Comments
13 comments
-
Whats funny is they simply don't "get" this type of post. Look at the blog on their decision reversal.
Most intelligent corporate leadership if they are doing something that generates this intense of emotion, would question their decision.
Not these guys. They only get affected by people who take the time to spell it out for them in "intelligent discourse".
They have zero appreciation for the fickleness of the market. Once you piss a majority off, you will never regain them despite all your efforts. This is more true of the dev community.
I wouldn't want to give odds on their survival rate at this point. -
I believe that the charging of this piece of wonderful software is appropriate. The charge is not expensive and the license is perpetual. After all doing development really takes a lot of reading, programming, and precious time. If they have done good for over years and has helped programming community in their productivity for free, why not we just pay their effort as a reward and support them to keep going. I don't care whether RedGate is big company or not, what I do care is developers working for or attached to them.
-
The anger here is (mostly) not about their decision to charge for a new version. It's about how they deal with the old version 6 by using a timebomb, self-deletion and after many compaints even adding an activation to the "free" version 6.zakizakaria69 wrote:I believe that the charging of this piece of wonderful software is appropriate.
The licence agreement you had to agree to for downloading and using V6 did not have a limited time validity. Therefore they even do breach their own license terms by limiting the time someone can use V6 - and requiring an activation for the use of the software is (legally) also not part of the license and the limitation to 5 activations even less. -
+1
-
The strategy was simple: buy up a popular free tool, change it to paid model, ensure people can't use it unless they pay. The last part is important because old versions of this tool was feature complete enough for 99%.
I notice they are using the free phpBB for this forum...
I must agree with a few people in this forum: I held both RedGate and Reflector in high regard. Now I'm inclined to avoid them whenever possible. -
You guys need to grow the hell up and realise they are a business and businesses are there to make money. Face it we have all been spoilt getting such a good product for free for years and it was inevitable that this would happen at some point. Presumably you are all developers as well or you wouldn't be using such a product, so I don't understand why you find it so hard to understand - would you think it was fair if people expected you to spend your time developing all of your software for free? Sure some people do that and there is plenty of amazing software that is completely free but that is a luxury and something that we should be grateful for, not something we should just expect. Why don't you go and send a message to every software company out there that charges stupid amounts of money for all of their applications from the word go, instead of hurling abuse at one that has provided a useful free application for a couple of years and now wants a very small amount of money for it.
I originally started out thinking I would give all my software away for free but soon realised the huge amount of time and effort (and money) involved meant it was just not realistic, so whilst I do have free versions of my apps I do charge a small amount for most of the new ones I produce now, so I can totally understand them doing this. -
Chris128 wrote:... one that has provided a useful free application for a couple of years and now wants a very small amount of money for it.
When they originally announced v7, they also announced that v6 would expire at the end of May. The only options would be to pay for the upgrade or stop using the tool.
In other words, they didn't just want a small amount of money for the new version of the tool; they wanted every existing user of the old version to pay as well.
I don't understand why you (and others like you) find it so hard to understand the problems with that approach.
Thankfully, they (at least partially) reversed that decision a few weeks ago, but that was only after months of complaints from the people you're now telling to "grow the hell up". -
I do understand why people have a problem with it, but I just think when you actually stop and think about it its not really unreasonable. Its perfectly normal for a business to charge money for something... even if it was once free.
Oh and yeah of course they want the users of the old version to have to pay as well, otherwise they would not get many sales because people would just find the old free version. I'm sure you see this as them being greedy, but I think them being greedy would be if they were charging a lot for it, but its a measly $35. If you don't think it is worth that then don't buy it... but judging by how upset you are that it will no longer be free then you do think it is a very useful tool, so spend the $35 on it. -
Chris128 wrote:its not really unreasonable
It's not unreasonable to charge for the new version.
It's not unreasonable to charge new users for the existing version, or to remove access to the existing version for new users.
Trying to charge existing users for the existing version is unreasonable.
If Reflector had initially been provided as a service, or had been clearly marketed as a time-limited demo which could be withdrawn at any time, there wouldn't be a problem. However, it was not; prior to v7, it was always provided as a free tool.
