Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[rjm]

Starting a new thread at the request of Jim...

I really want JRiver to be financially healthy so that MC can continue to grow and improve, and so that its creators can be rewarded for an incredible product. I have been thinking a lot about this issue and I think something needs to change. The space that MC plays in is brutal. There are far too many free competitors.

Two key observations:

1) For large libraries, there is no competition. I think JRiver is leaving a lot of money on the table because of this.

2) MC is not well suited for casual users or computer novices. I have tried to spread the MC gospel to family and friends with limited success. Despite me providing hands on training, most casual users do not get it, or do not need the power, or do not have the time or patience to learn the complexities of MC.

So a suggestion. Split MC into 2 versions:

1) Standard Version. Limit items in library to 10,000. Drop price to $20. Create a simplified user interface with most options defaulted and/or disabled. Focus on unique and appealing mass market features like iPod sync and Theater View. Write new user documentation/tutorials that are very simple and clear. Create a new support forum thread focussed exclusively on the Standard Version.

2) Professional Version. Unlimited library size. Increase price to $100. Create new forum thread focussed exclusively on the Professional Version. Instruct JRiver staff to give priority to resolving issues on this thread.

[glynor]

Glynor, do you mean that there are reasons to split or not to split?

Try searching the forum for "MC Lite" and "MC Light" and similar topics, but make sure to change the dates to search to nearly infinite.  It's been discussed.

However... Briefly:  The down side is that it would (a) split development efforts, and (b) provide little real gain for JRiver (if you are just going to dumb-down MC, then what benefit would it have over the free alternatives).

If people want simple and free (or cheap) there are already plenty of capable options.  If people want more features, and are willing to pay, then why not generate the best possible product with those funds rather than split the efforts into two "wings".  Sure, advanced users will pay more for the advanced product, but the install base will be MUCH smaller, so progress will be slower.

[horse]

The value is amazing for the product.
Please keep the fully functional Trial Version

Personally I would have paid additional money for the following:-
uPnP server
Tivo Server
Library server
Per User (i.e. one license still covers home and portable machine for a single user, but multiple user machines require additional license)

I would also pay for a better client server version on a per user license :-)

Of course it is always nice to get something for free, but no at the expense of a product that is well supported and continues to add so many features.

When talking about paying more, I will expect various reactions, this is what I'm prepared to pay. Flame suit on!

[rjm]

Try searching the forum for "MC Lite" and "MC Light" and similar topics, but make sure to change the dates to search to nearly infinite.  It's been discussed.

However... Briefly:  The down side is that it would (a) split development efforts, and (b) provide little real gain for JRiver (if you are just going to dumb-down MC, then what benefit would it have over the free alternatives).

If people want simple and free (or cheap) there are already plenty of capable options.  If people want more features, and are willing to pay, then why not generate the best possible product with those funds rather than split the efforts into two "wings".  Sure, advanced users will pay more for the advanced product, but the install base will be MUCH smaller, so progress will be slower.

Good points.

Then I suggest we keep the split simple.

Make the only difference between standard and professional the maximum library size.

standard: 10,000 items maximum, $20
professional: unlimited library, $100

[glynor]

I would also pay for a better client server version on a per user license :-)

I am against per-seat and per-user licenses on general principle.  However, I would certainly pay a LOT more for a MC Server Edition^TM that would allow me to sync libraries on the fly between multiple installed client editions of MC.  It would need to be able to serve the library (the database only for me, not the media itself) between multiple machines on a LAN and preferably with the option to have "travelling offline copies" (for laptops and the computer at the office) where you can only connect back to the server occasionally.  It'd also be nice if it could also serve this data across the WAN with appropriate firewall permissions, and include some slingbox-like capabilities.

The Server Edition should be able to manage multiple users making multiple tags to different files all simultaneously and auto-reconcile conflicting tags (if one user tags a file [Genre] = "Alternative" and another tags it "Indie" at the same time) with manual intervention if needed.

It would be SuperDooperCalifragilisticFantastical if this Server Edition would run as a service with a web-interface for configuration (and maybe configuration just through MC clients as well), and if it was available for Windows, Linux, and OSX.  I'd probably thunk it onto my Linux box at home, and my OSX Webserver at work.

