peoples lives in a way that would not be the case if we were vending a simpler product (like a bar of soap). (Sometimes I yearn for such a simpler life but I suspect it would bore me quickly!) However we've changed models in the past and we can do so again now. It is my view that this is a big part of the reason we're still here when other xTalks are not. We reinvent ourselves periodically when we need to. The world has changed in a big way and Create is a reflection of both that changing world and all our learning over the years. We learn from what has and hasn't worked and we persevere.

Thats not to say we always get it right, there have been edge cases that have needed sorted out after we brought his out. Clearly even after having spoken to dozens of you in advance and filmed careful videos, it turns out we needed yet better explanations with examples. And there are some customer conversations at the start that we could have handled better. At the end of the day, we're human too and this change has been a really full-on experience for us all.

And again, if you are personally impacted by the changes then do get in touch directly. We have further evolved in our understanding of how best to help you during this transition and will continue to do so as necessary. Lets make this work!

[richmond62]

Software as a service (or SaaS) is a way of delivering applications over the Internet—as a service. Instead of installing and maintaining software, you simply access it via the Internet, freeing yourself from complex software and hardware management.

https://www.salesforce.com/eu/saas/

Does that mean that licensers of CREATE will not have to have any software installed on their computers?

[kevinmiller]

Does that mean that licensers of CREATE will not have to have any software installed on their computers?

Thats correct for Create Cloud. It's 100% web and cloud based.

If you want to create native apps, Create Native installs on the desktop and builds for desktop & mobile.

Create Universal includes both the web and native options and can deploy to both.

[richmond62]

Thank you very much: that has cleared up a lot of confusion as far as I am concerned.

[AndyP]

All becoming clearer.

Two further questions. Internal Apps.

1. If I build an exe for the company I work for, does this exe become non working if after a period of time the company decides to stop yearly payments?

2. If the company decides that the exe requires no further maintenance and therefore no developer is now required, how are fees due now calculated?

[cmhjon]

I reached out to LC for clarification on my situation. As I have only written apps for my co-workers and make no money on them, the plan that would fit my situation is the "App Payments" option. According to LC, I would only have to pay the early developer license. In the event that I start selling apps, THEN additional licensing costs would be required.

I hope this helps clarify things for other users like me.

Best regards,
Jon

[dunbarx]

That is where I would be as well; I make no money with LC but find it priceless.

I never heard of "App Payments", still without actual numbers, but it sounds like the costs will be reasonable. I was concerned earlier that the fees would be many thousands of dollars per year. That gave me pause.

Craig

[stam]

The new FAQ is below. Perhaps it will answer more questions than create new ones, we will see

https://future.livecode.com/which-license-do-i-need/

Dear Kevin,
Thank you indeed for taking the time to provide detailed answers and explanations.

The link above is especially helpful and fully addresses my concerns and questions - the addition of this is very much appreciated. As others mentioned above, definitions were initially a bit opaque. It would also be very helpful if the specific use-cases mentioned are actually listed under each licence, but certainly this new link certainly clarifies.


One further question: Unless I've misunderstood the example use cases, the appropriate licensing really hinges upon who owns the IP for the software - if it's the developer then its the Apps For Sale licence, if not then it's the Internal Users licence... is this correct?


My particular circumstances are covered by this use case:

I create apps for my colleagues in my own time using a license I own personally. I do not get paid by that company to make the apps in any way (I am creating them in my own time, not as an employee). My company does not pay for the LiveCode license and I own the IP for the software I create.

You need one license for each developer of the app. Your app is “sold” by you to your colleagues under the Apps For Sale model, which as it is free does not incur any additional costs.

Greatly relieved to see this is the case

[stam]

Now you're going to tell me that the NHS has no money and it wouldn't work there - but honestly the Classic licensing model doesn't work there either! They aren't paying your license fee. And you can still create these apps in your own time in the new model.