If you "sell" a product to someone at any price, even if that price happens to be free, it's totally unreasonable to start demanding more money for what they've already got. If they're happy using v6 for the moment, why should they be forced to pay for v7? (NB: "[Red Gate] would not get many sales" is not an acceptable reason!) -
but you haven't already got anything... you don't own that EXE on your hard drive, that code remains the property of the developer (unless the license agreement explicitly states otherwise I guess). What you get is a license to use that software, and if they want to change that license so that it means you have to pay to continue to use their software then that is up to them. If they said they wanted everyone that had been using the free version to pay for the years that they have already been using it then yes that would be unreasonable and unfair, but saying you have to pay to continue to use it is fair enough because you have the choice to either pay and carry on using it or not pay and not carry on using it.
lol its not an acceptable reason to those people no, because they would much rather carry on getting something for free... but from Redgate's point of view, why should they keep getting it for free? "because they are happy with it" is not an acceptable reason to a business that is there to make money.If they're happy using v6 for the moment, why should they be forced to pay for v7? (NB: "[Red Gate] would not get many sales" is not an acceptable reason!)
Don't get me wrong I would much rather it remained free, but I don't see why everyone is crying about it, its only $35 anyway!
If you want to see unfair software charges, try installing a service pack for the finance package we use... we get the option to install it ourselves for free or pay for a consultant to come and install it. We opted to do it ourselves and followed the installation guide to the letter but it would not work, so we spoke to their support and they said we would have to pay several thousand pounds for a consultant to come and install it... which we did (not my choice) and the guy came and installed it in a completely different way to what was detailed in the guide. That is a software company taking the p*ss... Redgate asking for $35 to continue using their previously free product is not. -
The code remains the property of the developer; the copy of the executable does not. Would you argue that you don't "own" your copy of Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc.?Chris128 wrote:... that code remains the property of the developer ...
... then by any reasonable legal standard, they would need your consent to do so. You can't simply decide to change a legal document in your favour after it's been applied!Chris128 wrote:... if they want to change that license ...
It would be "fair enough", if the product had been provided as a service or a time-limited demo. Since it was provided as a free tool, changing the terms after you've install it is not acceptable.Chris128 wrote:... saying you have to pay to continue to use it is fair enough ...
Again, if it had been provided a service, I would agree. However, it was not.Chris128 wrote:... why should they keep getting it for free?
Look at it this way:
If Microsoft announced that the next version of SQL Express would cost $100, I don't think anyone would argue that it was too much. But if they also announced that every existing instance of any previous version would stop working unless you paid up, would you think that was "reasonable"?!
I keep coming back to the Simpsons, because it accurately depicts what Red Gate were trying to do:
Homer: Uh, Milhouse saw the elephant twice and rode him once, right?
Mrs. Van Houten: Yes, but we paid you $4.
Homer: Well, that was under our old price structure. Under our new price structure, your bill comes to a total of $700. Now, you've already paid me $4, so that's just $696 more that you owe me.
Mr. Van Houten: Get off our property. -
I am VERY disappointed about the decision of disabling this valuable piece of SW with timebomb code.
I would have payed for a new version, if there was additional value I could make use of. But this kind of treatment is inacceptable!
I was using Lutz Roeders creation for years now... thanks god there is lots of alternatives.
Even the new rules with serial keys and so on feel like strangulation!
I WILL AVOID ANY REDGATE PRODUCT FROM NOW ON AND WILL TELL ALL MY COLLEAGUES TO DO SO AS WELL !
good bye, Red Gate...
Sorry for my english - this is not my native language. -
I understand that it is difficult to transfer a free application to a commercial one. I am not sure if this is really necessary! Since I am a developer too I understand that a company needs commercial products to survive. The employees of that company need money to survive ... But how did it Mr. Zuckerberg? Never paid for Facebook ...
Why not?
- Free Edition (with functionality of Version 6)
- Basic Edition
- Full Edition
To all "I hate RedGate" posters: Just look at:
Where can I download the free 6.8 version of .NET Reflector?
http://www.red-gate.com/messageboard/vi ... hp?t=13330
Using 6.8 FREE edition without any problems ...
Regards,
Harald-René Flasch (aka hfrmobile)
PS: maybe RedGate recognized that it is no good idea to transfer a free product to a "commercial only" one ...
PPS: maybe dotPeek (JetBrains) is an alternative for some of you
PPPS: Thanks RedGate for not deleting any posts here, even the contain anti-RedGate stuff - that's open-door-policy the way I like it
Add comment
Please sign in to leave a comment.
YOU PEOPLE SUCK.
I *HATE* RED GATE.