>>>>What do you think of if I say: "Licence Fee"?
>>>>
>>>>When I was asked this question I thought of a monthly (or yearly) fee paid to someone for software support and software upgrades.
>>>>
>>>>Is it nomal for software packages to charge both a price for buying the software and also a licence fee?
>>>>
>>>>Any thoughts (random or otherwise) are welcome.
>>>>
>>>>Einar
>>>
>>>Einar;
>>>
>>>I am not sure what “normal” is when it comes to business practices. A business will do whatever the customer will allow as far as extracting money for a service or product, if it is necessary to the customer. “Necessary”, may be a perception or a reality on the part of the customer. That is where Marketing and Sales take over and reality becomes obscured.
>>>
>>>“Normally”, well always, I have paid for software and have had to agree to its licensing terms, and conditions. Over the last five years or so in some cases you purchase software and an annual “subscription”, which will include upgrades and in some cases patches.
>>>
>>>A few years back a software company would sell a product and give patches for free. The business model of the software industry is dynamic and ever changing. Anything to make a buck! If you are willing to pay the software company will gladly take your money! :)
>>>
>>>To me the subscription based software offering means the following:
>>>
>>>1. Make a profit.
>>>
>>>2. Get the product to market ASAP – even if it has problems.
>>>
>>>3. Make a profit.
>>>
>>>4. Let the purchaser through his/her subscription pay for the resolution of anomalies (bugs). That part bothers me!
>>>
>>>5. Make a profit.
>>>
>>>Did I mention make a profit? :)
>>>
>>>I somehow dislike having to finance a software company to allow it to resolve bugs in its code, through my subscription! Integrity and morals have little to do with business. Laws control business practices. A company with a good product should last longer than a company that delivers garbage. That last statement is not always true, as you may know. Knowing how to stay in business is more important than having a good product or service.
>>
>>Tom,
>>
>>You mentioned subscription but Einar did'nt mentioned that in any way in his original post.
>>
>>So to me this means that you make a direct relation from subscription to paying a license fee per year to continue to use a given software.
>>
>>The difference I see between the two models is this:
>>
>>Subscription : You pay an amount to have the right to use a software. You stop paying and you can't use it no more.
>>
>>License : You bought a software but that software will always evolve so you pay a license to get all the updates, patches... for a year. You stop paying and you'll have to keep using the version you presently use with the possible bugs and you won't have access to the updates until you pay again for another license.
>>
>>You agree with that?
>
>Denis;
>
>>You agree with that?
>
>Yes and no! It depends upon which software we are in reference to. :)
>
>My experience with the software that I own is a mixed bag as far as how it is treated, the semantics and legal terms used.
>
>A few years ago I purchased software and received patches long after a new version was released. It was not uncommon for release dates for software (new versions) to be18 to 24 months. Terms used for updates were Service Packs, Maintenance version, and patch, to name just a few of the words used to describe resolution to a bug.
>
>I would like to purchase software that works as advertised but that is not always the case. The Marketing department describes all the glowing terms possible to entice the prospective buyer. However, sometimes there are problems and the purchaser does not always realize the benefit of a software feature immediately and sometimes never will.
>
>You use software at your own risk. You can hire an attorney to protest your dislike for how a software company has treated you. That will not resolve any of the issues described.
>
>A company that manufactures a hardware or software product is in an interesting place. If a company developed a perfect product, that is one that has all the features desired and never breaks, then you can state that technical excellence has been achieved. I worked for such a company. It’s name is Ampex, and they were innovators in the Audio/Video world. There are Video Tape Recorders and other Ampex equipment still in use at National Television Studios made in 1954. Ampex had over 20,000 employees and last time I inquired they had 55.
>
>So technical excellence can be great in theory (from an engineering point of view) and detrimental to a company’s survival.
>
>In general my understanding about many software license agreements is that you purchase the software and you own it and it is licensed to you for your use. In some cases you are not the owner! Check the 4 point type!
>
>Software may not work as advertised and the company who developed it is not responsible for how it operates or if it operates at all. Once you open the box you may not return it unless the media is defective.
>
>Attempting to be succinct on this topic is difficult as it has many facets.
>
>Caveat Emptor!
>
>Tom

Of the many ways there are to make apps here are the two that I think are the most common.

You begin an app. because you know there's a big market for it. No need to finish it. No need for it to be bug free. No need for it to do everything as advertised. The most important thing is to get it out the door and make money.

Now it's better that the price is high enough for this strategy to work. Why? because if those (customers) that bought it complain about things not working or not there as advertised you'll be luckier making them wait for patches or improvements if they paid a good price. They'll probably think "Well I already paid a lot of money for what I have and already our data is in there. So we'll wait and see for a while to see what is going to happen with what we asked for. If they don't respond then we'll change to another app." Statistics show that only a minority will change the app. because of all the promises of the company making the app. And after that the longer the wait the less the probability of them changing the application.

There will be patches released and improvements made but those won't be the priority. Priority is to sell a lot of that (unfinished) app so that potential competition won't really have the time to react.

This is how some make money fast without really delivering a complete app.



The other way is to work long and hard on making an app complete with keeping the bugs total as low as possible. In a word making an app. that even those making it would use it they had to <g>.


The second way should always be the way to go but the first option always complicates things. So because of it the perfect timing has to be applied for the release of the app. Bugs are ok as long as these are not major ones. It's ok if everything is not finished as long as the things not finished are not really major features.

Hmmm now it begins to look like a subset of the first way to make apps. Could it be that there's really one way to make apps? ;-)