INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: The Ethics of Charging for Software  (Read 8833 times)

JMClark

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #50 on: May 04, 2002, 10:13:35 pm »

I agree generally with Doof's approach, but without any strings.  JRiver needs to make it on volume and not irritate users by license controls.  Follow the lead of Norton, Borland and others.  Stay away from the early Lotus 1-2-3 model which tried to manage licenses and bogged down the s/w with archaic controls.

1.  Keep it simple.
2.  Allow users to try the product without restriction for 30 days.  The must pay after.  
3.  Make the price reasonable.  $24.95 - $34.95 (see price range of other products jukeboxes or otherwise.
4.  Users must pay for all major upgrades.  Minor improvements included with each license.
(v. 7 users must pay for v. 8 etc.
5.  The license fees must be looked at as an annuity, not a payment for the license.  MJ will continue to improve and I want the latest and greatest,  Like Norton and MSOffice and other products, I will punch my Visa code in to get ongoing rights to regular ugrades.  It is now in our culture to pay for regular updates.  


The general rule is if the price is reasonable most will pay.  Those that will not spring for $25-35 for the best jukebox on the mkt will figure out a way around it, or will pass anyway. For power users who have the skill to get past license management, its too much work.  I would not reformat my hard drive to save 24.95.  All my s/w is paid for so a reinstall even 100 times is a no brainer.  I would not fool with any s/w, free or otherwise that tried to manage my system for me.

LOOK AT HOW THE SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES ARE MANAGING SOFTWARE.  FOLLOW THEIR LEAD.

JamesClark
Logged

nila

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #51 on: May 05, 2002, 01:03:05 am »

I agree with Doof's suggestion.
It makes the people pay who should be paying. Those who are just being stupid and not taking the proper precautions.
And even for these people it offers a reasonable way of getting a lisense for not too much.
For people like me it would allow us to do as many reinstalls as we want and does not punish us for this.

Doof's method would mean that instead of being restrictive on users like myself, it would be an additional service that JRiver offered to proove that they care for their customers by giving a method for irresponsible people to get back a registration. It would turn it into a plus feature rather than a negative one.

I agree my methods might have been flawed, I was just throwing out ideas for possible alternatives.

As for using Ghost, this method works if you want to do identical reinstalls but not if you want to try new OS's, new configurations of software etc.
Logged

Jaguu

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2002, 01:17:04 am »

JM Clark

Well said, I feel JRiver should have a look at how other successful companies are managing their licensing problems. Very often with shareware you receive a product key by email to activate the product, so you can print or save the key. I do not know if this system is fool proof, if not, companies seem to take some risks. On the other hand, if you do not pay, many products include so many nuisances that at the end you are going to pay, if you really want to use the product on a regular basis.

Doof
I feel Doof's suggestion to come back to the old MJ7 scheme also a good one. When there were all this license key issues not being backed up, there were also many good ideas by Interact members on how to improve the system. One easy way is a nagging screen to tell you to backup the key on floppy as default, but also on disk.

There was one drawback with above scheme. Probably for many it was too difficult to understand. One wrong assumption that is made in the Internet is the one that everybody surfing the Internet understands plain, good English. Working now for a global company I soon realized that this is a completely false assumption to make, many do know a little English, but not enough to really understand what's going on. So probably an invitation to backup the key should be translated to the most widespread languages.

JimH
Recently you asked in a thread about pricing the product and also there many suggestions were made in Interact, but it seems that none is going to flow in the new pricing system. Basically I feel MJ8 could handle a higher price in the 29-39 U$ range. That would give you more revenues in an easy way. Compared to other Shareware products MJ8 is still very cheap. (Look at ZoneAlarm Pro, they raised the price to 49 U$. I also feel that MJ8 could be split in a basic version and a pro version with some of the functionality reserved for the pro and asking there a higher price (see my contribution in that thread).

Jaguu
Logged

Ilmar

  • Regular Member
  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • JOATYou mean besides music?
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2002, 02:08:53 am »

Hi

I have read all of this thread and will give you my tuppence worth!

Jim, I think that you are over-reacting to the piracy problem, and taking JRiver down a precarious route which is not really justified by the perceived piracy threat.

The vast majority of users, bona fide customers, will buy your product and expect to enjoy unfettered use. They dont use disk imaging software, they dont network, and using a floppy disk in some cases IS a challenge and they will reach for their PC manual to overcome it.

