@Stephen P Interesting that we all tend to focus on the 'how' whereas the 'what' comes first - ie the principle of being open to paying more to get more in a predictable, (relatively) timely manner.
Curious philosophy. What does paying more buy us? More developers to get it faster? Longer working hours to get it faster? At some point you have to stop throwing more resources at the problem and start looking at whether the existing resources are right for the task. There should never be a quid pro quo with quality. it should be expected.
All I’m simply saying is that quality and predictability should not come with a higher price tag because no one pays for shoddy work to begin with. Custom features? Sure. I can see paying for that. Upgrading the product? Absolutely. But paying for better quality? No. When you pay for a product you expect to get what is advertised and if there is an issue you expect it to get addressed in a timely manner without having to pay to get it fixed quicker. If you buy a new TV and it’s defective you don’t pay more to get it fixed. You return it and get a non-defective one.
Imagine taking your vehicle in for an oil change and the mechanic informing you that in order to get a non-defective oil filter, or one that filters all of the oil and not just 80% of it, you need to pay a 15% premium.
Xojo already depends on its users to help debug the product and provide useful feedback on problems that should have never made it in to the final product. That’s ok. Most are willing to do so. But I would think that keeping the software stable and competitive would already be at the top of the list. Maybe I’m wrong but it makes sense to me.