Livecode Create - thoughts?

[FourthWorld]

I think it’s important to set the record straight.

https://livecode.com/an-open-letter-to-the-community/

I don’t mind a little bit of feedback on this if you want to share it...

Thank you, Kevin. That letter does clarify some of the important details.

I have three areas of questions that continue to flow into my In Box:

1. Financial reporting: this is a non-starter for many, but perhaps they are misinterpreting. Could there be a section in the FAQ or other place new prospects are expected to review which details specifically what's needed to satisfy those requirements?

2. In-house definitions: this thread has become an example of how it can sometimes be difficult to discern responsibilities with regard to assessing developer license and seat fees. Is there a way the concepts surrounding value derivation may be simplified for new licensees to more readily assess cost?

3. Phone-home: this had been part of earlier conversations, but the letter includes:

Create requires your app to phone home for licensing – false

Can you confirm that phone-home is no longer part of license enforcement, and whether apps built with Create run independently of the current status of the license used by the developer who made them?

Thank you for considering these. I don't want to guess in my replies to these inquiries, so your guidance is much appreciated.

[richmond62]

no one here fully understands the fine print

That is very bad indeed, and it behooves LiveCode to, at least, make their fine print comprehensible.

[kevinmiller]

I have a feeling (a hope?) that people like cmhjon (and myself) will find that in the end this will not be a financial deal killer. I believe that Kevin fully understands the personal/semi-personal use cases, and will not dismay that group.

That such a group exists at all is, I bet, unique to LC. That is both a worry (it always has been) and also a testament to its beauty and power.

Craig

We do intend to apply the rules to new customers fairly and consistently. For those existing customers who are having trouble with the transition, contact us and let's see what we can work out. We cannot deal with individual customer issues here on this forum.

[kevinmiller]

Thanks for writing and posting this Kevin, and for the links to more details on LC 'Create' that it contained.
Also, thank you for all of your years of dedication in keeping LiveCode (and xTalk scripting in general) alive and kicking!
Sleeping at your parent's and all of that, now that IS some dedication!

For what it's worth (nothing really), I think you're doing the right thing in shifting gears at this time.
Also with the new syntax, new widgets/controls, the lo-code / code blocks, AI helper, etc. 'Create' looks really good!

As a hobbyist who wouldn't mind making an extra buck or two in this 'side hustle' economy, I honestly think that the 'Apps for Sale' / Create Native introductory price of $308 per year (which comes out to about $25/month) + small percent profit-sharing is a very attractive model. Basically it would pay for itself at about 14 x $2 app sales per month. Still, as a workin' '9-to-5' regular dad kinda guy with children and all the expenses that goes with that, I would have a hard time justifying that yearly lump-sum expense until such time when it could be paying for itself. A monthly payment plan would be easier to justify, specially if such an app were to take a year or more to build up to that point.

I do have a question about 'Create Native', basically I would like to know more details about Create Native's 'Native' capabilities:
Based on the available screenshots, obviously Widgets are still in, but what about the rest of 'LiveCode Builder', particularly the foreign function interface? Will that still be supported with the new 'Create Native' platform/engine? Beyond having easier, non-web-sandboxed access to the local file system than a web app could have, I don't see much point in building a 'Native' app if there is not also the ability to access Operating System's APIs, other code libraries and/or physically attached devices. My primary interest in building 'native' apps, and with xTalk scripting in general, has always been centered around Music/MIDI software and hardware. That is certainly not something I would expect LC to invest your development resources into. You may not be aware, but I learned how to use LCB FFI specifically so that I could add the capabilities I wanted on my own. If I couldn't continue working on that sort of thing in 'Create Native', then I don't know that I could justify the expense (even as reasonably priced as it may be). Also would 'LC Native' retain the ability to use shell() commands and call on other scripting languages on the host computer? I assume it would, but Create does seem like a very big shift, a re-build of the LC platform, and so I can't be 100% certain.

Thanks Paul. I hope your questions have all been answered in the webinar I did earlier this week? https://future.livecode.com/live-demo-y ... -answered/

Essentially you will be able to continue to do what you have done now. If there are any that our outstanding please let us know.

[kevinmiller]

Thank you, Kevin. That letter does clarify some of the important details.

I have three areas of questions that continue to flow into my In Box:

1. Financial reporting: this is a non-starter for many, but perhaps they are misinterpreting. Could there be a section in the FAQ or other place new prospects are expected to review which details specifically what's needed to satisfy those requirements?

2. In-house definitions: this thread has become an example of how it can sometimes be difficult to discern responsibilities with regard to assessing developer license and seat fees. Is there a way the concepts surrounding value derivation may be simplified for new licensees to more readily assess cost?

