I have to say the pricing issue gets my head spinning. Michel, you are, of course, quite correct. The only other way is through sales volume, and that seems to be a bit stuck in the doldrums from what I can make out. Personally I think there are several main issues behind that, but this is probably not the thread to speculate in. I’d love to see the books.
While I can see the “freemium” model seems popular, it really ain’t for me. If I use something, it must not be crippled. That said I admit to paying only US$20 for my licence ( now expired ), and that was a bit cheap even from my point of view.
My dream, as a hobby programmer, is for a version that is affordable, and is not too limited. I don’t want a compiler tied to just a couple of machines as I have quite a few, and a few at work too ( I don’t code for work ), I want to use databases, and I want to compile for Linux every now and again out of sheer interest.
I believe there should be a cheaper non-commercial license - not allowed to sell what you produce - priced at 50% of the commercial price. MBS do that, bless them. Otherwise it is just too much for me, made worse by living in a country with a weak currency.
Just FYI this is unlikely to happen.
I work here & don’t get to see them.
Shareholders might but I’m not a shareholder so I really don’t know but I doubt it based on my experience as a shareholder in other companies. As a shareholder of other public & privately held companies what I do get to see amounts to about the same data as you would see from any public companies filings. Its not the kind of detail you might be expecting to see.
The various US & state regulatory bodies don’t get this level of data and they have LEGAL requirements for a company to meet.
I believe there should be a cheaper non-commercial license - not allowed to sell what you produce - priced at 50% of the commercial price.[/quote]
It’s not a bad idea.
I know MS has a non-commercial usage clause in their EULA for Community & Express editions.
Not idea how they enforce it or if they enforce it.
I could imagine that could be an issue for us.
It would be a problem IF this were possible & all we did was reduced our revenue significantly by offering such a license that people just ignored the non-commercial clauses.
Other tool vendors seem to have something like this but some are very opaque about pricing IF such a thing exists and others are just confusing as heck to figure out what exactly they allow in such a release and what, if anything, is crippled in such a release.
Thanks for the reply, Norman.
I am very well aware I will never see the books - it is just that we all flounder about making suggestions in the dark, not being able to see very much.
I am also pretty much aware that a non-commercial Xojo licence is just a dream - I am sure it has been suggested many, many times.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
[quote=189495:@Michel Bujardet]I do not think your income falls under the responsibility of Xojo, nor the wealth increase.
Why is it so difficult to understand that a company such as Xojo needs to raise its prices with time to maintain its level of service and research and development ?[/quote]
Its easy to write that when youre a rich man
In the other hand, I do not care if Cartier raise his price by 300%.
Keep dreaming ! This will never happens. Enterprises (just like people) always want more money.
Come on. Envy will get you nowhere. I am not that rich, but I have stopped whining quite a while ago. At one point, a man has to stand on his own and stop blaming others for everything.
[quote]@Michel Bujardet Yes indeed, the only way prices can get affordable for all is by having a maximum of professionals who do well enough to purchase the most expensive product in store every year like clockwork
Keep dreaming ! This will never happens. Enterprises (just like people) always want more money.[/quote]
You may not realize it in your limited view of things, but if Xojo did not have professionals parting every year with $600 or so, you would end up paying a whole lot more. Do I read some marxist innuendo about capitalists exploiting proletarians ?
Who said that ?
Now seems like a good time to delete this thread.
I’d better save it then. Done.
Yep. Announcement done. Messages exchanged. Subject exhausted. And now it’s starting to run in circles and flames. At least lock it.