[AoXoMoXoA]

Perhaps a more aggressive marketing effort to targeted audiences would be sufficient:

There are many forums on the net dedicated to computers, music, audio, equipment, etc,.
and each has a high "geek-quotient" making them more suitable for such a complex program and more likely to want/need/use numerous customizable features.

[prod]

I suppose if the pricing is well laid out, and an upgrade path clearly available, it may not be a bad idea. Depends what ratio get which version. If 80% of people get the $20 version and 20% get the $100, then you have, with 10,000 users, $360,000. All paying $40, you have $400,000. What have you achieved with all that messing about? A loss of profit.

I seem to remember you suggesting the professional version would have priority support? So in the end you've bought yourself a load of work for 40 grand.

Using unconfirmed figures, of course. Complete guesswork.

[rjm]

I suppose if the pricing is well laid out, and an upgrade path clearly available, it may not be a bad idea. Depends what ratio get which version. If 80% of people get the $20 version and 20% get the $100, then you have, with 10,000 users, $360,000. All paying $40, you have $400,000. What have you achieved with all that messing about? A loss of profit.

I seem to remember you suggesting the professional version would have priority support? So in the end you've bought yourself a load of work for 40 grand.

Using unconfirmed figures, of course. Complete guesswork.

I agree the concept needs validation and analysis. Perhaps a poll of users to determine the distribution of library sizes?

My main point is that I think there is no competition for large libraries, and that owners of large libraries will pay a lot more because they have no alternative and because the value of the library is MUCH higher than the cost of the software to manage it.

[MadJewDisaster]

I would never ever put $100 on MC or any other jukebox
And , i'am sure i'am not the only one.

To me MC is a mess
Too much things in my way
Why if in Audio i have to scroll throught ALL tags - tags for video,pic ect -?is an exemple
Why i have to dig the forum to find a tweak to see All Media at once? Such a thing needs to be in front
And tons of small things like it.
At the same time , it is an 'avanced user' program , but no way to set it as you like [ Setting of right click menu for exemple]
I use it , but i do not really like it, because of it.
And ,i know than i'am not the only one having this feeling.

Having enought of the poor quality of freinds rip and so one, i did try to 'sell' them MC.
But ,no way ,they feel lost , Help is always bellow the program [ because it changes so fast,i know]
They are not the kind of people using a forum to understand things - And forum is assuming they understand english.

Funny enought , look like MC 10 is the one many people will be ok to use.

So , instead of Lite and Pro, maybe a Normal and Advanced option , better.
And this option for each media type.
Anyway , just my feeling

[Matt]

Why if in Audio i have to scroll throught ALL tags - tags for video,pic ect -?is an exemple

You shouldn't.  In "Audio" view, only audio tags should be shown.  Post a screenshot in a new thread if you think there's a problem.

Too much things in my way
...
Why i have to dig the forum to find a tweak to see All Media at once? Such a thing needs to be in front

This underscores the problem.  You've asked for opposite things back-to-back.  Remove things (suggestion one) or add things and make them "in front" (suggestion two).  It's a balancing act.

[AustinBike]

Here's an idea:  Keep the price where it is and if you want to spend $100, send them a check for $70 and be done with it. Don't force the rest of us down your crazy path.

As someone with 50,000 songs in my library (and 25,000 digital pictures) I would drop J River in a heartbeat if the licensing changed.  They would lose more money than they would gain.  If you remember anything from economics class it is that price and demand have an inverse relationship.  As price goes down sales go up.  I think you'd be real hard pressed to find any business where people make more money (in a sustained fashion) when prices go up. 

Splitting the version in 2 would break the company - few would pay $100 when the street price of alternatives is $30 and nobody would pay $20 for a crippled version knowing that song #10,001 costs them $70. 

[jgreen]

For those concerned regarding the "financial health" of J River, please do a quick search of the various posts JimH makes trying to figure out which idea to spend $50 million on.  Either he's got some money or an active imagination.

[JimH]

I haven't been able to locate my meds.

[rjm]

As someone with 50,000 songs in my library (and 25,000 digital pictures) I would drop J River in a heartbeat if the licensing changed. 

Perhaps products I have tried in the past have improved, but last time I checked nothing worked well above about 10,000 songs. So you could drop MC but I am not sure you could replace it.

In my opinion $100 to manage 50,000 songs is a bargain given the value of 50,000 songs and the value of easily managing, navigating, and playing them.

[KingSparta]

I think you'd be real hard pressed to find any business where people make more money (in a sustained fashion) when prices go up.