Not sure if you're aware of how NHS services (and especially hospital trusts) are funded - you'd probably be quite horrified if not.
Then there's the politics (mainly from our monolithic, top-down hierarchical, Microsoft-centric IT department).

The only possibility is to create apps that help me and my colleagues without interacting directly with any hospital systems (so our IT department is not involved) and without funding.

It so happens I enjoy coding and felt that LiveCode was worth supporting, so I've been paying a licence (admittedly, I've not particularly enjoyed going from Indie to Standard, which more than doubled the cost).

With the clarifications provided above, I will probably be moving to the Apps for Sale license (even though I've been getting into python and enjoying that as well - I'll see where that takes me).

[kevinmiller]

All becoming clearer.

Two further questions. Internal Apps.

1. If I build an exe for the company I work for, does this exe become non working if after a period of time the company decides to stop yearly payments?

2. If the company decides that the exe requires no further maintenance and therefore no developer is now required, how are fees due now calculated?

1. Yes.
2. You can remove the developer seat.

[kevinmiller]

I reached out to LC for clarification on my situation. As I have only written apps for my co-workers and make no money on them, the plan that would fit my situation is the "App Payments" option. According to LC, I would only have to pay the early developer license. In the event that I start selling apps, THEN additional licensing costs would be required.

I hope this helps clarify things for other users like me.

Best regards,
Jon

Just to be clear - you can only apply app payments when you are selling apps outside your company. Your own company will still need an Internal license for every seat. There is an exception in the FAQ if you own the LiveCode license and are building the apps in your own time. If you are building apps for your company in company time, or the company owns the license, it is Internal. You cannot choose the Apps for Sale model for Internal apps.

[kevinmiller]

The link above is especially helpful and fully addresses my concerns and questions - the addition of this is very much appreciated. As others mentioned above, definitions were initially a bit opaque. It would also be very helpful if the specific use-cases mentioned are actually listed under each licence, but certainly this new link certainly clarifies.

Yes I think that is a good point. We will add some additional examples.

One further question: Unless I've misunderstood the example use cases, the appropriate licensing really hinges upon who owns the IP for the software - if it's the developer then its the Apps For Sale licence, if not then it's the Internal Users licence... is this correct?

As far as I can tell that largely holds true. Internal apps are those apps created for use within your own company as an employee, or as a single bespoke project for one other company. Apps for Sale are apps being sold to customers. In your case, the company is not paying you to write the apps, nor for the LiveCode license and you own the IP. Thus you own these apps and are selling them to the business. You have chosen the model as freeware. Almost everyone creates apps in company time and/or the company owns the IP and does need an Internal license in that case.

My particular circumstances are covered by this use case:

I create apps for my colleagues in my own time using a license I own personally. I do not get paid by that company to make the apps in any way (I am creating them in my own time, not as an employee). My company does not pay for the LiveCode license and I own the IP for the software I create.

You need one license for each developer of the app. Your app is “sold” by you to your colleagues under the Apps For Sale model, which as it is free does not incur any additional costs.

Greatly relieved to see this is the case

Yeah I put that one in after speaking to you

[kevinmiller]

Now you're going to tell me that the NHS has no money and it wouldn't work there - but honestly the Classic licensing model doesn't work there either! They aren't paying your license fee. And you can still create these apps in your own time in the new model.

Not sure if you're aware of how NHS services (and especially hospital trusts) are funded - you'd probably be quite horrified if not.
Then there's the politics (mainly from our monolithic, top-down hierarchical, Microsoft-centric IT department).

The only possibility is to create apps that help me and my colleagues without interacting directly with any hospital systems (so our IT department is not involved) and without funding.

It so happens I enjoy coding and felt that LiveCode was worth supporting, so I've been paying a licence (admittedly, I've not particularly enjoyed going from Indie to Standard, which more than doubled the cost).

With the clarifications provided above, I will probably be moving to the Apps for Sale license (even though I've been getting into python and enjoying that as well - I'll see where that takes me).

Yes the NHS situation does sound really difficult! Thanks for your support really appreciate it.