Why don't developers offer payment in instalments?

[beely]

I don't know what your background is, but statements like "just pay a developer to do it in ten minutes" leads me to believe you're prone to hand waving. Sorry.

+1

Too much hand-wavium for me.

[basslinemaster]

See my previous post - you add ONE new item, it takes about three minutes, I do know how to set up e-commerce sites...

It's easy to trivialise things. The are more complicated factors here. What if the ecommerice site the dev uses doesn't support this? Or they use their own system and would have to build it in.

What? What if the e-commerce site the dev uses doesn't allow them to add new products?

In some circumstances it might be relatively easy but not all of them.

Give me some examples where an e-commerce site doesn't allow you to add new products... sheesh.

No, no need to change the customer database, I've just explained how it works with tokens/vouchers/points.

Ok, support request coming in - let's lookup this customer. Ok, he paid for one month of use of the product last year. So he's not a license holder. And no he's trying to sell his part license on to someone else on KVR... sheesh!

And? You tell him he can't sell it. Where is the problem? It isn't a "part license", it's a one month license, you can make it NFR. There. Problem solved. Like I said, you are looking for problems that don't exist.

You are being a bit naive in your trivialiing everything, because that's only a best case and the best case happens in only a small percentage of the time. Existing developers are telling you why your simplistic view isn't practical, but you can't listen. This shows some naivete in how these things work.

Which existing developers are telling me my "simplistic view isn't practical"?

Are you serious? You're clutching at straws here.

No, I just just giving you some examples of the additional burdens that support would be placed under.

According to you. You make it sound like it would suddenly become a full time job, just answering e-mails from all these highly unlikely cases...

And so what? You deal with them.

How much extra support burder?
How much extra sales?

Back to the formula...

Anyway, waste of breath, you aren't really listening to what experienced people are telling you, and are assuming the best simplistic cases and assuming that literally all you have to do is spend ten minutes editing an online form and Boom! - Double your sales!

It just doesn't work like that in practice, no matter how much you like to believe it does.

Like I say, it might work for some people and some products, but it's not commonly done, and you have to realise there are *reasons* for this - it's not like developers just don't want to bother much about getting sales...

Well, it sure seems like a lot of people here don't even understand the basics of what copy protection can offer, nor how an e-commerce website works...

[basslinemaster]

I don't know what your background is, but statements like "just pay a developer to do it in ten minutes" leads me to believe you're prone to hand waving. Sorry.

+1

Too much hand-wavium for me.

Brilliantly argued. I already explained why you don't even need a developer. The 'appeal to authority' fallacy is strong in this thread...

[basslinemaster]

The move of Adobe and other huge software companies to SaaS tells me that they believe they will make more money by letting their customers pay a small fee regularly, rather than a large fee, once.

Is that good enough evidence for you?

When I raised this point (as an aside about different payment models) you stated it was irrelevant to the conversation. Now you are using it as "evidence" to support your idea.

Because you were claiming that I had been proposing SaaS... Which I quite clearly wasn't...
And I can quite clearly claim it as evidence to support my idea, because of the simple fact that people are paying several small payments for SaaS, and would be paying several (but finite) small payments for my proposed idea. See? So yes, it is evidence to support my idea.

Your statement is true, but these are different factors (more about how to make mature software generate revenue in terms of declining update sales).

Or at least, the last time I looked I couldn't buy Photoshop in installments, merely rent it for continued use. If you can purchase a standalone license in installments, then I apologise.

Again, more strawman rubbish. Again, I never suggested what your previous sentence, so what you are trying to rebut by writing it?

[pdxindy]

The move of Adobe and other huge software companies to SaaS tells me that they believe they will make more money by letting their customers pay a small fee regularly, rather than a large fee, once.

I've been an Adobe user for close to 20 years... The day they force me to the subscription model, is the day I stop using Adobe software.

Besides that, a subscription model is completely different than what you are talking about.

Additionally, any customer can already charge the $99 to their credit card and make payments and the developer has no extra work at all. The system is already in place.

[basslinemaster]

And this is what's even more incredible - that the likes of kbaccki think they are scoring points over a mere idea, by revealing that they don't even understand how an e-commerce site works.

kbaccki is a professional software developer since 1993. I was developing online movie ticketing, catalogs, direct hardware sales, etc. when Java was still at 0.9beta and shopping carts were implemented in Scheme using some newfangled "cookie" browser technology.

I don't know what your background is, but statements like "just pay a developer to do it in ten minutes" leads me to believe you're prone to hand waving. Sorry.

