 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
Sounds like most of our CAD software here...
> 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?
Given that advertisers are allowed to use phrases like "buy 1 get 1
free" or "a free drink with any meal" then I'd say it's "free with an
active maintenance contract". Saying it's free without any restrictions
would be misleading (a restaurant can't advertise free drinks without
mentioning the fact you need to buy a meal first).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:45:59 +0000, scott 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.
>
> Sounds like most of our CAD software here...
>
>> 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?
>
> Given that advertisers are allowed to use phrases like "buy 1 get 1
> free" or "a free drink with any meal" then I'd say it's "free with an
> active maintenance contract". Saying it's free without any restrictions
> would be misleading (a restaurant can't advertise free drinks without
> mentioning the fact you need to buy a meal first).
Thanks for the feedback, Scott. I'm going to hold off on my opinion
until I get a few more replies, because I don't want to influence the
responses. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/03/2013 3:45 PM, scott wrote:
>
> Given that advertisers are allowed to use phrases like "buy 1 get 1
> free" or "a free drink with any meal" then I'd say it's "free with an
> active maintenance contract". Saying it's free without any restrictions
> would be misleading (a restaurant can't advertise free drinks without
> mentioning the fact you need to buy a meal first).
Succinctly put. I agree.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:45:59 +0000, scott 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.
>
> Sounds like most of our CAD software here...
>
>> 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?
>
> Given that advertisers are allowed to use phrases like "buy 1 get 1
> free" or "a free drink with any meal" then I'd say it's "free with an
> active maintenance contract". Saying it's free without any restrictions
> would be misleading (a restaurant can't advertise free drinks without
> mentioning the fact you need to buy a meal first).
Follow-up question:
What about the phrasing "free for existing customers" when an "existing
customer" is defined as "someone who pays their annual maintenance fees".
Do you see it as a fair/honest statement if you just say "free for
existing customers" without defining what an existing customer is in the
context of that discussion?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 22/03/2013 18:09, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
> Follow-up question:
>
> What about the phrasing "free for existing customers" when an "existing
> customer" is defined as "someone who pays their annual maintenance fees".
>
> Do you see it as a fair/honest statement if you just say "free for
> existing customers" without defining what an existing customer is in the
> context of that discussion?
I find it a bit dangerous.
Let's assume in 1995 I was not yet a customer.
On 1996, I became a customer with a 1 year maintenance, and did not
Did I cease to exist: no.
So, Dear Mr & Mrs Judges of the High Court, I'm a customer, I'm
existing, therefore their modules should have been free for me.
The usual sentence is something along: "free for customers with active
maintenance subscription at the date of release."
Notice the "at the date of release", it means one cannot just subscript
6 months later to the minimal set and hope to get the module for free.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:03:37 +0100, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Did I cease to exist: no.
The question isn't really about whether the customer "exists", but rather
whether they are a "current" customer (that phrasing was a poor choice of
words on my part in trying to explain the situation).
The idea being that "I'm a customer with a maintenance agreement that's
paid for and in force for this particular timeframe."
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Given that advertisers are allowed to use phrases like "buy 1 get 1
>> free" or "a free drink with any meal" then I'd say it's "free with an
>> active maintenance contract". Saying it's free without any restrictions
>> would be misleading (a restaurant can't advertise free drinks without
>> mentioning the fact you need to buy a meal first).
>
> Follow-up question:
>
> What about the phrasing "free for existing customers" when an "existing
> customer" is defined as "someone who pays their annual maintenance fees".
That sounds fine to me.
> Do you see it as a fair/honest statement if you just say "free for
> existing customers" without defining what an existing customer is in the
> context of that discussion?
A bit tricky and ambiguous, I'd prefer "free for current customers". IME
some licenses require you to pay the maintenance fee only to be eligible
for updates (you can carry on legally using the software without
paying), in that case you could argue you are an existing customer even
though you are not paying maintenance.
If the license requires you to pay the fee to even use the software (ie
you have to stop using it when you cease paying maintenance) then I
think your wording is fine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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".
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