I think that depends also on Needs And Wants.

I need to get gas to go to work, the amount of gas I buy will not change no matter what the price.

[jgreen]

So you're saying, if I "Need" a beef and bean burrito, but I don't "Want" gas, I ought to get the fish taco instead?

[Griff]

I haven't been able to locate my meds.

Ive got plenty.

 

will send you some.

You prob. ran out, I can understand why.

 

[Berg]

First off, my general comments. I have some concerns and don't really care for the attempts that MC is making to become my ultimate media player. I elected to buy (and upgrade several times now) MC to be my audio library "server". To be honest, I really started using it as my music server, after using the free open source Slim server. As time progresses, I am using more and more audio podcast products, so MC is my audio media system. I use MC as my music server controlling a multi-zone system controlled using NetRemote.

However, I use SageTV for my movies/TV/video content server, and have not tried using MC for that purpose. I am extremely pleased with SageTV (after trying and buying several other competing products). SageTV does a fantastic job as a PVR and media server for anything using a remote and screen to control the content, but is easily overwhelmed by my music library. It also has support solid for "clients" fed by the server.

While I have been quiet (as the majority of users usually are), I have been concerned about the MC development efforts being focussed on what I see as the PVR segment when there are several mature products already in that space while some key features for the audio/music server have not progressed in the direction I want.

I could not agree more with Glynor -

However, I would certainly pay a LOT more for a MC Server Edition^TM that would allow me to sync libraries on the fly between multiple installed client editions of MC.  It would need to be able to serve the library (the database only for me, not the media itself) between multiple machines on a LAN and preferably with the option to have "travelling offline copies" (for laptops and the computer at the office) where you can only connect back to the server occasionally.  It'd also be nice if it could also serve this data across the WAN with appropriate firewall permissions, and include some slingbox-like capabilities.

The Server Edition should be able to manage multiple users making multiple tags to different files all simultaneously and auto-reconcile conflicting tags (if one user tags a file [Genre] = "Alternative" and another tags it "Indie" at the same time) with manual intervention if needed.

It would be SuperDooperCalifragilisticFantastical if this Server Edition would run as a service with a web-interface for configuration (and maybe configuration just through MC clients as well), and if it was available for Windows, Linux, and OSX.  I'd probably thunk it onto my Linux box at home, and my OSX Webserver at work.

Multi-user (particularly ratings and play statistics), multi-client (LAN, WAN and off-line) and a substantial web interface (a la Slim server) is what I want, and in IMHO what MC's market is. It is not to compete with BeyondTV, SageTV, MythTV, etc. I would be even happier if MC partnered with Sage and allowed me to access my MC audio server through the Sage interface (like I was doing for a while with Meedio).

What I want is for my iPod to sync seamlessly to the same library I share with my wife and son (and their iPods), but without my ratings, playlist and play history affecting theirs (and vice versa). What I want is for my central music server controlled by NetRemote and a web interface to intelligently sync with my laptop or other computers. What I want is for my MC server to sync my MC client on my carPC so that I can have access to my library in the car while keeping my ratings/history and favourite podcasts synced.

And, yes, I would pay more for that, but not for PVR like features. I am happy with my PVR application of choice.

I will now step down from my soap box. Thanks for listening to my two cents, Canadian (which is worth quite a bit more than it used to ...

[benn600]

Multi-user (particularly ratings and play statistics), multi-client (LAN, WAN and off-line) and a substantial web interface (a la Slim server) is what I want, and in IMHO what MC's market is. It is not to compete with BeyondTV, SageTV, MythTV, etc. I would be even happier if MC partnered with Sage and allowed me to access my MC audio server through the Sage interface (like I was doing for a while with Meedio).

Let's not forget us poor lil' college students who don't want to pay more than $40 and at this point, $20 on upgrades!  I think if J River was starving they could just start MC 13 and rake in some dough.

And losing customers would be all too common with higher prices.  I also have a very tough time convincing people that MC is worth what its priced at (anything greater than free requires a credit card) and it's the old (saying??): anyone who is deeply invested in a hobby or interest--media--can hear the feature list and go WOW.  Two or three wows and you're typing your credit card number in.  The average user doesn't even know that your music is managed by a database!  It's just THERE!  And filenames -> database filenames?  Filenames that follow a pattern?  They just don't get it!  I'm very strict with my filenames and I can be with MC.  iTunes doesn't give you any control and WMP just plain screws up the files from my previous experience.

