Login / Register 0 items | $0.00 New @ KVR
User avatar
pdxindy
KVRAF
 
13431 posts since 2 Feb, 2005, from in the wilds

Postby pdxindy; Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:07 am

robotmonkey wrote:First, I think no-one expects to have support for second hand products after their warranty period is expired. So I can not see how this could be any problem at all.


Lots of people do expect that... I am confident to say that a majority of second hand buyers (at least on KVR) would expect a bug they encounter to be fixed. If there were an update that fixed some bugs or addressed compatibility with an OS change, they would expect to obtain it. If that update somehow caused their current installation to have some new problem, they would expect it to be addressed by the developer. How many user complaints have I witnessed about these things right here on KVR? Lots!

Is there a warranty that expires for software instruments and effects? I don't remember seeing such a thing on the EULA's that I have read. It is not like an original purchaser no longer expects support after one year. They expect OS updates and bug fixes... even years after initial release.
deleted
 

Postby deleted; Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:27 am

DELETED
quincy
KVRAF
 
1596 posts since 15 Nov, 2003, from London, UK

Postby quincy; Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:34 am

michi_mak wrote:
quincy wrote:...
The point is, as I think someone above has said, that to expect an infinite lifetime of support for any number of users for the single initial product cost is just not a viable business model for most companies doing this professionally...


so you take the same approach that every user selling his license keeps it running???
nobody denies that there are crooks exploiting a transfer but what about the others ( the honest ones ) - why punish them ???


Perhaps I didn't explain clearly. It isn't about punishing the legitimate users, of course that would be wrong.

The point I was trying to make is that a brand new user buying the license is not the same as an existing user continuing to use the product. If a new user gets most of their needed support in the first short period of owning the product (setting it up, compatibility with host, understanding the features etc) then they will likely still need some occasional support after that but nothing significant.

If the license is then sold, the new user is a brand new entity with a brand new set of support needs. The company probably has to go through many the same motions with each new user. That takes time and costs money.

To put it another way, for example, one user having he product for 3 years is not the same as 3 users each owning it for a year then selling it on. The support load/cost is far more for 3 users than it is for the one original user for 3 times the duration.
User avatar
Urs
u-he
 
22224 posts since 7 Aug, 2002, from Berlin

Postby Urs; Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:38 am

michi_mak wrote:
quincy wrote:...
The point is, as I think someone above has said, that to expect an infinite lifetime of support for any number of users for the single initial product cost is just not a viable business model for most companies doing this professionally...


so you take the same approach that every user selling his license keeps it running???
nobody denies that there are crooks exploiting a transfer but what about the others ( the honest ones ) - why punish them ???

Experience?

I implemented the 9-month restriction after I experienced that groups of people would just transfer a software from one person to the other, all within a couple of days. Then, when a new plugin came out, the same guys did the same thing.

It's not about punishing the legit user, it's self defense against the shitholes.

So please don't blame *us*, blame *them*.

Or do you blame Microsoft/Apple for having to type in your password a few times a day? - It's because there's so much criminal energy in designers of malware. *They* are to blame.
quincy
KVRAF
 
1596 posts since 15 Nov, 2003, from London, UK

Postby quincy; Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:44 am

Urs wrote:So please don't blame *us*, blame *them*.


Well said.
robotmonkey
KVRAF
 
1973 posts since 20 Jun, 2012

Postby robotmonkey; Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:57 am

pdxindy wrote:
robotmonkey wrote:First, I think no-one expects to have support for second hand products after their warranty period is expired. So I can not see how this could be any problem at all.


Lots of people do expect that... I am confident to say that a majority of second hand buyers (at least on KVR) would expect a bug they encounter to be fixed. If there were an update that fixed some bugs or addressed compatibility with an OS change, they would expect to obtain it. If that update somehow caused their current installation to have some new problem, they would expect it to be addressed by the developer. How many user complaints have I witnessed about these things right here on KVR? Lots!

Is there a warranty that expires for software instruments and effects? I don't remember seeing such a thing on the EULA's that I have read. It is not like an original purchaser no longer expects support after one year. They expect OS updates and bug fixes... even years after initial release.


