Pricing 2

[Tom Mills]

RE: Pricing 2

In previous versions of Alpha, the only revenue source for Alpha was the developer. If you bought the unlimited runtime, you could have a million customers or you could have 1. The impact on Alpha was the same.

Obviously Alpha wants to change this by charging us a "fee" per customer. Even the unlimited runtime is gone. I'm not passing judgement on this, just stating a fact. If you as a developer have lots and lots of customers, Apha wants a piece of the pie.

The part I question is the amount of the fee. $695 is simply too much for most of us to pass on to customers. (Yes, I know the original plan was much worse). There are certainly some clients that will be able to pay this fee, but not the small clients. Not the ones that have been the traditional Alpha clients. And no, I don't want to run my own Web Host.

I have a small database on the web (simply for fun) that I had a buddy code for me in PHP and MYSQL. It's a hobby thing, I had hoped to switch it to Alpha. Can't do it now.
The apps the one guy was selling for $49 or$99?, can't make those web apps.

But if the price for a WAS license was $50 or $100, Alpha could still get a fee for every site developed. Hobby type websites and small app websites could still use it. That $49 app? Web enabled version available for $149 !!

I think that Alpha thinks the MYSQL people are going to gobble this up. I think they will NOT, and the traditional Alpha small developer will get squeezed out.

[JerryBrightbill]

RE: Pricing 2

This discussion was held some time ago about the pricing of WAS. At that point there were proposed levels of pricing. The consensis was a single realistic price with an unlimited license was the best deal.

Someone will always want it cheaper. The real question is what is fair value. In the overall cost of creating, distributing, and maintaining computer systems today the price is very realistic. It is probably a minor percentage of the overall cost for most systems.

If your only criteria is cost, then stick to shareware, freeware and similar programs. I use some of them myself, but when I need something that has support, has a user base to help, and can handle real projects, I buy what I need. For example, I use a $39.95 graphics program for viewing pictures and some simple editing. But I also use Photoshop, which is certainly not a $39 program. Some people will only need the features of the $39 program and that is fine. But I don't expect Adobe to match the price.

If we could get everything for nothing, that would be the best deal - for us. But the company that creates the product, whether it is you Mister Developer or Alpha Software has to make a profit to survive. I think the cost of WAS is easy to justify.

Jerry

[Cheryl Lemire]

RE: Pricing 2

I personally do not see how that could be done. If we limit the features of WAS it in turn will limit what we can or cannot do with our applications. I feel that this would defeat the purpose.

I can understand feelings of having to add such a cost to an application, however, web servers are NOT cheap. Most people use 'hosting' companies for this very reason. The hosting services are the ones paying for the licenses and since they have a substantial customer base, we do not see the high expense of these licenses. When you look at the long term cost of a hosting service and compare it to the control you get with your own server, WAS is extremely reasonable.

A lot of posts speak of $50 store shelf applications. If we have an application that is as inexpensive as that, and we wanted to offer the features of WAS to it, we should be offering a 'shared' environment for these clients if they so choose.

Or we can go with the alternative ... locate a hosting service for the client to pay a monthly fee at, find out what databases they support, create that db format, write the code to manipulate that data, etc, etc. For me this is not a feasible alternative.

I worked with an extremely large hosting company for four years and the costs that they absorb for the web servers is phenominal. WAS is an extremely inexpensive means for us to offer what I consider a far better service to our clients.

Just my humble opinion.

[mronck]

RE: Pricing 2

Dave,

Without comparing the products in ANY way, thus also without saying it is the same kind of product etc. I found that there ARE companies who see it differently, as Dave already warned for in his posting above.

Here is what QEWS says:

"The QEWS developer kit (SDK) contains all you need to get started with developing embedded web applications. It contains the QEWS core server engine, the QEWS toolkit, technical documentation, QEWS host-based development tools, and sample applications. You must purchase one Developer Kit license for each developer that will be using QEWS."

Regards,

Marcel

[mronck]

RE: Pricing 2

Selwyn,

Technically spoken: could a version of WAS be created that has limited features as oposed to a full WAS version regarding for instance the number of apps it can run ?

I mean, would it technically be possible to create a "light" version that COULD be distributed as part of a Runtime app ?

Greetings,

Marcel

[DaveM]

RE: Pricing 2

Selwyn,

Before I take up that search, Jerry was trying to compare apples and oranges.

If I have to do that search? Who then would be wrong? Who would lose? When I challenge a customer in my business to find a less expensive product(car). They do! It may not run but they found it. They bought it and I lose.

Dave

[Selwyn Rabins]

RE: Pricing 2

can you give me an example an any other server based product that allows the customer to make an unlimited number of redistributions of that product?

we can't. take 'coldfusion' from macromedia as the closest analogy. you can't make an unlimited number of redistributions. you need a copy for each server.

it is completely unrealistic to think that you could purchase the webapp server from alpha and then turn around and redistribute that to an unlimited number of your customers.