[AustinBike]

Perhaps products I have tried in the past have improved, but last time I checked nothing worked well above about 10,000 songs. So you could drop MC but I am not sure you could replace it.

In my opinion $100 to manage 50,000 songs is a bargain given the value of 50,000 songs and the value of easily managing, navigating, and playing them.

Here's the problem: I probably couldn't find something that would be as good, but if I could pay $30 for something almost as good vs $100, I would be interested in that.

Remember that MC beats every other application at $30, but at $100 it is priced out of competition.

A lexus is a great car at $50K, but at $20K it would be an outstanding car.  If they priced that car at $20K it beats everything in its class, and at $50K it probably beats most in its class.  But the meat of the market wants $20K cars, and at $50K, lexus is priced out.  Not a big deal, because that is their market, but it doesn't help with "broad adoption" which is a key for software. 

How many people have you told about MC?  I can count 4-5 that bought it.  Word of mouth is high in a market like this and the lower price helps drive that.  I will take a lot of risk on $30 sw (and have the server full of it to prove the point).  I buy very few $100 programs and am far more particular. 

[Higginz]

I must confess, I don't use the full power of MC. I mainly use it for playing music (audio). I also enjoy the quick and easy converting features and audio format support that MC has.
It's great that MC handles large amounts of files in library. I'm building up my audio library as we speek.

If there were a slimmer Music/Audio version of MC with good library handling and audio format support and converting. Then I would go for that one.

$100 sounds way too much for me. I would not go for that.
But a slimmed down audio player/handler at $30 - yes.

[prod]

Car analogies again 

Software doesn't have class, it has function. No-one gets laid because they have a well organised MP3 database. Just as people having a mid-life crisis don't upgrade to Vista Ultimate.

I only know of one person who owns iTunes - doesn't mean that millions don't have it. It just isn't a topic of conversation down the pub.

Guy in pub 1: "Hey, what do you use to unpack ZIP files?"
Guy in pub 2: "Uh, do I know you?"

[craft]

null

[Listener]

I think that threads giving marketing advice to a vendor are not very useful.  As customers we don't know much about the economics of JRiver's business.  However, since the thread is underway, I want to defend the current price.

- I don't use MC to manage images or video.  I bought a license for playing music.  I don't see much being added for audio now and I doubt that the extras in a $ 100 player would do anything for me.

- There are many free music players out there.  There are some free taggers and a few free rippers.  There is a limit to how much people will pay for MC when most of the alternatives are free.

- I bought MC after doing careful research on it and on a number of alternatives.  It was the only player that provided support for using a full range of tags (for classical music.)  It was not important to me that MC had all the features that  a music player could have.  I needed a few specific features; that's all I was willing to pay for.

- JRiver's website does not begin to describe the features that differentiate MC from all the other players out there.  (The documentation doesn't either.)  Until JRiver can describe why their player is light years better than the competition, it would be a very bad idea to raise the price very far.

I think I knew more about MC 11 when I bought it than most potential customers do at that point.  I wouldn't have paid $ 100 then and if the price of MC 13 went up now, I'd start coding a replacement.

Bill

[tinear]

"Listener" you're right on!

