Print

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

[rick.ca]

I need to pay again.

You do not need to pay again. Just like with your car, computer or cell phone, there's no reason to feel compelled to purchase the next model when it's released. You can use MC15 indefinitely, and upgrade to any future version at the upgrade price. That's a rather generous policy. You could argue software is different, and, like many of us, you appreciate MC largely for the fact its in continuous development. But the sensible policy for that situation is use a subscription model. You would then not have this complaint. But many users are happy to stick with an old version for an extended period of time. They would be very unhappy if forced to pay an ongoing subscription fee. I don't think there are any alternative policies that are not unnecessarily complex (thereby creating their own kind of unhappiness) and/or too difficult to administer.

[Rob L]

You could argue software is different, and, like many of us, you appreciate MC largely for the fact its in continuous development. But the sensible policy for that situation is use a subscription model. You would then not have this complaint. But many users are happy to stick with an old version for an extended period of time. They would be very unhappy if forced to pay an ongoing subscription fee. I don't think there are any alternative policies that are not unnecessarily complex (thereby creating their own kind of unhappiness) and/or too difficult to administer.

I think the problem is that because MC gets updates regularly, the full version bumps aren't actually that easy to distinguish from the incremental changes that happen within a given major version.

A lot of these incremental changes are fairly techie. Other bits of MC haven't actually changed hugely over the years - the visualisations and the interface in general, primarily; and human nature means that those are actually the bits that a lot of people judge it by (OK, I realise that a lot of the people on these forums aren't 'normal' in that sense!) People do ask if we can have new skins and new visualisations fairly regularly. I think if J River just tried to include something like a new skin with every major version bump it would be easier to see that it was a whole new shiny version. Personally, I think it actually needs a little more than that - things like animating the interface a bit more. People have got used to more swishy interfaces - even on their phone; I know that Theater View in particular is doing some of this now, but I think some of it could be applied to the normal interface too. Fading things in and out, maybe, having stuff slide around a bit more (like the top bar does in some cases). I know a lot of people on here will think that's just unnecessary, but the reality is that a lot of people do judge books by their covers and it is key to selling something that it looks "nice" - and obviously nice is a difficult term to define and changes over time...

[rick.ca]

I think the kind of person who prefers MC to the alternatives values function over swish. The program is under continuous development. The practise of stacking new features into a new version to make the upgrade seem worthwhile is already risky. In other words, some users are not going to be happy about being asked to pay for a new feature they felt should have been implemented in the previous version. Attempts to conceal lack of substance by useless glitter would also result in an ugly backlash. It's also difficult to imagine visual changes that would be acceptable to most users. You may like things fading in and out and sliding around; I'm likely be enraged by the unnecessary distraction.

[Rob L]

enraged? hm, that's somewhat an over-reaction. Is that how you reacted when j river did introduce that with the top bar then??

I wasn't actually saying style over substance, if you read what I wrote. I was talking about in addition. There's really no reason why you can't have both.

And surely you should be trying to attract people by all methods?

The "swish" was just an example - and I wasn't talking about my own personal preference; I've been here a very long time after all. But it's not like the visualisations or skins have been touched much for some time now - ok, so we got noire, but the rest have been around since what? MC10? 9? maybe even 8?

All I'm saying is that people generally expect things to LOOK a bit different for a significant upgrade. Knowing what new features you're getting in it takes a bit more time and effort.

[rick.ca]

enraged? hm, that's somewhat an over-reaction. Is that how you reacted when j river did introduce that with the top bar then??

An unnecessary distraction that triggers migraines and precludes my normal enjoyment of the program? You bet I'd be enraged. I have no idea what you're referring to as the "top bar," so I doubt it meant anything to me when it was introduced.

I wasn't actually saying style over substance...

I know you weren't. I was making the point there are very real limitations to attract people to what is, essentially, and arbitrary version change. The program is in continuous development. We can buy it at any point in time and get a fabulous application at a bargain price, whether or not it's ever updated. If we want the continuous updates beyond the version we purchased, we have to pay the price (an even more outrageous bargain). A rational person will not bother looking for anything in the new version to justify the fee, knowing they'll get everything in due course anyway.

I have no problem with version changes or whatever might be done (within reason) to make an upgrade more attractive. It clearly has the effect of getting both developers and users enthusiastic about new features and possibilities. It's just draining to listen to those who have to justify paying a fee they should be happy to pay regardless of what is being implemented at the time of the version change.

But it's not like the visualisations or skins have been touched much for some time now

Users are creating new skins all the time. Many of them seem to be at least of the same quality I would expect from the developers. Options for those who like creating visualizations are somewhat limited right now, but maybe that's as it should be. I find my G-Force visualization far superior to anything included in MC, and it's not reasonable to expect JRiver to compete with things like that. The sort of thing I would expect from the developers is an improved skin or visualization engine. But those are obviously not the sort of things that are going to be done for every new version.

All I'm saying is that people generally expect things to LOOK a bit different for a significant upgrade.

Fine. Maybe they should add some shiny new "16" logo to the interface. As long as it's not too big. Or shiny. And includes the option to turn it off.

[Rob L]

Users are creating new skins all the time. Many of them seem to be at least of the same quality I would expect from the developers. Options for those who like creating visualizations are somewhat limited right now, but maybe that's as it should be. I find my G-Force visualization far superior to anything included in MC, and it's not reasonable to expect JRiver to compete with things like that. The sort of thing I would expect from the developers is an improved skin or visualization engine. But those are obviously not the sort of things that are going to be done for every new version.

They are? I can't say I've found a single third-party skin that I'd want to use... but then I'm not that keen on most of the standard ones either. A number of them do look pretty dated. I tried to pick a different one earlier, but had to stick with Noire.

I've never been a fan of G-Force, myself. The old vector ones in MC obviously look a bit old school now, but when the 3d ones came along, they were a bit of a wow factor - I still like the multiple cube one (can't remember what it's called) - ok, it's not all that functional, but it looks very different. JRiver obviously has the ability to do those, I think even just some new variants of those would be great :-)

Some of it though is ultimately about the shift to HTPC from plain PC. I don't use MC much on a 'PC' any more - it's primarily connected to a telly, and OK, I do a lot of 'work' in the database - ripping CDs and so on - but it's primary purpose is playing back the media (otherwise why am I bothering to manage it - I'm not managing it because I'm some kind of glutton for it!) and that's when I want it to be a bit swishy. And of course Theater View is a bit swishy. I guess maybe I just want greater feature parity between Theater View and 'standard' view... and no, I don't exactly know what that really means, it just feels like I could do MORE in Theater View than I do currently. Or maybe have some of the... 'polish' back-fitted to the standard view. Am I the only one that feels like Theater View is a more modern interface?

[rick.ca]

I guess maybe I just want greater feature parity between Theater View and 'standard' view... and no, I don't exactly know what that really means, it just feels like I could do MORE in Theater View than I do currently. Or maybe have some of the... 'polish' back-fitted to the standard view. Am I the only one that feels like Theater View is a more modern interface?

Can you be more specific? Please bear in mind I have no idea what "swish" means in the context of UI design.