🚀 go-pugleaf

yes, we know what you want and that is to have a way to make people keep
paying you each year for soemthing they have already payed you for.
  how about coming out with newer apps to give people a reason to give 
you more money.


jo wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I have been writing an app that uses the Ongaurd components so that users
> need to register in order to get a serial code that unlocks their app. This
> works fine, but as the licence will only last a year, I would ideally like
> for their to be a nessage displayed at the end of the year that requires a
> new key to remove. I know the Onguard suit has a date component that allows
> a limited trial period, but thats not quiet what i want.
> 
> Any help appreciated!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:33:05 -0700, Jamie
<jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote:

>yes, we know what you want and that is to have a way to make people keep
>paying you each year for soemthing they have already payed you for.
>  how about coming out with newer apps to give people a reason to give 
>you more money.

Renting software to clients is not a bad form of business
- provided one is ethical

They get a much lower installation cost
- 'free' maintenance and upgrades
They don't get ripped off for modifications
They (and the client always has to pay in the end) do not have to
subsidise expensive sales costs.

The model works well for large expensive systems that have to 'evolve'
Also for systems that rely on an information feed

Having a steady, known, revenue stream is also handy for the
programmer, it gives them an incentive to develop the system (or risk
losing the client) and it saves negotiation with the dimmer layers of
management when modifications/enhancements are needed.

Personally I don't think it is appropriate for mass market software,
although I would not mind paying Borland an annual rent rather than
getting hit for upgrades.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:51:25 -0700, Jamie
<jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote:

>thats well and fine.
>   i don't mine paying a yearly fee for my virus scanning software
>because they are always updating things that need attention very often,
>  but the majority of software is not in this relm and i think the
>initial cost for the software should be enough.
>   Now paying and upgrade fee to new versions that really offer something
>over prior versions is acceptable.
>    Bottom line is unless the software requires constant changing or some
>database items need to be updated from the author to keep up with things
>on a daily bases i don't agree with it.
>    What the hell are we the DMV ? i mean we have to renew our
>registration for our auto's every 1/2 years depending where you are do 
>you agree with that and the cost that comes with it? what has channged 
>there ? nothing but higher rates the next time you do it.

I have been living off renting software for 19 years now
- my clients have never complained

Although a few times they have been offered alternatives costing
between 10 and 20 times the annual rental - up front.

Some software is appropriate for rental, other software is not.

Here in the UK we call the DMV the DVLC and they are a bunch of
idiots, I have watched them screwing up two projects.
But what does one expect from bureaucrats ?

thats well and fine.
   i don't mine paying a yearly fee for my virus scanning software
because they are always updating things that need attention very often,
  but the majority of software is not in this relm and i think the
initial cost for the software should be enough.
   Now paying and upgrade fee to new versions that really offer something
over prior versions is acceptable.
    Bottom line is unless the software requires constant changing or some
database items need to be updated from the author to keep up with things
on a daily bases i don't agree with it.
    What the hell are we the DMV ? i mean we have to renew our
registration for our auto's every 1/2 years depending where you are do 
you agree with that and the cost that comes with it? what has channged 
there ? nothing but higher rates the next time you do it.



J French wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:33:05 -0700, Jamie
> <jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>yes, we know what you want and that is to have a way to make people keep
>>paying you each year for soemthing they have already payed you for.
>> how about coming out with newer apps to give people a reason to give 
>>you more money.
> 
> 
> Renting software to clients is not a bad form of business
> - provided one is ethical
> 
> They get a much lower installation cost
> - 'free' maintenance and upgrades
> They don't get ripped off for modifications
> They (and the client always has to pay in the end) do not have to
> subsidise expensive sales costs.
> 
> The model works well for large expensive systems that have to 'evolve'
> Also for systems that rely on an information feed
> 
> Having a steady, known, revenue stream is also handy for the
> programmer, it gives them an incentive to develop the system (or risk
> losing the client) and it saves negotiation with the dimmer layers of
> management when modifications/enhancements are needed.
> 
> Personally I don't think it is appropriate for mass market software,
> although I would not mind paying Borland an annual rent rather than
> getting hit for upgrades.

who ask you anway? As you know nothing about me, or my project, you opinions
are worthless! So get off your horse and let people who know the answer
help......................

Although I have already got the answer ;) so i'm posting this just to be
annoying ;)
"Jamie" <jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10cra4b6fmo83dc@corp.supernews.com...
> thats well and fine.
>    i don't mine paying a yearly fee for my virus scanning software
> because they are always updating things that need attention very often,
>   but the majority of software is not in this relm and i think the
> initial cost for the software should be enough.
>    Now paying and upgrade fee to new versions that really offer something
> over prior versions is acceptable.
>     Bottom line is unless the software requires constant changing or some
> database items need to be updated from the author to keep up with things
> on a daily bases i don't agree with it.
>     What the hell are we the DMV ? i mean we have to renew our
> registration for our auto's every 1/2 years depending where you are do
> you agree with that and the cost that comes with it? what has channged
> there ? nothing but higher rates the next time you do it.
>
>
>
> J French wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:33:05 -0700, Jamie
> > <jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>yes, we know what you want and that is to have a way to make people keep
> >>paying you each year for soemthing they have already payed you for.
> >> how about coming out with newer apps to give people a reason to give
> >>you more money.
> >
> >
> > Renting software to clients is not a bad form of business
> > - provided one is ethical
> >
> > They get a much lower installation cost
> > - 'free' maintenance and upgrades
> > They don't get ripped off for modifications
> > They (and the client always has to pay in the end) do not have to
> > subsidise expensive sales costs.
> >
> > The model works well for large expensive systems that have to 'evolve'
> > Also for systems that rely on an information feed
> >
> > Having a steady, known, revenue stream is also handy for the
> > programmer, it gives them an incentive to develop the system (or risk
> > losing the client) and it saves negotiation with the dimmer layers of
> > management when modifications/enhancements are needed.
> >
> > Personally I don't think it is appropriate for mass market software,
> > although I would not mind paying Borland an annual rent rather than
> > getting hit for upgrades.
>

did i hit a sore spot?
   kind of confirms my suspicion of your request.

jo wrote:

> who ask you anway? As you know nothing about me, or my project, you opinions
> are worthless! So get off your horse and let people who know the answer
> help......................
> 
> Although I have already got the answer ;) so i'm posting this just to be
> annoying ;)
> "Jamie" <jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:10cra4b6fmo83dc@corp.supernews.com...
> 
>>thats well and fine.
>>   i don't mine paying a yearly fee for my virus scanning software
>>because they are always updating things that need attention very often,
>>  but the majority of software is not in this relm and i think the
>>initial cost for the software should be enough.
>>   Now paying and upgrade fee to new versions that really offer something
>>over prior versions is acceptable.
>>    Bottom line is unless the software requires constant changing or some
>>database items need to be updated from the author to keep up with things
>>on a daily bases i don't agree with it.
>>    What the hell are we the DMV ? i mean we have to renew our
>>registration for our auto's every 1/2 years depending where you are do
>>you agree with that and the cost that comes with it? what has channged
>>there ? nothing but higher rates the next time you do it.