Although I'm only a recent SpiderBasic user, I've been a PureBasic user for a very long time. Therefore I got/have got the progress of SpiderBasic by the way.
I want to share my thoughts about the update policy of Spiderbasic.
As a SpiderBasic customer you have included free updates in your license for 1 year.
But if you look at the update intervals of the last time, you will see that you will get one or two updates within this year. If you are "unlucky", you will only get a small interim release (e.g. the bugfix from 2.30 to 2.31).
So it depends on when you bought your license and a little bit on when Fred turns to SpiderBasic. I can fully understand that. Especially as a 2 man team has to take care of two products, their maintenance and marketing. There is no faster way to do this.
But that's exactly why I wonder if a different update policy would not be fairer for all buyers of the software. You could say, for example, that a licence contains 'n' updates or, for example, like the graphics suite I use. There you have all updates included until the next main review (so in that case I bought at V 1.83 and have all updates free until V 2.00 (exclusive)).
Not that I want to be stingy, but I see an injustice to the users at this point.
One could take this into consideration.
Greetings
Markus
My thoughts on the SpiderBasic update policy
My thoughts on the SpiderBasic update policy
SB 2.32 x86, Browser: Iron Portable V. 88.0.4500.0 (Chromium based), User age in 2023: 55y
"Happiness is a pet." | "Never run a changing system!"
"Happiness is a pet." | "Never run a changing system!"
Re: My thoughts on the SpiderBasic update policy
i agree
spiderbasic suffer from updates . . purebasic too but spiderbasic has NOT reach to mature level of PB yet
since it seems impossible for many reason for team to go faster its true that a new billing system, like you suggest you buy SB 1 you get all 1.x free
on the other hand, i would prefer, if there was a way to help, in order to get more updates
i believe it would help more the community, more updates than "lowering cots"
spiderbasic suffer from updates . . purebasic too but spiderbasic has NOT reach to mature level of PB yet
since it seems impossible for many reason for team to go faster its true that a new billing system, like you suggest you buy SB 1 you get all 1.x free
on the other hand, i would prefer, if there was a way to help, in order to get more updates
i believe it would help more the community, more updates than "lowering cots"
Christos
Re: My thoughts on the SpiderBasic update policy
I want to buy a life time license thing like PB, because I am not a full time coder, only coding twice a week. Buying a subscription based license is not suitable to me.
Re: My thoughts on the SpiderBasic update policy
I'm also unhappy with the update/license policy. It's not about the money. For me it's perfectly okay to pay for updates, especially if they bring new functionalitiy and/or fix important bugs. What I really wish is more frequent updates. Faster bug fix releases. More communication from developers about what is going on.
Re: My thoughts on the SpiderBasic update policy
For me, this is the main wish of both SB and PB.munfraid wrote:... More communication from developers about what is going on.
If you don't have the time or desire to run something like a blog yourself, choose someone from the community who will run it, and you will communicate only with him.
2B or not 2B = FF
Re: My thoughts on the SpiderBasic update policy
I agree as well. The initial plan was to provide several update a year, but personal issues prevented that. I hope it will be better next year, I will try to do more updates.
Re: My thoughts on the SpiderBasic update policy
My subscription expires next month and there was only 1 update from SB 2.30 to SB 2.31.
I also think an optional lifetime license would be better for this product,
so customers would be able to choose between yearly and lifetime license.
I also think an optional lifetime license would be better for this product,
so customers would be able to choose between yearly and lifetime license.
cya,
...Danilo
...Danilo
-
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:02 pm
Re: My thoughts on the SpiderBasic update policy
You can continue to use SpiderBasic after your update plan expires so you have the option of not renewing and just buying back in if a future version has a new feature you really want.
Re: My thoughts on the SpiderBasic update policy
I do recommend a lifetime license.
If I want to continue support Fred, I can donate or buy an official library (if there're something like a asset store etc.).
Or at least, a season pass(hate to say this, but this works pretty well for softwares/games) or major version based subscription is more pratical to a dev software.
If I want to continue support Fred, I can donate or buy an official library (if there're something like a asset store etc.).
Or at least, a season pass(hate to say this, but this works pretty well for softwares/games) or major version based subscription is more pratical to a dev software.
Re: My thoughts on the SpiderBasic update policy
I agree with you, and I think a life-time upgrade license option (even if it cost more) would help to solve this problem. It'll also give Fred a path to additional revenue.kurzer wrote:Although I'm only a recent SpiderBasic user, I've been a PureBasic user for a very long time. Therefore I got/have got the progress of SpiderBasic by the way.
I want to share my thoughts about the update policy of Spiderbasic.
As a SpiderBasic customer you have included free updates in your license for 1 year.
But if you look at the update intervals of the last time, you will see that you will get one or two updates within this year. If you are "unlucky", you will only get a small interim release (e.g. the bugfix from 2.30 to 2.31).
So it depends on when you bought your license and a little bit on when Fred turns to SpiderBasic. I can fully understand that. Especially as a 2 man team has to take care of two products, their maintenance and marketing. There is no faster way to do this.
But that's exactly why I wonder if a different update policy would not be fairer for all buyers of the software. You could say, for example, that a licence contains 'n' updates or, for example, like the graphics suite I use. There you have all updates included until the next main review (so in that case I bought at V 1.83 and have all updates free until V 2.00 (exclusive)).
Not that I want to be stingy, but I see an injustice to the users at this point.
One could take this into consideration.
Greetings
Markus