The very small minority will either look for a crack or a cracked copy or a serial number. Do you think these guys are ever going to swell your revenues and actually buy a legitimate copy if denied the opportunity of getting it free? I think not.

Are you imposing a licensing method which will lose more from putting off legitimate customers, than it will gain from restricting piracy? Quite possibly, and at a cost.

As a matter of interest, I have discussed with professional colleagues both in IT and in the legal/accountancy professions their personal views on what they consider ethical or moral in their own software/music habits. The results are surprising. Ethically, they cant defend piracy on any level. Morally, they leak. Morally, they will justify their actions on the basis of:

"they have ripped me off so much in the past" or
"I am not hurting the artists.. just the record companies" or
"£500 to edit digital pics of my kids.. who are they kidding?" or
"Its only Microsoft" or
"I am not using the software for commercial gain"
etc etc etc

In respect of intellectual property, whether we like it or not, end users in general will behave not so much in accordance with the law, but within their own perceived view of what is right or just (because they stand virtually no chance of being caught)they are in a position of 'rewriting the law' to suit themselves.

In the main, they don't go out of their way to find pirate versions of anything, so availability is key to their moral turpitude. Illegal MP3s are readily available in large numbers on the internet. Pirate MS, Macromedia and Adobe products are readily available on disc. Pirate versions or cracks of software such as MJ are not so readily available. Sure they can be found, but this is in the shadowy realm of the small minority mentioned above.

I know many who do play by the rules, but bend them. They have purchased Windows XP, but use an illegal cracked copy rather than the Microsoft disc. They also feel morally justified in doing this with any software that includes 'spyware'.

MJ's credit card RRG solution seemed to work perfectly well, and I would wholly endorse Doof's comments above. I have umpty backups of my RRG file, and if I lost all of them, I would not bemoan paying another $25.

I did feel restricted when DVD software placed restrictions on changing region (up to 5 times), and chaffed at this, even though I only need to change it a couple of times. The knowledge that the restriction was there prayed on my mind, and I did not rest until I had region free software (sorry, Cinemaster, but you were Dumped)

Jim, I do think you are going down the wrong road.

Ilmar
Logged
Ilmar

"We make a living by what we get,
But we make a life by what we give"
     Sir WInston Churchill

zevele1

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #54 on: May 05, 2002, 03:19:12 am »

Doof is right on both sujects
A really power user knows how to fix things instead of reformat.In an other hand format can be faster.I have 2 drives.All my exe on drive D,and all my settings wrote down on an exercise book.So format?y-enter and go to see news on tv.Install ME,y-enter,have a meal.An other 15 minutes to install programs and it is fine
Friday i had problems with my scanner.All the support i got was"your scanner is not ME compatible".Quitte a breaking news,i run it fine since 2 years with ME.....
Anyway,to be sure i did a clean install of 98SE.And this is really a pain in the A....I would not format any other day if i had 98SE
I have the 7.2 license,so no problem.To be really fair ,if stuck with the 5 restores problem,i will find a way

Fair use,what is it?JimH said that someone who put MJ 0n 5 computers,may have to buy a second licence if he wants to be fair.One with 5 MJ on 5 computers all in his house will say not.
Another one with Mj at home,at work and in his country house will say ok.Just because of the "non-computing notion" of geographie

I think that the Doof solution about the 7.2 license with a fee if you lost it is a very very good one.And i can tell you ,even the most stupid user will save his licence the second time

You will not erease piracy,you will not erease crime from the earth
The one who runs a crack for MJ8,WILL NEVER SPEND MONEY ON IT

I see you on the wrong tracks concerning this problem.You may not get the kind of headlines you wish to get when 8 final out

In french we say "we lend only to rich people".Means that if one day i see a pirate cdr with MJ8 aside the last MM,Easy cdCreator and so on,i will be very happy for you.Cause in this case MJ8 will be really popular.Because many people will  have it on they computer,and a real copie,not a pirate.
Softwares are like rock bands.The not-know ones give away they albums to download on free mp3-or most of the album.You do not find them on any Napster clone.
The day you find them,means they are well-know and sell records

I fully understand that things 'extra' MJ are not going the way you had wish.And i am really sorry for you-i mean it-.But i do feel that because of it you may take the wrong tracks

Anyway,even if i do not share your position on this problem,i will stay a MJhead
I am sorry i did not convert anyone to MJ.Language problem on the french side.Mind you i bought 5 boxed MM last summer!!! I was sick... Here most of the people i know are not even able to use WinAmp in a proper basic way.......

