New Run Engine Question

[DaveM]

Re: New Run Engine Question

Andrea,

Truth is, most of my apps are for car people and if the other app they need is in a different folder, it access the runtime in the upslog folder.

Other apps I write don't have the upslog folder, so the rt has to be sent with them.

RT does not really bulk it up too much.

the first run with winxp taught me to never put data in program files and vista re-enforced that idea.

[NoeticCC]

Re: New Run Engine Question

Think about this: i have one flagship app, ok i get oem. I also have a multiple of other apps(say 10), now what do I do to send them out? Buy a runtime for each? I don't think so!

Nor do I... from what Richard has said the OEM license is with the developer and lets you build & sell apps without needing to buy a license for each of them.

My point about the RTs, file paths & 1 flagship app was just that if you write apps where a customer is likely to get or need more than 1 of your apps, why bulk up the installations and copy the RTs into each app folder when they can be shared?

[DaveM]

Re: New Run Engine Question

Andrea,

Obviously if you have one flagship app that you sell to various customers then that doesn't matter... Either way, you would qualify for an OEM license anyway... so individual RT licenses are a moot point in your case!

I have 12 apps running right now that I support. Not one. I have over 50 out there built in various versions and some are for no-profit that I charged NO money for.

I think I have a very valid point.

Besides that, we don't even know what the oem thing will cost and it sounds like alpha is trying to get into the "USED CAR" business with their pricing. If you buy a car from me, you can negotiate. There is a limit to my ability to comply with your negotiations, but I know there are other dealers so i am going to bend as much as I can. The point is, you have to be eye to eye(so to speak) for negotiation to work. I think they believe they can win a negotiation. Not so, because the able developer will go elsewhere if he an't win a fair price and have the same luxuries he had with the older product.

Also, I have not been able to get to sales to even find out how much they want or how much it can be gotten down to.

Think about this: i have one flagship app, ok i get oem. I also have a multiple of other apps(say 10), now what do I do to send them out? Buy a runtime for each? I don't think so!


A runtime is supposed to give you the option to distibute with whatever you develope with. It should never limit you.

do you have to purchase a different runtime each time you make an app and include zip? NO!
do you have to purchase a different runtime each time you make an app in VB? NO! vb3 had a file you could send so the app would run, but it did not have to be registered.

If I purchase a dll for vb with runtime, I may use it in several apps with no additional charge and maybe send out 3000 varios apps. NO EXTRA CHARGE! i bought the right to distribute, called runtime. i have about a dozen of these laying around, but hope I never have to use them.

[NoeticCC]

Re: New Run Engine Question

That is not the way I work. Your apps should not be under program files anyway. My runtime is a part of the app(in the same folder) like c:\upslog\

Obviously if you have one flagship app that you sell to various customers then that doesn't matter... Either way, you would qualify for an OEM license anyway... so individual RT licenses are a moot point in your case!

But the scenario in question was one where someone would have several apps built on A5, surely you would want the RTs to be accessible from all apps rather than including them over and over again in each application folder?

What was more clearcut than "you buy a runtime and you can distribute your app with the runtime files to whomever you choose"??

An "unlimited" OEM developer license that doesn't have a consecutive user limit?

[DaveM]

Re: New Run Engine Question

C:\Program Files\YourDevCompanyName, and all your apps look for the RTs in that folder....

That is not the way I work. Your apps should not be under program files anyway. My runtime is a part of the app(in the same folder) like c:\upslog\

While the per seat limit "sucks", I do feel the new structure is much more clear-cut and allows for a much more professional approach to developing and deploying A5-based apps...

What was more clearcut than "you buy a runtime and you can distribute your app with the runtime files to whomever you choose"??

What is more clear than the runtime users can log in and out of an app as long as the count does not exceed the limit of the runtime for concurrent users?

[NoeticCC]

Re: New Run Engine Question

does this mean that if you have a custom application installed, (and you then create another, separate, additional application for the same client on the same machines), you have to purchase additional rt licenses for the additional application? (I.E. each *.adb file requires a separate license?)

I don't think so - if they have an RT license they should be able to run as many A5V9 apps as they like... at least if you compile your app/installer to put the runtime files in a common folder, e.g. C:\Program Files\YourDevCompanyName, and all your apps look for the RTs in that folder....

[DaveM]

Re: New Run Engine Question

BUT, this is definitely a good move for Alpha. I hope they make a lot of money for their hard work.

I don't think it is. It has been proven too many times in the past to be a problem. There is a reason most of us are here. for some it is quality and responsiveness, for some it is this forum, for all of us it is price and.... || For me it is the ability to quickly develope an app and put it in a users hands with the least expense possible.

I too hope they make a lot of money and thrive, but good business sense is to not price your stuff out of the market or your market share drops. I do not think they are where they want to be in market share(wish they were).

Quicken/Intuit made the most of their Go money with a checkbook program and grew it up. It was quick and accurate and worked well. quickbooks was too at first, Now it is very slow(my opinion). They still kept their pricing in a range to keep gaining market share. It was made with another program, not sure what because I never delved into it that far.

