Ever since I found Xojo I’ve wondered how Free/Lite licenses being limited to a Binary Project Format affects its public image. If you could spare a minute, I’d appreciate your input.
Would you contribute to an open source project if you could save a project in text format?
Yes
No
0voters
Have you fixed a problem in an open source project but haven’t submitted the changes to the project because you could only save in binary format and couldn’t be bothered submitting the change by hand through the web interface?
Yes
No
0voters
Has only being able to save in binary format caused you any negative experiences when working with xojo (lost work, time, options etc.)?
Yes
No
0voters
Would you use xojo more if you could save in text format with your current/free licence?
Yes
No
0voters
Would you open source some xojo code if you could save it in text format?
Yes
No
0voters
Do you think $399 is too high a price to pay to save your project in text format?
Yes
No
0voters
Have you wanted to save in text format but couldn’t justify the expense?
Yes
No
0voters
How much would you be willing to pay to be able to save in text format?
$0
$1 - $5
$6 - $10
$11 - $25
$26 - $50
$51 - $100
0voters
If saving in text format was being charged for, would you be more inclined to buy that via an in app purchase or via the website?
In App
Website
0voters
Do you think that being able to save projects in text format without a license would improve the public perception of xojo?
Yes
No
0voters
Do you believe that being unable to save in text format is limiting the appeal of xojo?
Having started with a free license, I bought a desktop license. However, I think that being able to share code via repositories is distinct from deployment and should be available in free licenses, too. This could attract more people to learning Xojo.
Its not a major obstacle in the old way of doing things inho, but not being able to use source control without a license, I think, is harming the community more than helping. For sure with younger people, its so common to start with js or python and some git examples. I am of the opinion that xojo could increase its appeal by fostering that environment - you’d still have to license up to build right?
Binary is a very useful format when one is creating small or test apps. The format to get rid of is, ISTM, XML.
I started with no licence until I got to the point where I could be sure I could actually make my app work (there were a couple of times when I thought it would not be possible). Once I was confident it was going to be worth it, I got a Lite licence, and used that until I wanted to make the app x-platform, after which I purchased Desktop.
I’m pretty sure I’ve voiced this before, but the fact that I pay Xojo $300 a year (Lite for Win+Mac) and still can’t use source control really REALLY rubs me the wrong way. Probably the single thing that irritates me the most about the licensing structure.
I’d be in favor of dropping binary simply because Xojo forgets my license on a semi-regular basis but doesn’t tell me. Then when I go to save my project it’s now saving binary instead of text, which it was when I opened it, so I end up with all the text files AND a binary file in the same folder. Yuck.
The text project format hat one big drawback: it’s not possible to share code between projects. I read about some workarounds but none were really good.
Because I don’t need any of the other features, so there’s no need to spend an extra $100/yr. I’d rather put that money towards MBS, GraffitiSuite and most recently RubberViews.
The binary only limitation seems quite logical to me. There are places in the world where adhering to the license are ignored and you could easily end up with a team of developers utilizing one build license. To be fair they probably exist now, but why make it easy? As a developer I need Xojo to be profitable and for that they need their product to be paid for. Binary format excludes source repositories and makes it somewhat difficult to have teams without build licenses.
How would you all protect our investment in Xojo? I say OUR because I’ve invested a lot of time in becoming proficient with Xojo and I don’t want it to go away anytime soon.
This is a fair point. If a distinction can be made between the free binary-only and paid-for single-platform products, the latter could have VC support.
But like @Wayne_Golding said, you’d end up with professional teams using the $99 version for development and only have one pro build license.
Be careful what you wish for guys, Xojo could easily respond to this thread by increasing all of the tiers by $300/yr just to give y’all source control at every level.
This thread reflects about how to make Xojo more accessible to newcomers who already learned working with repositories. What can be done and what will be done is none of our business. Only ideas and opinions here.
I’m trying to get some raw data here to see where public opinion is, because as far as I am aware, xojo has never asked me or the community these types of questions in the years that I have been using xojo.
I could have written a long background piece explaining the reasons for the current licensing model and how it could be a good/bad thing for xojo when I posted the questions but I didn’t want it to sway the results either way. Scaremongering people, if even in jest, doesn’t help with receiving honest answers and I hope that peoples opinions don’t alter readers answers.
Figuring how to change the license model would be a whole different set of questions which would come after figuring out how xojo is being perceived from the outside.
I get that. We’re all developers here and we all have probably seen our paid software pirated at some point, it’s no fun.
I complained in this thread about the binary restriction because it’s on-topic, but otherwise I can’t really complain much because I knew this was going to be the case when I purchased my licenses. It’s very obvious on the pricing page that you get binary-only with the Lite licenses.
That said, version control is such a fundamental, ubiquitous part of development nowadays that the lack of it seems rather punishing.
I’ve also never quite subscribed to the hamper-paid-users-to-stifle-hypothetical-pirates line of thinking, personally. Pirates will just crack the software and get around any such restrictions anyway.
But I know a lot of developers that take this approach though, and it’s perfectly valid even if it’s not my philosophy.
But like I said, I knew what I was signing up for, I’m getting what I paid for, and am satisfied with it as it was sold. You just sometimes you wish for more, ya know?
I personally prefer the binary format and have successfully used it with source code control. I wrote an app that compares binary format files for that.
Just a friendly reminder that you can get around the source control limitations of the binary format by using my app Arbed for comparing binaries. See Thomas Tempelmann | Source Code Management with Real Studio / Xojo and Arbed
I’ve been doing that for years and still am, in conjunction with the app SmartGit.
