 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:05:13 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 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.
True. What I'm led to understand is that no price adjustment is planned,
but personally I find that hard to believe.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
