Martin Wuerthner wrote:
In message <466044FD.1020603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Phillip Marsden <phillip.marsden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:David Pilling wrote:In message <4eebce211cgav@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gavin Crawford <gav@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writesnot much on RISC OS though! I guess the time has now passed for the demand for such specialist software for the RISC OS market.cheap option I can recommend Quite Imposing and Quite Imposing Plus fromwww.quite.com - it works as a plug-in for Adobe Acrobat and offers aPoints up some dilemmas for me - in other words one hundredth of the time spent on OP writing a plug in for something else might have produced a more viable product.With reference to the other two replies that you have already received. These are yet more examples of RISC OS peopel living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. You made it quite clear in your comment above that much less time spent on a Windows add-on product would have brought in much more than the time spent on a RISC OS product.As I read David's comment above it was about writing the *Windows* version of OvationPro, not about the RISC OS version.Do these people listen? No, they just go into the tired old routine of offering what is (to be frank) a ridiculous amount of money. £200? Don't make me laugh! Come into the real world.£200 from a single user is an amazing amount of money. Of course, for a non-mainstream feature it does not mean anything, but for a feature that is of interest to the majority of the user base it is a lot.A contract probrammer can earn that much in a DAY quite easily (and could do so 10 years ago to my certain knowledge).As it happens, £200 a day was precisely the target amount I based my budgeting on when I started writing ArtWorks modules more than 10 years ago. Not so difficult to achieve even with RISC OS software: As a rule of thumb, for each week of programming work spent you need 100 users who pay £10, or 50 who pay £20. Of course, all the sales, distribution, accounting and support effort still goes on top of that.Going by your £200/d figure and assuming a user base of 300 users who are prepared to upgrade for £30 inc VAT each, about two months' full-time programming work can be spent to produce the upgrade, which allows substantial development.So, the situation is not quite as bad as you described it. Of course, it all depends on the size of each application's user base. That of most RISC OS applications has fallen below a criticial minimum a long time ago, which precludes any cost-effective development. However, I am certain that OvationPro is still one of the few applications for which it would work.Martin
I thank you for your comments Martin.There are certain others who pontificate on the RISC OS forums with little or no programming experience and whose words are of no importance whatever, despite their own sense of self-importance. You, however, are an experienced programmer who has worked on several projects of importance and therefore you know what you are talking about. You are also a respected person in the RISC OS world and a person of impeccable credentials, who speaks clearly and precisely with no intention to speak ambiguously. I can accept what you are telling me, based upon the number of users that you assume.
I agree with you that David could well have been referring to the time spent on Windows OPro being much less lucrative than time spent on an add-on for another Windows product. As David has already said on the forum that RISC OS programming has not been viable for some time, then this means that RO OPro programming is much less lucrative than Windows OPro programming.
Now all David has to do is to get those 300 users to pledge the money. :o) -- Regards, Phillip MarsdenFor quality bespoke acoustic guitars phillip.marsden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