GOOD LUCK--Yonatan
Logged

eso_

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #55 on: May 05, 2002, 03:47:14 am »

Like others here I don't really understand the reason behind the change in your license model. Your previous one still seems quite clever for me. The customer gets a unique license key which he owns (instead of the software) and that he can reuse every time he needs to reinstall the software. Of course he can install the software on several machines but such abuse (beyond an allowed level for private purposes) can be handled by the license conditions. If these are reasonable most customers should have no problem to respect them.

What I really dislike with the new model is that it requires an online connection to a "limited" resource (the JRiver servers). There are are so many cases imaginable where either the connection or the servers are not (or no more after five uses) available which effectively makes this license model mainly a burden for the people who are actually willing to support the product.

People who want to use the software without paying will always find a way to use the software by downloading cracks from the internet. And then maybe even the regular customers need to use such cracks to use the software with the same comfort as the "illegals".

I still think that quality is the best copy protection - to increase sales you should spend more effort on marketing instead of making life for your customers more uncomfortable. I mean, just look at the market: what people know is RealJukebox and MusicMatch, but who besides some "well-informed insiders" knows MediaJukebox? Here is the point where you need to begin instead of restricting the use of the software.
Logged

JimH

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 7604
  • Miller drives a tall-masted tractor on the ocean
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #56 on: May 05, 2002, 04:23:55 am »

Lots of very helpful comments above.  Thanks.

llmar
> MJ's credit card RRG solution seemed to work perfectly well, and I would wholly endorse Doof's comments above.

I agree that Doof's suggestion was well thought out.  Our problem now is that we are just a few weeks away from release, and we have to release on time.  We have a couple of important opportunities that depend on it.

This means we can't do extensive new development.  We can go back to the old system or we can go forward with the new.  We can't change either one.

Regarding the comment that you made about "MJ's credit card RRG solution seemed to work perfectly"

It may have worked well for you, but it did not work well for many cases.  Firewalls were a problem.  Backup was a big problem.  Cracks were a problem.  Lack of Internet connection was a problem.

The biggest drawback, however, was that we couldn't sell through third parties.  We were approached many times to sell MJ through others, but it could not be done.

As I said above, we will keep working on the rules for this, but if we don't go forward, our only alternative is to return to the exact system we did use.

Again, I want to assure you that "normal" use won't be affected, though we won't necessarily consider weekly disk wipes or 4 machines sharing one license "normal".
Logged
Jim Hillegass
JRiver Media Center / Media Jukebox

nila

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #57 on: May 05, 2002, 05:49:11 am »

Hi again,
Glad to see your considering Doof's suggestion as it would be a great one.
Also, thanks for considering other possibilities as the current system would cause my problems.
I dont format every week but when I do format and reinstall it often goes wrong and then needs redoing within a week or a few days and this happens until it is nicely set up at which point it lasts usually for around 3 months or so until I decide I want to do another format. Sometimes an unexpected system death will mean I have to do it far sooner however.

I think one thing u really should specify in the EULA is how many machines you want to allow it to be installed on in terms of separate networked machines at home. I really think a double lisensing scheme is your best option - $25 for a single computer, $35 or something for a network edition they can install on all their home computers. The pricing is full up to you, they're just examples.
As for cracks these will always be around and they're pretty much impossible to overcome as was proved with XP. Your main concern should just be stopping casual sharing of serials (ie a friend giving his serial to another friend over the phone).

Having said this however, I could really see this program selling well in shops too not just on the internet. Also, I could see a lot of people using it if you gave it to magazines to put on their cover disks. I could give you contact e-mails for 3 or 4 BIG computer magazines in england so u could get in touch with them. You'd have thousands of people installing it from the cover disk. They would also all give you rave reviews (especially if you gave them complementary copies for themselves). Although serials make pirating easy, most pirates will find a crack if they want to. Serials give you the easiest means to do what you mentioned and sell it through 3rd parties, in shops and also allow people who install from a cover disk to just phone up, or e-mail and get a serial so they can purchase it.

Sure you'll have some people doing it illegally, but the number of legitimate customers you'd get I think would be huge and you'd easy shoot past Real and other competing products as your product is far superior.

Anyway, thanks for considering alternative methods. The one u currently have would definitely give me personally problems as well as other users.
Logged

zevele1

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #58 on: May 05, 2002, 05:57:51 am »

OK
To sell throught third parties is quite a really important issue
In fact the only problem can be to solve the few cases of heavy reformat users.You may find a one to one way for the few on this forum in this case
Newcomers will have to stick to the new rules.In fact the rules for them,they do not know the 7.2 licence,so the 8 ones are not new rules to them,just rules
let's see
Logged

tullio

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 71
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #59 on: May 05, 2002, 06:07:55 am »

JimH

Extremely interesting thread and very instructive.  I've just tuned in, but I've read all the messages.

