 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/29/2013 10:08 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:24:14 +0100, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 22-3-2013 16:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> OK, I need the opinion of a few folks disconnected from a debate I'm
>>> having.
>>>
>>> Let's say you have a software product, and updates/support/enhancements
>>> are provided only if you pay an annual "maintenance" fee.
>>>
>>> A new component is developed for the software, and is made available to
>>> those on a current maintenance plan. Other customers can purchase it
>>> at a per-seat license.
>>>
>>> Is that new component "free" (as in "no cost") to those who are on
>>> maintenance, or not?
>>
>> There is "no additional cost" which is not the same as "no cost".
>
> True. :)
>
> Jim
>
Ah, yes.. Right up there with the "'Free', until you decide you want to
actually use it, or get fed up with being unable to tell if you want to
use it, because 90% of the features are disabled."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:01:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Ah, yes.. Right up there with the "'Free', until you decide you want to
> actually use it, or get fed up with being unable to tell if you want to
> use it, because 90% of the features are disabled."
In this particular case, no features are disabled. The situation is that
you have to have a paid support contract ("maintenance") for another
product (an annual fee). The product in question is also going to be
sold separately with its own maintenance schedule.
Where I come down on this (now that it's been a few days) is that I find
it dishonest to say product B is "truly free" to someone paying
maintenance on product A. It's a component that is included in the
maintenance for product A, but that since you don't get it if you're not
paying for maintenance on product A or with a separate purchase of
product B itself, it's dishonest to say it's "free for owners of product
A with a current maintenance agreement".
But it's like (I think it was Stephen who said) the distinction between a
drink that's "free with the purchase of a meal" and having to pay for the
drink and paying less for the meal.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/29/2013 10:05 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But it's like (I think it was Stephen who said) the distinction between a
> drink that's "free with the purchase of a meal" and having to pay for the
> drink and paying less for the meal.
>
> Jim
>
Yeah. I just don't trust the word "free" at all, in any conditions, with
software. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:35:05 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 3/29/2013 10:05 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> But it's like (I think it was Stephen who said) the distinction between
>> a drink that's "free with the purchase of a meal" and having to pay for
>> the drink and paying less for the meal.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Yeah. I just don't trust the word "free" at all, in any conditions, with
> software. lol
You're not alone. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/03/2013 5:05 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> (I think it was Stephen who said)
That would be the Stephen, spelt Scott. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 23:32:12 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 30/03/2013 5:05 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (I think it was Stephen who said)
>
> That would be the Stephen, spelt Scott. ;-)
LOL
Memory's the second thing to go and all that. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/03/2013 7:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Memory's the second thing to go and all that.;)
Father, knows best. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-3-2013 6:05, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:01:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Ah, yes.. Right up there with the "'Free', until you decide you want to
>> actually use it, or get fed up with being unable to tell if you want to
>> use it, because 90% of the features are disabled."
>
> In this particular case, no features are disabled. The situation is that
> you have to have a paid support contract ("maintenance") for another
> product (an annual fee). The product in question is also going to be
> sold separately with its own maintenance schedule.
>
> Where I come down on this (now that it's been a few days) is that I find
> it dishonest to say product B is "truly free" to someone paying
> maintenance on product A. It's a component that is included in the
> maintenance for product A, but that since you don't get it if you're not
> paying for maintenance on product A or with a separate purchase of
> product B itself, it's dishonest to say it's "free for owners of product
> A with a current maintenance agreement".
And we haven't yet discussed the likelihood of the maintenance fee for A
going up next year because it now also includes B.
Nor the likelihood of the manufacturer giving any explanation why the
price of A will next year be higher than this.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Your question reminded me of this <attachment>.
anyone dare guess where it is from?
Andrel
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'wirklich frei.mp3.dat' (199 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:17:52 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 31/03/2013 7:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Memory's the second thing to go and all that.;)
>
> Father, knows best. :-)
Indeed. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
