Version 1749_4210

[Bill Griffin]

Re: Version 1749_4210

I don't believe that Alpha as two separate products is worth $999 for the engine and another $999 as a residual cost for the WAS license. I know there are "bundles" to be had, but this is enterprise level pricing and licensing model which will allow the small developers to drop off.

As an old manager of mine used to say, " I'd rather sell 100 and make a pound on each, than 1 with a profit of 100 pounds. Then I have 100 customers that may buy other things!"

I had an offer recently from a very aggressive marketing manager of a complete version of their market leading enterprise level software discounted from �23,000 to �500 - say $750 per annum. They want to get into the small developer market. No WAS, no restrictions, and transportable code.

Perception (and beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. If the pricing model does not work for you, I would imagine that you will do what you think is best for your company, not Alpha's and move on. There are customer's who believe that 999 for each component is a bargain. A friend of mine just spent almost 100,000 for a Tesla (electric car) It is an amazing car, but I would never spend that kind of money on any car. Point is different markets attract different types of customers. What was Alpha's market has changed (or they are changing it) I would imagine they are doing what they do in order to stay in business. There comes a point where a company has to charge what they do in order to survive. Maybe it will change, maybe it won't, but I don't think anyone can fault them for trying to survive and make money.

[Bill Griffin]

Re: Version 1749_4210

This means that there is built in stop code in Was.

I don't think that is correct. I would imagine that there is NO STOP code in the WAS. The license would just be deactivated just like any other major software product that is sold on a subscription basis.

[Ted Giles]

Re: Version 1749_4210

I don't believe that Alpha as two separate products is worth $999 for the engine and another $999 as a residual cost for the WAS license. I know there are "bundles" to be had, but this is enterprise level pricing and licensing model which will allow the small developers to drop off.

As an old manager of mine used to say, " I'd rather sell 100 and make a pound on each, than 1 with a profit of 100 pounds. Then I have 100 customers that may buy other things!"

I had an offer recently from a very aggressive marketing manager of a complete version of their market leading enterprise level software discounted from �23,000 to �500 - say $750 per annum. They want to get into the small developer market. No WAS, no restrictions, and transportable code.

[kkfin]

Re: Version 1749_4210

I just noticed this on the buy page ...

" If you choose to pay monthly and cancel within the first year, you lose the right to use the software."

This means that there is built in stop code in Was.

[forskare]

Re: Version 1749_4210

Sorry, but that is not very reassuring, at least to me. No one can guarantee that it will not happen again. There are still built in stop codes and as long as that is so, there can be unintended glitches that pop up. Maybe it could be something in the way an app would be designed that could not be foreseen? Maybe it is something Alpha did not tke into account when the set up the stop code. Those things happen and to say that those kinds of issues will never occur is a bit presumptuous.

Why are there stop codes in the first place? The easy answer is because of the pricing structure. Could and/or should there e a different pricing structure? By all means.

[Foodtester]

Re: Version 1749_4210

Not happy-Burning the midnight oil here in the UK.

[iRadiate]

Re: Version 1749_4210

So what is Was subscription model then in practice? You pay one month (99$) and Was runs forever?

Obviously that is going to depend on whether you bought a perpetual license or not.
The perpetual license was an option when I renewed my license but I don't see it offered any more so I'm not certain whether it still exists anymore.

EDIT:
I just noticed this on the buy page ...

"If your term expires and you have not renewed your license, you can still use the software, but you will no longer be entitled to any features, updates, or new releases. If you choose to pay monthly and cancel within the first year, you lose the right to use the software."

So, sounds like yes, runs forever unless you cancel monthly sub in first year.

[kkfin]

Re: Version 1749_4210

Richard in post #41 and Jerry in post #36 have both assured us that this will not happen again and that there will be no future stop code dates embedded in the software.

So what is Was subscription model then in practice? You pay one month (99$) and Was runs forever?

[compuaid]

Re: Version 1749_4210

Maybe so but Alpha has not indicated that.

Richard in post #41 and Jerry in post #36 have both assured us that this will not happen again and that there will be no future stop code dates embedded in the software.

[iRadiate]

Re: Version 1749_4210

Maybe so but Alpha has not indicated that.

According to the email that Brad received in reply #39, I would interpret that is what Alpha is saying.

I received a VERY reassuring note from Alpha this morning in response to my concerns.

To paraphrase it sounds like this was a one-time anomaly based on some old code that was just recently re-discovered and that future updates will not include any kind of expiration code.

Regardless, it's never happened before and they are say it won't happen again.

[forskare]

Re: Version 1749_4210

It sounds like this may have caught Alpha a bit by surprise as well, not just us users. I appreciate that they have been working hard to remedy the situation and notify everyone. I have no reason not to believe them when they say it's a one time event.

Maybe so but Alpha has not indicated that. Something like this just doesn't appear out of the blue, unexpectedly. No, are warning signs or indications there will be a bump in the road and then there has to be a fix developed and tested. That takes time. Alpha has never been much good at public relations and this is another example. Even with the short notice to us, Alpha could have done a much better job of explaining the situation. As it is, this kind of action is another reason for some to look elsewhere.

Additionally, it's not an issue of Alpha not telling the truth but simple a "true mis-statement". Technology will change and as such, this could well happen again. My questions about why and how AA will cease to operate w/out the update still begs an answer. I am not a technology programing wiz but my common sense tells me that Alpha, through previous patches, programmed in a death date. Or. is it possible some of the technology they use in AA is not their technology and as such, they no longer have access to that technology? I don't know the answer. I do know, at least for me, it's a strange way to do business. Just do it and offer no explanation.

[iRadiate]

Re: Version 1749_4210

It sounds like this may have caught Alpha a bit by surprise as well, not just us users. I appreciate that they have been working hard to remedy the situation and notify everyone. I have no reason not to believe them when they say it's a one time event.

By the way, I've had 1749_4210 updated on server and developer for the past 2 days now and I have not found any problems related to the updates.

[forskare]

Re: Version 1749_4210

Do you anticipate more mandatory updates in the future?
No! This is a one-time event.

Will Alpha guarantee changes in technology will not require q major update? I think not! There is no guarantee and making a statement that there will not be is not reassuring. Come now Alpha, you know much better than I how fast technology is changing and if an opportunity came along that would benefit Alpha and ist customers, are you saying that if it required a major update such as this, you wouldn't do it?

Furthermore, saying AA will not work without the upgrade certainly raises some questions. Such as:

* Why has Alpha configured AA so it will cease to work?
* Why such short notice?
* What on earth are you thinking?
*Do you think developers can update their customers on even shorter notice?

I find Alpha's actions absolutely appalling. It gives the appearance that Alpha does not value it's customers/developers. Yes this is strong language but for crying out loud, certainly Alpha can do better than this?

[Garry Flanigan]

Re: Version 1749_4210

I initially had problems with a UX. After installing the patch a couple of times and running "Recalculate UX components..." on my problem UX it worked. I did need to increase the delays in afterRenderComplete and onSelect for a List control and then all was good.
I seem to recall that the delays may not be required with this update but not so in my case.
Also IE8 is still a no-go.

[Ted Giles]

Re: Version 1749_4210

Yes people, you are testing something you paid good money for in good faith in the hope that it would work as specified.
Unfortunately you have to do your own due diligence testing.