The fact that you even think it needs a developer speaks volumes. I have now explained twice how it would take a couple of minutes to add a new product to the e-commerce site, which is the one month expiry product. Which part of that don't you agree with?

1) One month expiry product, £33, with 10 free points when you buy it.
2) Already existing full product, £99. Use 20 points to reduce the price to £33 on checkout.

That's it. That's all there is to it, as far as the e-commerce site goes. Do you disagree?

[whyterabbyt]

You've taken your time... I thought you would have jumped on this the second after I made my first post, after all, you sure don't like people coming up with original ideas on KVR... LOL.

ah, leading with an ad hominem attack, how tediously predictable.

"a punctuated finance scheme". What are the "additional" "finance/administration" overheads?

Are you claiming that three financial transactions have the exact same overhead of one financial transaction? That fees and taxes and legal arrangements wont need more work? That the tripling of scope for exceptions and errors by people in this more complex scheme wont result in more administration and support?

Where's your evidence for those claims, if you are?

The move of Adobe and other huge software companies to SaaS tells me that they believe they will make more money by letting their customers pay a small fee regularly, rather than a large fee, once.

Is that good enough evidence for you?

No. You've specifically said that your scheme is not software as a service, so that isnt relevant. Either way, Adobe's scheme is hardly a good example for a small business, as it also relies on fairly heavy DRM, and had massive infrastructure changes for both themselves and their customers.

And who would it hurt if they tried it? Did you even read my post about how you would set it up in an e-commerce site?

Yes, i read them. That's why I asked what relevant experience you have that would inform those claims which you were asserting were factual and the conclusions you drew from them. Was that that hard to understand?

You add a new product, blah blah blah Nothing else.

You seem to be engaged in some sort of defence of a mechanism you've thought of whereby you think this will work. That's got no relevance to my question; Im asking for the rationale of your assertion that this system will lead to more sales.
Like I said, what's your on-the-ground hard experience of anything relevant. Pulled-out-the-arse supposition and dogmatic im-right-because-I-say-so bollocks doesnt count.

So maybe instead of starting off by being an asshole, and then continuing by missing the f**king point completely, you could try actually dealing with what I actually asked. If that's not too much to ask.

[basslinemaster]

The move of Adobe and other huge software companies to SaaS tells me that they believe they will make more money by letting their customers pay a small fee regularly, rather than a large fee, once.

I've been an Adobe user for close to 20 years... The day they force me to the subscription model, is the day I stop using Adobe software.

Besides that, a subscription model is completely different than what you are talking about.

WTF? "Besides that"? I KNOW it's completely different TO what I am talking about (not 'than'). Talk about strawmen arguments, it gets worse. Where did I say that SaaS was a good thing for customers? I said that the companies who are using it must believe it will make them more money than at present (but I believe they could be wrong). As it isn't what I'm proposing, no need to knock down that strawman...

Additionally, any customer can already charge the $99 to their credit card and make payments and the developer has no extra work at all. The system is already in place.

WTF? This is to save customers having to use credit cards, and having to pay interest. You may as well say there should never be any sales because people should just 'save up', etc.
And it's £99, not $99...

[beely]

Because you were claiming that I had been proposing SaaS... Which I quite clearly wasn't....

If you *actually* read my post, rather than speedreading to find all the things you can dismiss, you'd realise that i was making a comment regarding other sales models, not the one you were suggesting, but it seems reading comprehension is second only to proving your poorly argued points.

We get what you're proposing. You think it's trivial, and don't seem to understand the implications, and are writing off the thoughts of those who do seem to have experience.

If it's so trivial, and such an easy and cheap and obvious way to increase sales with no downside, then surely at least half of the developers here on KVR will be thinking "brilliant!" and, given it's so trivial to do, expect to see these developers offering this option on their websites in about... well, let's be generous... middle of next week?

[pdxindy]

Ok, support request coming in - let's lookup this customer. Ok, he paid for one month of use of the product last year. So he's not a license holder. And no he's trying to sell his part license on to someone else on KVR... sheesh!

Exactly... and just because a policy is in place, does not mean it does not take time to tell people about it when they contact you.

Then there are other complexities that arise. Person A paid the $33 for the first installment. They are on an older OS, but by the time they are ready to pay the second $33 installment, the dev updated the plug-in and it no longer is supported on that old OS. Oops!

[whyterabbyt]

OP in thread on Sonar's installments-to-buy-outright model :

"We ALL need to boycott any company who tries to rent us software."