Given the restrictions you detailed in your most recent post, it seems the simplest solution would be to follow the suggestions to use the new system but also offer a "power user' or "pro" license for a higher price (double the base version?) that would provide unlimited reinstalls and perhaps other bonuses, such as free or discounted future upgrades.  (I assume it's too late to add bonus features to the software.)  This seems to be fairly common practice.  It seems to me that the pay-for-each-extra-reinstall system would be cumbersome.  However a single, up-front payment for 5 (or more) extra reinstalls plus some other goodies offers the buyer a reasonable, straight forward option.

You have an excellent product that is priced very, very low, by any standards.  (I'm surprised no one has mentioned how little $25 will buy in today's economy--a couple of soft drinks and two tickets to a bad movie will just about do it.)  A higher priced version would still be a bargain.
Logged

RhinoBanga

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1703
  • Developer
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #60 on: May 05, 2002, 06:15:19 am »

Jim,

Going back to an earlier point you said "People were not backing up licenses, and they expected us to supply them on demand. Selling a product at $24.98 and providing this level of personal service is impossible. So we created an automated way to recover a license."

Why couldn't you have implemented a facility where people entered the email address they used to register the software and you emailed the encrypted license back to them instead of this restore limitation?

If people changed their email address in the meantime you could provide a screen where they are allowed to change it, say, once every 3 months.   This would work with 3rd party sales also since every internet mail order company require a valid email address prior to purchase and that is the one that would get registered in your database.


On a separate note can you confirm that when you uninstall MJ and reinstall MJ on the same machine it will not count against your restore limit?
Logged

zevele1

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #61 on: May 05, 2002, 06:26:44 am »

Yes MJ at $25 is a bargain.When you realise all the fonctions you get.But to put a higger tag may put people away to buy it

Maybe a very stupid question.Concerning average users.If you use systeme restore on ME-K2-XP and you have to restore to a point before you had MJ on your system,do you need a new licence to run it again?
Logged

sekim

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #62 on: May 05, 2002, 06:35:56 am »

Jim,

I like both Doofs' and Tullios' examples. I'd be willing to pay much more for this then what I have already. A 'pro license' makes sense, with the added benefit of upgrades later. I don't format weely, monthly, ever if I could get away with it. So plain to see that I'm not a power user. MJ is 'hobbyware' for me. Gets me what I want, but no plans to make a career out of using this stupid machine. There are more things in life to do then worry about whether I'm gonna **** this up and lose a license. Most cases would dictate it being the users fault for such catastrophic events. That said, I would know if it was MY fault and wouldn't expect to hold you folks responsible for my actions. Maybe I'm in the minority here, I'll accept the blame for my own stupidity. 5 restores per year, for me, is plenty. However, valid points are made about how other software gets used. Referring to DVDs and CDs here.

I can just about imagine the juggling act you guys are trying to pull off right now. Speaking of that, I need to do some of my own. Tee time at noon. Hope you all get this staightened out. Losing users because a license problem doesn't make sense to me. Hold your fire - just my opinion.

Good Luck Jim and company, whatever you decide is fine with me. I like your product and will go along with whatever type of licensing you come up with. It is, afterall, YOUR software.
Logged

Ilmar

  • Regular Member
  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • JOATYou mean besides music?
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #63 on: May 05, 2002, 09:29:12 am »

Hi

Jumping in at the deep end again...

To produce two levels of ownership, or a deeper pro version would possibly be self defeating. It will be the highest version that would be cracked, copied, whatever. The price differential will encourage people to look for a crack or illegal copy.

To release software using different methods of delivery: internet, store or bundled with new product, you would have to stick to a serial number solution. As soon as you provide a product on CD, you have opened Pandora's box, your program can be copied and/or hacked with ease.

From that point you need to measure what the potential damage is from piracy as compared to the sales potential from marketing the product more widely. More dangerous is corporate theft, where huge chunks of reverse engineered code end up in an operating system or web browser (...as if!! )or simply concepts are stolen, and appear in competitors' products. At the end of the day it is the race of the Red Queen, where you must keep moving and developing twice as fast as your competitors.