I think the Waves model is one possible way to do it. You have one year support plan included with software. During that time you get all the updates (and new plugins added to the bundles) and support for free. After that you have to rely on community support or renew your support contract. I know that Waves has got some hate here because of that, but this is a very common practice with a lot of specialty software in other fields.

Another option would be to make it much clearer that software is supported until the next big version comes out.

Supporting bug fixes and such is kind of much easier if you compared what it means in a physical world. If your physical product is broken, it would usually mean recall for all copies and replacing them with good ones. From a business perspective this means a lot of trouble. With software you can often fix bugs in a couple of days and you release it all once. I think this is often the reason why many companies these tend to release broken software.

Also, even though I'm sure there are a lot of dumb users who contact support with questions like "where's my VST plugin folder" and such, I think that there are not much reasons why people would contact support at all. If I think back all those years I have used music software, absolutely 100% of the cases where I have had to contact devs have been related to issues with copy protection. I have had to ask new hardware keys, beg for re-activations, license transfers, or there have been cases where the CP mechanism itself has been buggy. But I can not remember a single time where I have had issues with core functionality of any music software in a such way that it has made me contact support.
No signature here!
deleted
 

Postby deleted; Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:09 am

DELETED
User avatar
Urs
u-he
 
22224 posts since 7 Aug, 2002, from Berlin

Postby Urs; Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:33 am

michi_mak wrote:i don't blame this *us for demanding respect - i just don't understand why some devs can live with granting transfers and others refuse to grant transfers although both "kinds" of devs have the same issues with piracy ...
and moreover i can't understand why some consumers insist on NOT having granted rights...

I don't know why others don't do license transfers.

I do not believe though that those granted rights will persist, nor do I believe that the ruling is really all that positive. I think in the long run it would be beneficial for both developers and users if certain methods such as license transfer fees were allowed. Otherwise I believe that some of the things I posted before will inevitably happen.
User avatar
dalor
KVRAF
 
2498 posts since 1 Dec, 2004, from Sydney, Australia

Postby dalor; Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:33 am

Finally, someone makes sense in here.
User avatar
pdxindy
KVRAF
 
13431 posts since 2 Feb, 2005, from in the wilds

Postby pdxindy; Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:08 am

michi_mak wrote:
Urs wrote:
michi_mak wrote:
quincy wrote:...
The point is, as I think someone above has said, that to expect an infinite lifetime of support for any number of users for the single initial product cost is just not a viable business model for most companies doing this professionally...


so you take the same approach that every user selling his license keeps it running???
nobody denies that there are crooks exploiting a transfer but what about the others ( the honest ones ) - why punish them ???

Experience?

I implemented the 9-month restriction after I experienced that groups of people would just transfer a software from one person to the other, all within a couple of days. Then, when a new plugin came out, the same guys did the same thing.

It's not about punishing the legit user, it's self defense against the shitholes.

So please don't blame *us*, blame *them*.

Or do you blame Microsoft/Apple for having to type in your password a few times a day? - It's because there's so much criminal energy in designers of malware. *They* are to blame.


i don't blame this *us for demanding respect - i just don't understand why some devs can live with granting transfers and others refuse to grant transfers although both "kinds" of devs have the same issues with piracy ...
and moreover i can't understand why some consumers insist on NOT having granted rights...


So what you want is every developer to do exactly the same thing and never make any different choices in life... how boring...

The very last thing I would like to see is a subscription model... I would rather the developers have more freedom to choose what they want (and I am always free to choose not to buy under the conditions they set) regarding transfers and the like than see them pushed towards the subscription model...
glokraw
KVRAF
 
6514 posts since 6 Oct, 2004

Postby glokraw; Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:07 pm

A developer that allowed license transfers, could impose
a condition that support requests of second party purchasers,
would be presented only in a companies
public forum, or a subforum for such users, based on sales records.

This way, the full userbase and potential new customers would possibly
benefit from any exchanges, and proposed solutions, and an occasional
troublemaker could be culled.

Bugs reported by second hand owners, still have inherant value
when solved for the original, and future purchasers. :)

@pdxindy: freedom and variety are indeed fundamental to enjoying life,
running a successful business, and having a country that enemies
don't lightly mess with.
Amberience
KVRAF
 
7022 posts since 7 Mar, 2003, from Climbing the walls inside my mind

Postby Amberience; Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:26 am

michi_mak wrote:
then please tell me why other devs are able to prosper AND allow transfers?!?!
:roll:


Ever hear of a little thing called venture capital?
ObsoleteAcc99
Banned

Postby ObsoleteAcc99; Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:46 am

Urs wrote:What a mess.