Context makes it clear that he is talking about that model, which is no way different from his own proposal.

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 8#p6009758

Hypocrisy?

[basslinemaster]

You've taken your time... I thought you would have jumped on this the second after I made my first post, after all, you sure don't like people coming up with original ideas on KVR... LOL.

ah, leading with an ad hominem attack, how tediously predictable.

That's rich, coming from the resident forum policeman...

"a punctuated finance scheme". What are the "additional" "finance/administration" overheads?

Are you claiming that three financial transactions have the exact same overhead of one financial transaction? That fees and taxes and legal arrangements wont need more work? That the tripling of scope for exceptions and errors by people in this more complex scheme wont result in more administration and support?

Oh, the humanity!
Not a "tripling of scope"! How MUCH more "administration and support" do you think it will involve? More than will be gained by increased sales?

Where's your evidence for those claims, if you are?

Where's your evidence if you aren't?

The move of Adobe and other huge software companies to SaaS tells me that they believe they will make more money by letting their customers pay a small fee regularly, rather than a large fee, once.

Is that good enough evidence for you?

No. You've specifically said that your scheme is not software as a service, so that isnt relevant.

No, my scheme is better for the customer, because they actually get the whole product after the third payment... LOL.

Either way, Adobe's scheme is hardly a good example for a small business, as it also relies on fairly heavy DRM, and had massive infrastructure changes for both themselves and their customers.

How is how 'heavy' the DRM is relevant in any way?

And who would it hurt if they tried it? Did you even read my post about how you would set it up in an e-commerce site?

Yes, i read them. That's why I asked what relevant experience you have that would inform those claims which you were asserting were factual and the conclusions you drew from them. Was that that hard to understand?

Yes, because you didn't seem to understand why my proposal would work, and then you resorted to the 'appeal to authority' fallacy...

You add a new product, blah blah blah Nothing else.

You seem to be engaged in some sort of defence of a mechanism you've thought of whereby you think this will work. That's got no relevance to my question; Im asking for the rationale of your assertion that this system will lead to more sales.
Like I said, what's your on-the-ground hard experience of anything relevant. Pulled-out-the-arse supposition and dogmatic im-right-because-I-say-so bollocks doesnt count.

So maybe instead of starting off by being an asshole, and then continuing by missing the f**king point completely, you could try actually dealing with what I actually asked. If that's not too much to ask.

Such charming language! Touche, you've excelled yourself...

Lower prices means more sales. The pre-Christmas sales were presumably done to make more money, not for charitable purposes. You seem to be absolutely terrified that my idea might work. Why? You sure are touchy and get over involved with things on this forum...

I would imagine that you regard most people who dare to think, or disagree with you, as "assholes"...

[basslinemaster]

OP in thread on Sonar's installments-to-buy-outright model :

"We ALL need to boycott any company who tries to rent us software."

Context makes it clear that he is talking about that model, which is no way different from his own proposal.

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 8#p6009758

Hypocrisy?

WTF? "Context makes it clear that he is talking about that model, which is no way different from his own proposal". At the time I wrote that, due to what everyone else on that thread had written about Sonar's instalments proposal, I believed, as they seemed to, that you didn't actually OWN the software after paying for a year (or however long it was).

This is laughable. Yet another strawman. I stand by my statement "We ALL need to boycott any company who tries to rent us software", and what I have suggested in this thread is not that, is it? Yet now you laughably try to claim that because I was incorrect about what Cakewalk was offering, somehow that means I am talking about my own model? Bwahahahaha... you're hilarious.
You'll be clutching at straws, presumably, for the rest of this evening, trying to prove me wrong?

[beely]

Lower prices means more sales.

And low prices, and more sales, is always better - is that what you're saying?

[basslinemaster]

Lower prices means more sales.

And low prices, and more sales, is always better - is that what you're saying?

No. And my proposal has nothing to do with lower prices, does it? My proposal is designed to make MORE SALES at CURRENT prices.

Sheesh, again. What exactly do you want to prove? So many people here can't even understand a basic idea, then seek to attack things that aren't even part of the idea, come up with problems that can't arise, (because they don't understand how DRM works or what it can offer, or how e-commerce packages work, etc.) and then desperately try to cling to whatever (incorrect) 'problem' they came up with in the first place. Sheesh.

Anyway, the idea is out there, any devs who are reading might want to chime in, I'm sure they can understand how it works. It might not be for them, or it might be something they consider trying. No skin off my nose either way.