|
March 11, 2003
Charging For Silk
What are people's issues with companies charging for new versions of previously free software if the software is a significant change from the predecessor and the original, free version would still be available (but never updated)? At least, this is the plan for Silk 2.0 because it is such a huge change from 1.1. The current plan is to leave all the current features of Silk 1.1 in (but that might change...) and release a beta of Silk 2.0 as soon as someone makes my movie. (Slava...)   Posted by rosyna at March 11, 2003 04:01 PMRelated:
Comments
It's fine to charge for a major upgrade, but I'd recommend that a free version will still be available or else people will get pissed. Posted by: Matt Martinez on March 11, 2003 7:08 PMI think you should change the name. Adding "Pro" to the name is a common way to do it... although I'm not sure if it applies here. Posted by: Visa on March 12, 2003 2:41 AMOr "Extreme"... that always gets people excited. Oh, and make sure you really emphasize the X, because you wouldn't want anyone forgetting that you're programming for Mac OS X. Posted by: Chris on March 12, 2003 3:12 AMI think just marketing the original as Silk Light would be fine. Posted by: on March 12, 2003 3:59 AMAnd then after SylkLite, make it SylkWrangler for a cheap $49... Posted by: Stef on March 12, 2003 8:40 AMI've got no problem with free software that gets charged for as long as the new features are worth it and its priced right. I'm all for a free Silk called SilkFree with just the basic Silk features and a $10 version called Silk with all features enabled. I certainly would buy it... Make it boxed, throw in a nicely printed user guide, send it over and I''ll pay even more (just kiddin'). BTW: what happened to Silk 1.5? Posted by: Ton on March 12, 2003 10:05 AMI see no problem, but I would change the name so that things don't get confused. Posted by: Terri on March 12, 2003 2:23 PM
I've been using the alpha of Silk and it is indeed a completely new animal. And might I add very impressive! I personally will pay for it and I'm sure others will also. Can't wait to see the finished product. Posted by: blikum on March 12, 2003 4:22 PMI think folks would be fine with separate Silk Lite and Silk Pro versions. All I would like to see is that Silk Lite (same features as Silk 1.1) be updated to use the current APE system instead of its own Login Item. This would be consistent with recent FruitMenu releases, etc. Posted by: Bas on March 12, 2003 6:02 PMI don't mind you paying. Actually, I've been waiting for the final of the new Silk forever. Tbe Alpha's have been buggy, but if you can make it flawless and allow me to play around with the final for a while before I decide to pay (Since that Mousie one seems to turn off after a while. Maybe a 30 or 15-day trial) that would be great. And I will absolutely pay the $10 to change the fonts. I paid $7 to add labels back and $7 to bring back WindowShades (Two features I never thought I'd need in X, but as soon as I tried it, I couldn't pass it up.) and to change the fonts, that would be great. But, will the new Silk fix alignment with certain fonts? It looks really bad on fonts not meant to be used when they get pushed down a few pixels and get cut off. Posted by: Jason Anderson on March 12, 2003 10:11 PMit's not like you guys are charging an-arm-and-a-leg for your stuff... i'd fully support you charging for ANY product you put out; they are all eloquent pieces of OS-extending goodness. thanks for all the great work! Posted by: bubba on March 14, 2003 12:46 AMTen dollar is so menial in today's software market. Seven dollars was a flat giveaway. Free...people still complain. Great haxies, great Developer equals no complaints charging for Silk. Also, if there is such a vast difference I would alleviate the basic Silk all together to avoid people using a haxie that is no longer representative of the new Silk Metamorphosis. Posted by: CREB on March 14, 2003 7:48 PM |