[Selwyn Rabins]

RE: Pricing 2

you can absolutely do this with the a5 web app server. it doesn't sound like a heavy load and it seems unlikely that you would need to use multiple servers with load balancing (and hence would not need the appache mod).

[DaveM]

RE: Pricing 2

5 user runtime can be used over and over for many customers at different sites. was cannot!

[JerryBrightbill]

RE: Pricing 2

Van

If $699 makes your application too expensive, your basic application must be very inexpensive. Compared to a 5 user runtime at $799, WAS is an inexpensive alternative.

Jerry

[Richard Rabins]

RE: Pricing 2

Tom does highlight an important point here which can be best illustrated by an example:

scenario A (alpha not in the picture)

Client goes to consultant with a project to build a database driven web site.

The site is built using the traditional approach which has significant system integration and programing.

Specifically you would need some kind of Back End database engine (MySql commercial license, SQL Server, Oracle etc - not free), you would need a Web server, and then most importantly, you would to start programming in something like php or .asp.

As you know, programming in these low level languages is very time consuming and therefore extremely expensive for the client. For example, the .asp code to show page navigation on a web data display grid is in the order of 300 lines of code according to www.asp101.com. (By way of contrast, v6 has a page navigation genie that does this in 2 clicks and you get a whole set of stylized options). The result is that the client ends up being quoted a high price for the project, and in turn this means that there is a good chance the project will never be signed off on because of sticker shock.

Typically for fairly robust web database projects, pricing could easily be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Scenario B (Alpha V6 is in the picture)

In this scenario it is worth bearing in mind that two things are now fundamnetally different;

1 No or minimal system integration work is required (V6 has a built in Web Server, it has a built in backend database, and it has a built in Rapid Webb App Development tool (the web component builders).

2 Because of the web component builders, NO or MUCH MUCH less programing work is required

The net result is consultants can get database web projects buit in much less time and at much less cost (even including the cost of the web app server license).

The overall result is that the likelyhood of generating customer sticker shock is greatly reduced because you can quote a lower overall price, and therefore more projects are likely to be greenlighted

[DaveM]

RE: Pricing 2

Here it is for me.

I have and have had customers that wish to connect to their work computer(server) by way of the internet and I have always let them do any connection thaey could rig up on their own. They have managed on occasion with Nortons and others to get there.

I looked at was as a possible solution to this issue. They could use was and look at or add to their inventory while still at the auction or sell a car in someone's home and record directly or look up what they need in the server.

Dealers are notoriously stingy about computer related stuff and any edge you can get is good. Could I provide that service as a standard, it could boost sales tremendously and keep current customers happy.

At 699 per customer - that will not work and Dealers will not let data reside anywhere they cannot pick it up and run. That gives me no reason to have my own server for all to share.

I do have other plans that still may utilize 1 copy of the software. we will see.

Dave

RE: Pricing 2

Ok -

New Microsoft Visual Web Developer Express is either going to be free or in the $100 range (they haven't decided yet).

New Microsoft SQL server express for databases up to 4GB is free.

IIS in XP professional which allows up to 10 connections is included in the OS or I can host at myhosting.com for $25 / month

---

Front Page is $200, Code Charge is $500.

---

To me the thing Alpha had going for it was the database front end in addition to my code. The other development tools like WinDev and Clarion don't provide that Access/Paradox type functionality (they also don't have runtime charges) - so basicly I was willing to pay for the runtime license in order to not have to code that generic browse/query functionality.

I saw WAS as an extension of that -- allow my users remote access to their data -- and I was prepared to pay the equivalent of another runtime to be able to distribute that functionality. But at $699/server it's not going to work for my apps.

[Mario Prieto]

RE: Pricing 2

I think Visual FoxPro started to look a lot better!!



The Mexican

[Kevin Anderson]

RE: Pricing 2

Cal,

Depending on how your apps are setup I'm thinking this approach may require the Apache Add-on but I'm curious to hear from Alpha on this as I'm having the same thoughts. If each one will reside at a unique domain I'm almost certain of it.

One thing for everyone to consider...
If your client needs the web app to connect directly to data sitting on a fileserver at their location... a shared remote server does not sound like a viable option.

Hosting an interactive membership list for an organization you might have developed a website for is something that could be hosted on a remote shared WAS server located at an ISP somewhere as I see it, as long as they do not need to access the same data with a desktop app.

As this discussion goes on I think it's important to consider whether the client will need direct access to the data locally, as in online orders getting written directly to the database they work in daily.

I have a need for both scenarios and I'm trying to sort all of this out myself.

Kevin Anderson