Doug:

Thanks for the info. I have always been impressed with and frequently recommend Stonefield's products, having both SDT and Stone Field Reports. My major concern is the amount of additional work (if any) on my part having to manage the number of end users who can run SFQ in my app. Can you describe in detail whats involved when a client decides to purchase an additional license for a new PC being added to their network? How is that managed in SFQ/my app?


>Hi Chris.
>
>>Not too thrilled with the stonefield "per user" license policy. I'd like to see them go back to a developer distribution policy.
>
>Yeah, it was a tough decision. Unfortunately, when I talked to my banker, he wouldn't let me out of my mortgage just because it would be better for the VFP community ;)
>
>Seriously, though, we feel that this is a better business model because it creates a win-win-win situation. The customer wins because they get something of value: the ability to create their own reports without having to bug you all the time. You win because you get the report writing monkey off your back and get a revenue stream by selling Stonefield Query licenses (some developers sell licenses for several hundred dollars per seat, so they actually make more money per license than we do). We win because we get a revenue stream from licenses.
>
>With 12 years of experience, I can tell you that the old, "royalty-free" model doesn't work for some types of products. What happens is that you buy one license from us, then include it in your applications, and give it away to the end-user. That's a win-lose-lose situation. The customer wins because they get something of value for free. You lose because you paid for something and now you're giving it away. We lose because we only sell one copy of the software. It's pretty hard to stay in business and continue to enhance and support the product with that business model. Believe me, we tried.
>
>I admit that it took me a long time to come to this mind-set. I was perfectly willing to sell Stonefield Query as a royalty-free product. However, once my business partner showed the financials to me, it became obvious that we'd either have to charge a *lot* more for the product, change business models, or stop producing the software. As a result of this change, we actually charge a lot *less* for the software now. Instead of being $299, the developer cost is only $99.
>
>I hope this helps explain our business model and why we can't go back to the old one and still stay in business.
>
>Doug