3. Phone-home: this had been part of earlier conversations, but the letter includes:

Create requires your app to phone home for licensing – false

Can you confirm that phone-home is no longer part of license enforcement, and whether apps built with Create run independently of the current status of the license used by the developer who made them?

Thank you for considering these. I don't want to guess in my replies to these inquiries, so your guidance is much appreciated.

1. We will look to add those details. It will be pretty straightforward.
2. We will continue to learn from the feedback we've had and look at ways to improve presentation of these concepts as we get closer to launch.
3. We are happy to agree this exception with trusted existing customers, yes. We are also happy to agree it with new customers in specific industries where this is a requirement after we have vetted them. Obviously this is for apps that don't use our Cloud (which will be few and far between when it comes to new customers).

[kevinmiller]

There are a number of interesting pricing structures out there.
One I like and mentioned previously is the one used by Parorama DB: http://www.provue.com/#pricing
This strikes me as
a) much fairer,
b) could be applied to 'internal users' and developers and
c) would, in my inexpert opinion, be more likely to draw in developers from other languages as well as new developers.

I really like this model because it feels fair and friendly, but not sure how financially viable it would be for LC.
On the one hand it would almost certainly lead to a drop in income from existing users - but on the other hand this strikes me as something that would entice new users. But again that's my view and I'm no expert...

Yeah we've looked at models like this. There are of course issues about the cost to provide and maintain the platform and host the apps and what level we therefore need to set pricing. That aside, it couldn't be applied to both Internal and Apps for Sale. For example, we have customers who create apps that are paid only by in app purchases. 3% of customers purchase something worth about £20 every few months. Some of these apps are very successful too, but any flat model like that one would completely break.

[richmond62]

after we have vetted them

This makes me feel uneasy.

The other day I popped into a bookshop and bought a book: nobody 'vetted' me, and nobody asked me about anything else: probably because
they respected:

1. My privacy.

2. Having sold me a book they knew that, apart from any copyright rules, I was free to do whatever I wanted with that book without then paying them more money.

The fact that I needed the book to further work I am doing on an extremely controversial topic (the origin of the pre-exilic Israelites in North Yemen), had they known, would not have stopped them selling me the book, or, say, jacking the price up 3-fold.

A while ago one could buy a licence for LiveCode that was neither a time-limited thing, nor a "we'll mulct you for more later" arrangement . . .

[bbalmerTotalFluency]

I am a very small developer - and I am aware of the time strain in maintaining multiple code bases. It's nobody's fault in particular. I think if LC were much, much larger they might be able to maintain multiple code bases. Then again, I was a ruby on rails programmer back in 2005 and the problem we had was libraries (called gems) were always being updated but then became incompatible with other gems and then you'd upgrade ruby or rails and more incompatibilities would emerge. I felt we were building castles on sand. I'm very happy with how LC have conducted themselves over the years, I have faith in their character - which is important in this world and I like a mostly integrated solution with minimal need to go "outside".

Actually, between Ruby on Rails and LC I did some database work in Filemaker Pro for a publishing client. What an absolute piece of garbage COMPARED to LC.

As I understand it (which is only a little at the moment) Livecode Create will run all your old code and it looks like quite a significant advance from what I've seen so far. So I'm a bit perplexed about why people are quite as frustrated as they are. I'm guessing this is more a comms issue than an actual issue. And since they are offering you 2.5-3 years to transition, that seems pretty non-draconian to me.

I think a free trial WHILE you are using your current license and the free trial expires synchronised to the expiry of your current license would be a good idea that would not cost them much as far as I can see - but they may have reasons not to expand the user base that fast.

At any rate, they seem like good sorts and personally, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt for now and I'm excited about the direction they are going in. I like LC because of code clarity and that it is a low code and very flexible environment. They appear to be headed to EVEN LOWER CODE - which seems pretty cool to me.

CAVEAT: I am not a genius programmer. I'd give myself a B+ at most. So for anyone scoring above B+, maybe I haven't understood your issues.

[wispayr]

I have been using livecode since the run-rev days. I have always loved the language, the style and generally the ethos of the company and what they are trying to do. I managed to make it to one dev-con and met some really cool people.

I still truly believe there is something special about the way it works. As with most people i had to wind things in while COVID hit and lapsed my licences at this time. I found myself looking for other ways of doing things, found various languages and tools, found amazing things like node red.

Every time, the bench mark was always livecode, and there are so many things that it makes much easier.