I wonder if people who are in favour of this ruling actually see the ramifications?

What's transferrable is just the license to the software at the state of the license transfer. Thus anyone who buys an EU license second hand should be aware that *by law* he's not entitled for support or updates. That's a primal sucker.

How about the point of sale? We live in the age of internet. European vendors could simply use American servers and resellers and *whoop* the sale happened in the US. I guess some sales processors are already working on the move to legal safe havens. Thus, there'll be even less rights left for European software users in the long run.

Furthermore, some developers already allow for a number of installations. Bang. These licenses may not be transferable at all by this court ruling.

Lastly, the overall consensus is that this ruling forces EU software distribution to move into the cloud. Sooner or later no-one can shield his studio machine from trojans, viruses and sloppy wifi drivers because a huge amount of software will need to be internet enabled.

I find that pretty disturbing :-?

That said, we still allow for free license transfers after 9 months and we have no plans to enter the subscription business. Haven't had much of a problem there at all :)


I think you are mistaken re selling from the US. if the customer himself is in the EU then that makes no difference where they bought it from. However it makes a difference for the rest of the world, of course.

What do you mean about the "these licenses may not be transferrable at all by this court ruling".. do you mean stuff that uses C/R? Is that allowed to block the buyer from getting a response code?

From what i am reading it seems camel have done it right, again and again. Small fee..if you want to pass it on as is, no fee but no support and you supply the files.

Problem is some devs use this loophole to charge exorbitant transfer fees for official support.. Like Fxpansion for example, $50 fee for $99 product, or worse, for $29 no brainer . Very sad. I am sorry i am so black and white on that i really am, i have tried internally not to be, but i can't.
ObsoleteAcc99
Banned

Postby ObsoleteAcc99; Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:46 am

quincy wrote:
michi_mak wrote:HILLARIOUS :roll:

then please tell me why other devs are able to prosper AND allow transfers?!?!
:roll:


The truth is that a lot of developers don't prosper, they just about get by in what is a very competitive market.

Another truth is that most consumers have ZERO idea how much time and effort goes into designing, developing, coding, testing and marketing plugins and music software.

I think it is partly to do with the (IMO nasty, greedy) trend that intangible items e.g. MP3, software don't have as much value as a tangible item e.g. a toaster or a printed book.

I work for FXpansion, so for the last 2 years I have seen, first-hand, how much work is involved in the development of products like Tremor, Geist, DCAM Dynamics, Etch etc. It is significant, and it involves a number of people working full-time for a significant period. And then the support takes over, and you have to deal with all sorts from hobbyists who simply haven't read the instructions to professionals who are reliant on the software for their living.

The point is, as I think someone above has said, that to expect an infinite lifetime of support for any number of users for the single initial product cost is just not a viable business model for most companies doing this professionally. Few people are getting rich in this business, I can assure you, so most do it for the love of it.

It's a business like any other, and the model has to work, or the work can't continue. Ask any number of the indie devs from around here who have fallen by the wayside. If you want professional products, carefully designed and developed, and the support you need to use them, you have to pay a reasonable price and accept that most things in life aren't free, for good reason.

Hi Quincy nice to see you here, please tell me you are no the guy i had an altercation with at fxpansion :lol:
ObsoleteAcc99
Banned

Postby ObsoleteAcc99; Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:48 am

michi_mak wrote:
quincy wrote:...
The point is, as I think someone above has said, that to expect an infinite lifetime of support for any number of users for the single initial product cost is just not a viable business model for most companies doing this professionally...


so you take the same approach that every user selling his license keeps it running???
nobody denies that there are crooks exploiting a transfer but what about the others ( the honest ones ) - why punish them ???


I don't think the seller can have it running in fxpansions' case.. doesn't the software get de authorized by the license server before sale? Like waves, like overloud, plug in alliance, etc.

Those systems make perfect sense as it doesn't allow the seller to continue using.
PreviousNext

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Hosts & Applications (Sequencers, DAWs, Audio Editors, etc.)