[NoeticCC]

Re: New Run Engine Question

btw, anyone interested in looking at a flash demo of some capabilities of Alpha go to...
www.healthsoftsolutions.com
username: healthsoft
password: demo

Wow cool app.... although I suddely feel a back ache coming on.... ;)

[Tom Mills]

Re: New Run Engine Question

I could not disagree more than this helps Alpha. This is a bad marketing decision that could kill a great product.

I came to the web site today because I noticed in Platinum that they were no longer in Beta.

I wanted to see the excitement on the board, see how much it costs, and place an order.

I am not placing an order.

[djldc]

Re: New Run Engine Question

At first, I was a bit discouraged about the new pricing structure becasue it means we'll have to start charging our clients more to upgrade. BUT, this is definitely a good move for Alpha. I hope they make a lot of money for their hard work. They deserve it... they have developed IMHO a product in v9 that is by far better than anything out there. Very few people like change... and I'm sure there will be a few that jump ship... but, in the long term, this is the right thing to do for Alpha and it's users. After all, if Alpha grows and thrives their users can only benefit. Thank you Richard & Selwyn!

btw, anyone interested in looking at a flash demo of some capabilities of Alpha go to...
www.healthsoftsolutions.com
username: healthsoft
password: demo

[NoeticCC]

Re: New Run Engine Question

I can't argue* with the wording of the license agreement that you post, but I can tell you that it has been common understanding among the users of this board that the above wording was NOT the case. This issue has been thrashed out multiple times on this board and if you search you will find that Alpha never contradicted this (to the best of my knowledge) and may even have specifically affirmed it in so many words (although I don't specifically recall). Clearly, the new policy is a radical departure from the common previous understanding of most Alpha users that have posted to this matter in one way or another in the past.

I am aware that this has been discussed before, but wouldn't blame anyone for having re-used their own RT license for custom apps, because it's not made very clear on the site and in the documentation...

But at the end of the day what the common understanding is doesn't really have any bearing as to what the actual meaning is... if that makes sense...

But, I suppose one can argue that those words merely mean that if the developer sells an RT to a customer, that customer now has his or her "own" RT. I guess it depends on what the meaning of "own" is.

It seems pretty clear to me that if you as the developer purchase a RT then it is yours and you can't then go and sell the same RT to different customers unless it is as part of an app *you* develop and sell commercially (as opposed to custom writing an app for each customer). (Effectively the customer who contracts you to develop a custom app for them needs to own a RT, even if they purchase through you - but since this bit is only mentioned on their website and not really clarified when installing the RTs either, I don't see how anyone could be blamed for not following this!)

While the per seat limit "sucks", I do feel the new structure is much more clear-cut and allows for a much more professional approach to developing and deploying A5-based apps...

[MikeC]

Re: New Run Engine Question

I do hope Alpha straightens this out.

As do I. As it stands it really makes me wonder if I chose the right tool for the future....Like many here who have posted I will have a very hard time justifying upgrading to version 9. If the current runtime pricing is how it is currently written then I guess I may end up learning another language as well if the features of version 8 aren't adequate for future projects.

:( :(

EDIT: I see Richard has replied...here's hoping for the best!

[Richard Rabins]

Re: New Run Engine Question

Licensing for developers Building a commercial application

There has been a lot of speculation on the board in the last day about
licensing for developers building a pre-packaged commercial application that is to be sold to multiple clients (ie you build a gas station solution that you then want to market to as many gas station as you can.)

Our OEM (commerical package solution) license is designed for this scenario and will be very affordable and will allow you to sell to an unlimited number of clients.

Stay tuned for more details on this later today.

[DaveM]

Re: New Run Engine Question

I have a 20 user runtime for v7 and remember nothing like this in v7 and back. Maybe I am wrong and broke the rules, but it was one of the reasons I am at alpha. I do not intend to build apps in alpha and give a friend a small app for personal use and have to buy any more runtimes for a freebie or for a church which I get nothing for. somehow, I don't think this is their intent.

Go back to vb where I can send as many or as few programs as I want and NO extra COST. may take longer, But I do have VB, Crystal reports and all the other tools needed to make redistibutable apps. Yes the basic programs are more to buy, but NO runtime issues.

I can't speak for other people, because Their backgroung would be different and their tools may also be different. we all use what we have to the best of our own ability.

I do hope Alpha straightens this out.

[NoeticCC]

Re: New Run Engine Question

Andrea

Thanks for pointing this out, although the interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. A contract lawyer friend of mine says that this wording is at best ambiguous, but the implication, is that a runtime can be included with the sold application as many times as is needed, as long as no database is used concurrently by more than the number of runtime licences purchased.

Yep, I guess since they had no way of enforcing it they probably didn't bother making too big a fuss of it...

But when you think about it, if YOU write an app and then sell it, you "own" the app and can use your RT license repeatedly, but if a customer contracts you to develop an app for them, it is your customer who needs to own an RT license for the required amount of users... You are writing an app for the customer and therefore you can't just use your own RT license for the finished product... makes sense to me although with the old licensing model a rather pointless condition...