From the demos i have seen, the bit that was always "not-quite" there is nearly there. Drag and drop interfaces and simple collections. The combination of the two is very powerful with actions, and keeping that in a textual format under the hood (so that GPT type tools can lend a hand) is really powerful. Most low-code / no-code solutions are all approaching this but none of them have the firepower under the hood that livecode has.

So as skint as i am at the moment, i have just bought a licence. I have seen what you guys have done over the years and im excited to see where this goes. Licensing model is confusing at the moment, i think the problem is that people don't really know which box they fit in (if indeed they even need to!) Ewan

[CasaP]

So, here I am again, looking at Livecode. I had previously bought a v9 licence, but was too busy to use it.

I just wanted to replicate a dead docker podcast app I use in unRaid and tweak / upgrade it slightly, publish It on docker for everyone else who wants it to use FOR FREE. I noticed the new, confusing as hell pricing structure, the new "create" branding with no idea what that means, and the obvious loss of the community version. I have no idea if it's even possible to develop a docker app, the documentation is as bad as I remember the last time.

I HAVE LITERALLY NO IDEA HOW THE HELL THE PRICING STRUCTURE WORKS.
I am a professional, with several full-time employees, that reads / writes contracts often.
THAT IS NOT GOOD.

Kevins answers are obtuse, confusing and contradictory in some cases. "vetting", "we decide"? Customers are paying for a product FULL STOP.

My understanding at this stage is that I can write an app, but if it's free I MUST provide FREE advertising within the app stating that it's built in LIvecode. Seriously? in 2024 somebody thought that was a good idea, given all of the other platforms available? That is NOT going to happen. Other than a small "built with LiveCode" in the about page, nobody ever clicks.

OR

Pay for a licence / per user / per install? No idea what they are charging, or what I AM ENTITLED TO AFTER PAYING. Or, more importantly, if the app developed is independent of the licence.

This puts me off even downloading it.

Honestly, these guys are all over the place. Who is advising them on this new pricing policy? A competitor / subverter?
This thread is frightening to say the least.

Why do bean counters spoil everything?

[stam]

So, here I am again, looking at Livecode. I had previously bought a v9 licence, but was too busy to use it.

There is a catch-22 in pricing that LiveCode Ltd still needs to solve.
The balance between profitability for the company, affordability for the developer and extending LiveCode's user base still seems elusive.

Much of the frustration expressed here is by developers (mostly non-commercial) who have seen serial increases in licensing fees.
This feels like a strategy of diminishing returns and is a major obstacle to extending the user base, which must be a critical step for the platform (I could expand on this significantly from my own experience when considering investing in LiveCode).

Actually LiveCode Create brings more favourable pricing for many developers - but there is still some confusion around licensing. As this has evolved it does look more promising and more affordable than a 'standard license' for some developers, but a more expensive solution for others if the "internal users" license applies.

I've no doubt we'll see much better defined licensing and pricing structures soon - a good thing.
I also hope to see much more effort in engaging developers from other languages. LiveCodeScript is actually a great language but it still seems like the best kept secret...

[FourthWorld]

LiveCodeScript is actually a great language but it still seems like the best kept secret...

Imagine hundreds of thousands of people enjoying a next generation of the IDE we love, where those who prefer LiveCode Script are coding in LiveCode Script, and those who prefer JavaScript are coding in JavaScript....

[CasaP]

Although I still have no idea what licence I bought, I went for Option 2, standalone.

It cost €277 with a 30% discount and VAT off (I have a business VAT number). That's a fantastic deal.

Looking forward to doing some tinkering at the weekend.

Anyone ever write a docker app using LiveCode?

[PaulDaMacMan]

Looking forward to doing some tinkering at the weekend.

Anyone ever write a docker app using LiveCode?

https://www.mail-archive.com/use-liveco ... 64596.html
https://hub.docker.com/r/techstrategies/livecode/
https://github.com/inidus/livecode-community-server
https://github.com/livecodestephen/dock ... ode-server
https://livecode.com/latest-conference-sessions/

[Nikovash]

After trying to get the IDE to work both in the browser and on the Desktop, I am frustrated. simple things that should work cause the IDE to crash. nesting items in a responsive layout environment locks up the IDE.

Even importing working existing apps breaks the IDE. I get it there will be growing pains, but the DPs should at least be usable. if you are going to release them. Also the lack of forums or where to turn to when issues like this arise are just not in line with what I have come to expect from Livecode. I get it we have free months until the license starts, but the IDE in the unusable state its in kind of feels like pre-buying software.

Overall not at all satisfied with the process nor putting development back on hold for in indiscernible amount of time. its LC10 all over again, but worse