[MadJewDisaster]

~~~~~~~~~~~but last time I checked nothing worked well above about 10,000 songs~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Look like last timewas ages ago .
Winamp can deal with much much  more than 10.000
Foobar starts to freak out at 40.000/45.000

I'am ready to bet than even WMP 11 works very fine with 10.000

[rjm]

You are correct that it has been a few years since I have tried competing products. At that time I did careful tests on a few products before selecting MC and have not tried them again because I am very happy with MC. What I observed at that time was that each product seemed to have a library size threshold at which the product became unusable. Emphasis on "unusable" - it was not a question of MC just being better - the others became so slow they were unusable.

So I stand to be corrected, but my strong hunch is that each competitor has a maximum usable library size and that MC will beat them all. So maybe its 20,000 and not 10,000. In any case, If I were JRiver I would rerun these tests on the leading products in the hope a establishng a clear competitive differentiator that I could charge for.

btw, I started this thread with good intentions. I don't claim to have the answers. I just very much want JRiver to succeed in in tough market. I think the server suggestions discussed above are a great idea. Maybe others have different ideas.

[AoXoMoXoA]

10,000 files

Many users here have considerably more than that, severely limiting the options.

Never-the-less I expect quite a few are either unwilling or unable to pay more. Also our interpretation of what a certain software is worth varies as does what value we place on $50 or $100. To some that is pocket money, to others a huge sum.
I know these guys work hard and deserve a nice payday for their efforts, but if more revenue is needed the answer is more customers not additional burden to existing customers to compensate for lower sales.

While I would not likely upgrade much further should the cost increase by any significant amount, I'd gladly pay for an audio-only app if it was offerred as an alternative.

[MrHaugen]

I don't think splitting the app in different versions would be the answer.
Only one version and the ability to unlock different modules/features would be a better way.

Just look at Microsoft Vista. Their version handeling is a mess.
One basic version, and paying for aditional modules per download would be far better imo. Would save some problems people are having today.

When we talk about pricing. I have this thing in my head that says the sales have to do 20% better if you drop the price with 10%, to get the same amount of profit... The same might go the other way around.... But I do not know how much more or less MC would sell if the price were to be dropped or upped. I do belive J River knows that alot better than us. I only know I would be happy to pay alot more than I do today. I use this app every day and I would gladly pay 250$ for it. If a good server/client system was introduced I would even double that! Kinda feel I'm one of the few that would go this far though...

[benn600]

With multiple versions a plugin could probably be created to get around the drawbacks--a plugin that would add video support.  There will be an Apple-like hacker community constantly devoted to hacking around J River's tricks.

[AustinBike]

If you want JR to make more money, in business, there are 2 easy ways to do it:

1. Add more features that allow you to charge more for it.
2. Add new products that open up new revenue streams

Anything else is simply rearranging the furniture and will ultimately turn off customers.

I also second the idea up above that they do better marketing.  The more people know about the power of the program, the more likely people are to download and try it.

[benn600]

I've pushed for a superbowl ad before but never got anywhere

[hit_ny]

In 2001, airtime for a 30 second ad for the superbowl cost upwards of $2 million!!

..maybe its just me but do you think that might be a problem.

[gappie]

Car analogies again 

Software doesn't have class, it has function. No-one gets laid because they have a well organised MP3 database. Just as people having a mid-life crisis don't upgrade to Vista Ultimate.

yeah. so true.

[richard.e.morton]

I'd go the other way, a freebe version that competes with iTunes with feature options there (but greyed out), but disabled (also ideally have an option to hide disabled features) ... so it can get marketshare then offer upgrades.

Rich

[JimH]

I'd go the other way, a freebe version that competes with iTunes with feature options there (but greyed out), but disabled (also ideally have an option to hide disabled features) ... so it can get marketshare then offer upgrades.

Good idea.

[Robo983]

I am new to MC but like the discussion going on here. I am still on my 30day trial. I have been a committed user of Meedio and Music match. I paid $50 for Meedio retail and I struggled with that but felt at the time there was nothing else like it and even compared MC back then. I bought MMJB at the time too for I think $20 after rebates. Later I got BTV for $20 after rebates but didn't use it until Meedio TV quit working.

So, why I give that background is that Yahoo bought both Meedio and MMJB and in my opionion screwed them both up. If I am going to plunk down some more money for a package I want them to be around so I want MC to make more money. I started out thinking $40 was way too high for what "I wanted" to use MC for since I had MM and Meedio. Every late night I spend exploring it's features I am more impressed and think $40 is fair.

I like the idea of a package that has add-ons I can purchase to upgrade or add functionality that is integrated into the base product if integration is my goal. Snapstream seems to sort of do that with their's but I do not think it has good integration. If I can buy modules I can evaluate the market and buy the product for me that has the right cost benefit ratio. If MC has the best Music module I buy that. If they don't have the best TV module I do not want to have to pay more for it if I do not plan to use it. If this was priced say at $70+ because it had TV functionality I would be looking elsewhere but they could have got my $40 for the totaly awesome media library superior product piece.

[fitbrit]

How about an interactve, hyperlink-laden downloadable manual for $10 a pop that describes each menu and submenu, so users can actually take advantage of the features of MC? Add new features in the latest build? Document it so that the manuals can auto-update.

$40 is a great price for all MC can do, but it'd be worth up to $60 to me if it was more intuitive from the get-go/had a usable manual.