Comments
Sort by recent activity
cege7480 wrote:
Don't you expect to get paid?
Did you bother to read the previous posts in this thread? :shock:
I do expect to get paid for my work, but I don't expect to get paid twice by the same person for the same work! If I sell something at a particular price, and then decide to increase the price, I can't go back to the people who've already paid and demand more money. That wouldn't be ethical, and it almost certainly wouldn't be legal. / comments
cege7480 wrote:
Don't you expect to get paid?
Did you bother to read the previous posts in this thread? :shock:
I do expect to get paid for my work, but I don't expect to get paid twice by the...
AvonWyss wrote:
... they don't seem to understand how much this all really pisses off people.
Well, they didn't until recently! [image] http://www.red-gate.com/MessageBoard/viewtopic.php?t=13307 / comments
AvonWyss wrote:
... they don't seem to understand how much this all really pisses off people.
Well, they didn't until recently! http://www.red-gate.com/MessageBoard/viewtopic.php?t=13307
sssw28 wrote:
Red Gate is not violating any laws in wanting to charge for something that was previously "free".
And once again, you've missed the point. :roll:
I do not have a problem with Red Gate charging for a new version of a product which was previously free.
I would not have a problem with Red Gate increasing the cost of an existing version for new users. (I can't say I'd be happy about it, and I'd imagine there would be outrage from some corners of the community, but it would be a perfectly understandable commercial decision.)
I do have a problem with Red Gate, or any other company, trying to impose a new price on existing users of the current version.
sssw28 wrote:
This software is provided on a 30-day trial basis at no charge.
If that was how the software was originally provided, then there wouldn't be a problem. The simple fact is that, until v7, Reflector was provided as a free tool. Not a demo; not a trial; not a service; simply a free program.
Sure, Lutz added an expiry date to ensure he didn't have to support users with out-of-date versions, but the updates were always provided for free.
When Red Gate acquired Reflector, many of us expressed concerns that their intention was to commercialize it. These concerns were met with scorn - "Of course we're not intending to use this to force people to pay! Don't be so paranoid!"
sssw28 wrote:
Free software developers take note.
Indeed; if you provide something for free, and then want to charge for it, don't try to take the free copies away from existing users just to increase your profit margin! / comments
sssw28 wrote:
Red Gate is not violating any laws in wanting to charge for something that was previously "free".
And once again, you've missed the point. :roll:
I do not have a problem with Red...
sssw28 wrote:
We call that belief "entitlement".
Call it what you want; you've completely missed my point. :roll:
sssw28 wrote:
Food and beverages samples are occasionally distributed "free" in supermarkets.
If someone gave me a free sample, I would not expect that to entitle me to a lifetime supply of the product for free. However, having eaten the free sample and moved on, there is no way the vendor should be able to change their mind and force me to pay for the sample I've already had.
sssw28 wrote:
Do you expect to pay last year's price for gas?
I expect to pay last year's price for last year's gas. They can put the price up as much as they want for any gas I haven't bought yet, but trying to retroactively apply that price increase to something I've already purchased is not acceptable.
This is quite simple; you don't need a degree in economics to understand it. When you provide a product at a particular price, even if that price happens to be "free", you cannot retroactively apply price increases to it. You can charge more for future versions; you can charge more for new copies; but you cannot charge more for the copy you've already provided.
If you can't understand that, then I pity your customers! :evil: / comments
sssw28 wrote:
We call that belief "entitlement".
Call it what you want; you've completely missed my point. :roll:
sssw28 wrote:
Food and beverages samples are occasionally distributed "free" i...
sssw28 wrote:
I really do not understand all the hand wringing and anger about charging a very small fee for supported software.
I can't claim to speak for everyone, but my own anger was not that RedGate are charging for v7; it was that v6 was going to stop working and expire, forcing everyone to pay up or uninstall Reflector.
The recent announcement that existing users of v6 will get a non-expiring copy by the end of the month has gone some way to alleviating my concerns, but it took months of heated arguments and complaints from the "whiners" on this forum to get that concession.
sssw28 wrote:
Maybe the whiners here don't pay rent or eat or drive a car like most of us.
I don't pay rent - I pay a mortgage. When I've finished paying it, I certainly don't expect the mortgage company to tell me that they've changed the rules for their newer mortgages, so now I've got to pay more!
I do drive a car, which I've paid for. I don't expect the manufacturer to try to take my car away from me to force me to pay for the latest model just because their profit-margin is looking anaemic!
sssw28 wrote:
... they expect to be provided services and products for free.
No, but once I've paid the current rate for a product, even if that rate happens to be "free", I don't expect to be told that I've got to pay the new rate as well! 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. / comments
sssw28 wrote:
I really do not understand all the hand wringing and anger about charging a very small fee for supported software.
I can't claim to speak for everyone, but my own anger was not t...
There are dozens of existing users whose copy of v6 has self-destructed.
OK, looks like the mis-communication monkey strikes again! http://www.red-gate.com/MessageBoard/vi ... hp?t=13330
What if my version of Reflector has deleted itself?
This means you have not used that particular copy of .NET Reflector for at least 13 months.
What if I have downloaded a trial of version 7?
Version 7 installs alongside version 6 so just find your version 6 copy and follow the procedures outlined above.
This little nugget should really have been part of Tuesday's announcement. / comments
There are dozens of existing users whose copy of v6 has self-destructed.
OK, looks like the mis-communication monkey strikes again!http://www.red-gate.com/MessageBoard/vi ... hp?t=13330
What ...
omheien wrote:
Why are you saying that it deleted it selfe? On my laptop I have v6.x that says I have to update. When I say no, nothing happends. Are you sure its not you that deleted the program?
v6 had a well-documented time-bomb which would delete the program one month after its expiry date. Your copy of v6 is probably the one that will delete itself at the end of May if you don't update.
If your copy of v6 has self-destructed, and you don't have a backup copy, I'd be inclined to contact Greg [1] to see what your options are. From what I can see, RedGate have egg on their face and are desperately trying to win people back, so they should be fairly reasonable.
[1] http://www.red-gate.com/MessageBoard/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2284 / comments
omheien wrote:
Why are you saying that it deleted it selfe? On my laptop I have v6.x that says I have to update. When I say no, nothing happends. Are you sure its not you that deleted the pro...
Chris128 wrote:
... that code remains the property of the developer ...
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:
... if they want to change that license ...
... 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:
... saying you have to pay to continue to use it is fair enough ...
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:
... why should they keep getting it for free?
Again, if it had been provided a service, I would agree. However, it was not. 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. / comments
Chris128 wrote:
... that code remains the property of the developer ...
The code remains the property of the developer; the copy of the executable does not. Would you argue that you don't "own"...
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!) / comments
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 ...