Piracy is like shoplifting, where the consumer pays for it in higher prices. Speaking of which, look at Ahead's Nero, where every single release is cracked or rogue serials are produced. They release new versions every month or even more frequently, and every time they are cracked. Ahead must be spending a fortune on anti piracy... and to no real effect.

But Ahead have won big. Their product is probably No 1, certainly more desirable than the Roxio/Adaptec, and they have made less mistakes. But continued piracy of their product reinforces to the world how good their product is, and their attempts at defeating the pirates are just wasted Euros/Deutchmarks.

Jim, you need to hold your chin up, forget the pirates (but don't make it easy for them) and forge onwards to Never Never Land! Use the model that gets you most sales and widest coverage.

Ilmar
Logged
Ilmar

"We make a living by what we get,
But we make a life by what we give"
     Sir WInston Churchill

Cotton-Eyed|PLS|Loo

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #64 on: May 05, 2002, 09:46:59 am »

Ironically having a higher price may change which segment buys MJ - but you could end up with 50x the cusomer base. We've seen that starting off with a specialized offering until you have some market and then moving to a more broadly usefull offering is a good strategy for many products and services.

I am not a lawyer. I think the debate around multimedia licenses (songs, videos) and the debate around software licenses come down to the same question. Is it possible to sell a license to use something which is also sold "all out"? I think the answer is clear - it is reasonable to licenses products which you use in your home as well is to sell similar products. WIth audio the question is - does the delivery method affect the ownership type. I think the answer is less clear. I would expect that buying software on a CD in a store has the same implications as buying music on a CD in a store and I believe that a license to listen to a song is more valuable than an unusable copy of it.

If there were no free (beer) alternative I would pay $400 for MJ 7.2 I would rather pay $2/day for any day I use it or $X<2/day for all days. Of course if the commercial product is that valuable then the software engineering community builds a free one - this drives some people nuts

I think it's clear that as things become mature and commodotized, service becomes an import addition to offerings.

I think software (audio or executable or ...) licensing is a valid monitization scheme.

Thanks MJ (monkey person   ) for providing an incredibly robust multi-media control center. It is a useful and pleasant interface for the coolest part of my home stereo system. Free.

Ram

BTW My jukebox holds 4000  tracks uncompressed off of CDs I own and streams it out over RG6. I aniticipate buying or licensing MJ8, your choice of course, once it's been out for a few months.
Logged

JMClark

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #65 on: May 05, 2002, 09:55:44 am »

Ilmar -
"Use the model that gets you most sales and widest coverage."

JimH
This is key.  But also keep the cost down.  Software protection schemes require maintaince and customer service on the part of JRiver.  How can you get around it?  There will always be someone with a story.  I think this software should be in a colored box at CostCo and WalMart.  Go for volume, low maintenance.  Spend your hard earned revenues and development energy on continuing to develop the best bug-free software on the market.

I like the Pro idea in an earlier post.  Package the product at $24.95 fot the general public.  Offer special customization features, pop and click removal, interfaces with Creative audigy and HiFi equip, etc. for power users.  Charge $74.95 for the Pro software.  

JMClark
Logged

claudio

  • Regular Member
  • Galactic Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #66 on: May 05, 2002, 12:02:35 pm »

Just to add my voice to the chorus, I also feel that for my usage the new licencing scheme is a step backward respect the previous mechanism. I did not have a problem backing up my licence, and I would have not been really upset to pay again if I had lost all my backups (just as I would not expect a vendor to freely replace a Sw CD if I lose it).

I trust that JRiver will adapt, as I've personally witnessed this multiple times in the past, if this creates too much avoc... but , even if I understand some of the reasons why you are doing this, I still see this as a step backward. I think the amount of discussion is generating here is a preview of what you are going to see on reviews/message boards etc after the release.

I share the view expressed by other that you should get your well deserved money by selling new versions with the level of enhancements that we have come to expect for you, and just keep the licensing scheme as transparent-unrestricted as possible. In fact I feel that the version to version license validity  is in too much generous on your side: a licence at the price you are selling it should just cover one version, and minor upgrades for bug fixes. Anything else requires a new licence.

Most of the users would feel they are getting their money worth, and will not feel irritated that they have to repay for the same sw multiple times

Claudio
Logged

Bob|PLS|L.

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #67 on: May 05, 2002, 01:52:02 pm »

To JimH,

It is no mean feat to craft solid general useage software and make money at it in today's crowded marketplace.  I think MJ is a good piece of software in very many ways.  It is important to remember that there are lots of free and low-cost alternatives (although not as well made or fully featured) to MJ.  A restrictive policy like the new one being tested is bound to be negatively received and push people to explore these alternatives, many of which will seem viable at first examination.  As said earlier in this thread, I think the controversy here is just a preview of the general public's reaction.

In my experience, the best defense against piracy (and I do believe that is the main thrust of the new license policy) is to keep releasing new and better versions on a regular basis that take advantage of technical advances and the enhancement of the feature set.  Along those lines I agree with a previous poster that you could easily charge for each new version at the current price.

As to bundling with third parties, I hope this happens.  I would suggest an older or "lite" version such as audio card companies do with versions of audio editing and looping software.

And on a final note:  I think you might be surprised how many people are currently or in the future will be using your software as a digital media server for their home.  Your new policy makes this much more difficult for them.

I wish you luck right now.  Pricing, registration and ease of use policies are some of the most difficult a software supplier (or any company for that matter) faces.  It would be a shame for MJ to lose a piece of the good will and support of its client base at this important point in its evolution for a questionable result.

You are to be highly commended for your willingness to debate this issue in this forum.  It also speaks volumes to your integrity, heart and intelligence (IMHO).  Thanks for making MJ a terrific piece of software and running a company that cares about its customers and employees (which is how it appears to me).

Regards,

Bob L.
Logged

Brook

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #68 on: May 05, 2002, 01:58:41 pm »

I've just read the entire thread, and it is quite interesting.  The biggest concern I had when I first read this was a 'worst-case' scenario that I'm sure none of us wants to happen, but could still happen.  Let me explain. . .

After I found out how wonderful this software was, I decided it was going to be my mp3 player for the foreseeable future.  I took the plunge and bought it.  I've spent many many hours 'customizing' Media Jukebox and its library of my MP3s with database entry categories, etc.  This is work that I do not want to lose.  Its worth far more than the $25 I paid for Media Jukebox - I'd say its worth hundreds of dollars to me.  

With the new licensing scheme, my basic concern is what will happen if JRiver goes out of business.  Of course, none of us want that to happen, but what if it does?  None of us will be able to restore our licenses.  All of the effort we put into categorizing our libraries of thousands of mp3s will be lost (most of the data is in a proprietary MJ database - not in the MP3 files themselves).  Not only will we have lost the $25 we spent on Media Jukebox.  We will have lost the 'value added' efforts we put into our libraries.

If I had known that this licensing scheme was coming down the path, I probably would not have spent all of the time I did creating my library database.  The licensing scheme makes it too large of a risk; I could lose all of my work.

Luckily, I still have some old version 8 betas that work pretty well, and that use the old registraion method.  They're backed up, and so is my old .RRG registration.  So, hopefully, I'll be OK on this.  But I'd really rather keep upgrading.  And its certainly possible that if I use the 'newer' V8 software, the library of the 'newer' software may not be compatible with the old Beta software (haven't tried it so I don't know).  If so, any 'additional work' done to my database after I switched to the newer licensing software would be lost, as it wouldn't 'restore' into the old beta software.

Anyway, as Jim said, they have two choices for the release version of MJ8 at this point due to time constraints: The old method, or the new method.  There simply isn't time to create a different new method.  I personally vote for keeping the old method.  It has flaws, but it keeps customers happier.  License distribution can be modified and automated 'after the fact'.  For example, .RRG files can be emailed to users rather than (or in addition to) setting up a custom port to send the info from the license server to MJ directly.  And a web site can be set up that verifies a user's identity, and then re-emails the .RRG file to them automatically so that JRiver employees don't have to provide the personal interaction.  In addition, other 'quick fixes' could be put into MJ8 before release that 'automatically' backed up the license, or that provided more strong suggestions that the user do so.

Then as 'major' new versions come out, MJ can require a new license at that time (old .RRG file won't work).  They can charge for the upgrade or not - depending upon what they want to do.  By requiring new .RRGs on new releases, they keep 'stolen' .RRGs from being used indefinitely.  But if someone doesn't want to upgrade, or if JRiver goes out of business, those who have backed up their .RRG licenses for their current version will NEVER be disadvantaged.

IF JRiver had the luxury of more time to look at this and try to make more people happier (including themselves), I think it would be a good idea to come up with a list of requirements.  Hopefully, a scheme could be developed that met all requirements.  That is unlikely, however, and some compromises would have to be made.  As a result, some people might not be happy.  You can't make everyone happy unless you can define all requirements that people might have, and then meet ALL of them.  That probably won't happen, but hopefully a scheme could be designed that met most of them, and that kept most people happy.

As a start, here are some requirements I think are important for users and for JRiver's business.  Feel free to add your own:

*) Owners of MJ should ALWAYS be able to install/reinstall their current purchased version of MJ on one of their computers as long as they've saved their license.  This includes: Re-installs, re-formats, 2nd computer installs, installs if JRiver is out-of-business, installs of old paid version if new, unpaid version is all that JRiver sells, etc.

*) Licenses should be designed in a way to discourage or prevent sharing or distribution.  (e.g. embed users's full name and credit card info into license and let purchasers know this is happening so that they will be less likely to want to share their license with others.)

*) Licenses should be installable either automatically (via port 80), or manually via entering the license information from a sheet of paper or from a licence file.

*) Software should not require an internet connection to register.  (i.e. license should be manually installable via user typing, copying license file from floppy, or copying license file from CD-R)

*) Users should have the ability to maintain their privacy (other than buying the license).  Thus, software should never have to communicate to JRiver or any other service EVER (unless the user chooses to use a service for CDDB or Album Cover downloads or such).  No Spyware, no check-the-license-ware, no "ET phone home / MJ phone home", etc.

*) If the user has 'lost' his license, he should be able to get a replacement from JRiver after providing proof of purchase.

*) The 'replacement license' methodology should be automated to prevent a lot of overhead for workers at JRiver.  It can, however, include some manual work on the part of the purchaser as long as instructions are available.

*) If replacement of licenses causes a lot of effort for JRiver, JRiver should have the right to charge a 'reasonable' fee to re-issue the license.  (e.g. one free re-issue per year, and after that, you've gotta pay $5.)

*) JRiver should have the right to limit the number of requests for replacement licenses to a reasonable number - i.e. people should NOT be losing their licenses.

*) Software should encourage or almost 'force' people to make backup copies of their license to prevent users from having to call JRiver to get replacements.  (Don't forget that not all computers have floppies, so 'forcing' a backup may be difficult)

*) Software should automatically save an on-disk backup of the license in a location that is likely to be saved by the user if the user transitions to a new computer or re-installs the operating system (in My Documents, for example).  On a re-install, it should know to look there in case it can't find the license information in the registry or in the MJ directory.

*) New license files should be required within a reasonable time (say 30 days) of an upgrade to prevent 'stolen' licenses from continuing to work on new versions.  The new license files should be distributed to registered licensees of the software.  (If user doesn't upgrade, old license file will
continue to work.)  New license files for minor upgrades or recent purchasers should be free.  New license
files for a new version of software should charge a reasonable upgrade fee (around 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost of new software).

If you can think of any other reasonable 'requirements' that would protect either your or JRiver's interests without un-necessarily infringing on the other party's needs, please suggest them.
Logged

nila

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #69 on: May 05, 2002, 03:08:11 pm »

Wow.
That was a big list of requirements.
It'll take them a while just to read those Next Page

I agree that JRiver giving free upgrades for life is more than generous and is also probably not the best policy for them to keep making themselves money. They want to make sure they never become so successful that they do themselves out of business (ie the whole world buys a lisense and is then entitled to permenant upgrades but there is no one new to buy the product so no further money can go to the team).
Charging for every upgrade is reasonable although might upset some customers who say purchase the product and then a new version is released within the next month and they are then left with an older copy. This however could be solved by just giving warnings of expected release dates of new versions so it is up to the customers if they want to wait or if they want to buy it right there and then and then pay for an upgrade.

Another solution, which I think would make everyone love JRiver (obviously not as much as the current hugely generous way they are doing it, but compared to other companies) is to give all users ONE major upgrade. If they buy version 8 they can get version 9 for free and all 9.x.x's too. For version 10 and upwards they then have to pay an upgrade fee of as someone suggested, maybe half the cost of the software. This would be pretty fair and I think most people would feel satisfied with it. No one would ever end up having just purchased a lisense and then having a new version released as they'd be entitled to this version too.

I also think JRiver should specify how many computers the lisense is for in their EULA clearly (and possibly somewhere more obvious than this as EULA's are usually long and tedious and often not read). Then offer an add on fee per extra computer people with to use it on. This doesn't necessarily have to be enforced by copy protection but it would give legal grounds to sue anyone blatently abusing it should the need arise and also, a lot of people dont mind following the law and would just pay the extra cost per computer they wanted it on around their house if it wasn't too expensive.
I agree with the statement that Media Jukebox could lead the way as a Music server for a home and providing a cheap method of getting it on all the computers in the house is something people would love.
Logged

Doof

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5908
  • Farm Animal Stupid
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #70 on: May 05, 2002, 03:31:01 pm »

Nila> You're a little confused about the way things are with the upgrades. JRiver has historically given users ONE free upgrade. If you bought a version 6 license then it will work with 7, 7.1, and 7.2 but not 8. Version 7 works with version 8, but not 8.1 (last I heard).

Personally, I'd charge for every major upgrade, and let the user have the minor upgrades for free. For $25 I can't imagine anybody complaining too much about having to buy the next major version if they want it. It would be advisable to grandfather those licenses in that previously came with a free major upgrade, though, as I a lot of people purchase MJ knowing that they're getting that major upgrade and then if they found out later that wasn't the case, it would be bad bad bad. Next Page
Logged

nila

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #71 on: May 05, 2002, 04:54:08 pm »

Ah ok, from the posts it sounded like they did unlimited upgrades for free which I was thinking was ridiculasly generous Next Page
I think one upgrade is a pretty good policy. It really encourages customers to buy it as they feel like they're getting even better value for their money as it will continue to last into the future and therefore not giving them software that is going to be outdated soon.
Sure most would pay for the upgrade but this makes you make all the customers LOVE YOu so they'll stick to the product over competitors.
For those who think: I'll just stick with the non pro version this is also an extra incentive to get their cash off them Next Page.

I think it's quite a smart move to get an increased customer base fast.
Logged

KingSparta

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 20063
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #72 on: May 05, 2002, 05:39:58 pm »

Doof

diddo doof
Logged
Retired Military, Airborne, Air Assault, And Flight Wings.
Model Trains, Internet, Ham Radio, Music
https://MyAAGrapevines.com
https://centercitybbs.com
Fayetteville, NC, USA

JMClark

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #73 on: May 05, 2002, 07:37:36 pm »

JimH
I hadn't even considered Brook's point:  Time spemt tuning 1000's of music files with album info, replay gain, comments, notes for MJ8, etc.  Both JRiver and the users have a vested interest in the software's success.

Charge for every major upgrade.  Only grandfather if purchase is made within xx months  (say 2 months) of an upgrade to encourge newcommers to purchase and not WAIT FOR THE NEXT RELEASE.

JamesClark
Logged

Scronch

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #74 on: May 05, 2002, 07:42:01 pm »

This thread is too long to read in its entirety, so if someone has already said this, oh well.

Do whatever you want.  It's your software.  This is America.  If people don't like it, they won't buy from you.

But it's still nice that you ask.

Scronch
Logged

JMClark

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #75 on: May 05, 2002, 08:06:00 pm »

This isn't Russia. This isn't Russia is it?  CADDYSHACK
Logged

Bob L.

  • Guest
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #76 on: May 05, 2002, 08:33:16 pm »

Hello Scronch (and JimH),

Although this is a long thread, that in itself is significant.  I assume that the majority of responders here are version 8 buyers or frequent interact participant/readers, a fairly small sample of MJ users.  I once read an article about customer relations that said for every complaint you get, there are ten more people out there who never bothered to even tell you about the problem, who just find another supplier.  But each one of them does tell 10 more people about their problem.  Now multiply that by the small nature of this sample and you have hundreds, maybe thousands hearing about the problems with JRiver.  Now the upside is that every person who sees their problem seriously addressed, even if the final solution is less than perfect, becomes an advocate and tells other people about their positive experience.  I hope that's where this process is headed.  Bon chance to us all.

Bob L.
Logged

tullio

  • Regular Member
  • Junior Woodchuck
  • **
  • Posts: 71
RE:The Ethics of Charging for Software
« Reply #77 on: May 06, 2002, 05:31:15 am »

Given the high quality of the suggestions made in this thread and the obvious loyalty and enthusiasm of the posters, J River could exploit this valuable resource and make software history.

Establish a peer review board made up from volunteer MJ devotees.  Anyone wanting additional installs (or other indulgences) would first submit a clear, cogent, and persuasive brief to the board.  The brief could contain supporting documentation, such as notes from a technician or receipts for a new hard drive.  All briefs would be required to adhere to strict standards of preparation, and failure, for example, to include a complete description of the petitioner's system would prompt immediate denial.  The board, in its collective wisdom, would consider the merits of the request and make a recommendation to J River.  Both spelling and neatness would count.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up