[softwarelist] Re: O-Pro's future
- From: Brian Bailey <bbailey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: davidpilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:10:15 +0100
In article <xp$mTFGuq4ZIFwX2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Pilling
<flist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In message <4fb6f86b17monster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Greenfield
> <monster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >I can see a marketing tool in a non-binary (or comprehensible) file
> >format. It surely makes our documents more future proof, certainly
> >raises the possibility of being able to use the documents on other
> >platforms, or in other software (it must be easier to create import
> >filters with a file structure like DDL).
> Well you have had DDL since day one, and it was put there to solve the
> above problems. What has limited you is the small number of users - it
> hasn't been worthwhile people writing filters.
> Lack of support for MS Word is a big gap, yet it would be easy for a
> third party to write an MS Word filter - either for import or export.
> >> It occurs to me to speculate whether a form of open sourcing of
> >> OvatPro, similar to Iyonix open sourcing of RISC OS 5, retaining some
> >> commercial control of the code, but allowing others to continue
> >> further development,
> I've suggested this myself in this discussion. The problem is that for
> me that is the end of the game, it means letting go of the program and
> writing off all the years of work (I know there will be ifs and buts to
> this, but that is the realistic outcome).
> >Is this possible with OvPro? Is there a 'central' core of code that
> >both RO and Windows versions use?
> One problem with DTP programs is that they do depend intimately on the
> underlying operating system. This is why it took me so long to get
> things working on Windows, why I am a bit shy of Java and why I have two
> lots of source code for Win and RISC OS.
> You can do anything with source code, so you could have one lot of
> source that compiled on any platform - just comes down to how you spend
> your resources.
> >David - you appear to think that OvPro is lacking compared to other
> >DTPs.
> Various people have suggested cutting the price, perhaps you're right.
> It is always easy (as an outsider) to say "X would do better if it cost
> less".
I think that is a false argument in extremis. The price should reflect its
true commercial value, including profit, at the very least. Equally, there
is nothing to stop you charging for a rolling upgrade very much as Martin
has and is doing.
> The limiting case of charging nothing does not support this. Often it is
> harder to give things away than to sell them.
Well, I recall one software developer, at an Acorn show, expressing the
view that Acorn customers wanted everything for nothing and that other
developers had the same view. An off day perhaps, but it was said without
malice and with a considerable degree of realism. Unless one can benefit
from real economy of scale then one has to pay the going rate for
relatively small scale output, especially so if one is buying a quality
product.
> My original idea was to have a relatively high fixed price, not charge
> for upgrades and to continue development until the price was amply
> justified.
> What has gone wrong with this strategy, is that my time for programming
> has been radically curtailed over the last couple of years, take up of
> the Windows version has been close to zero by Windows users and RISC OS
> users want to stick with the RISC OS version. I've also come to realise
> just how much work is still required.
> But yes I will consider the price.
> >This is a bit of a catch-22 situation, perhaps. OvPro is 'lacking' and
> >needs development to catch the public's eye, get more users and become
> >'viable' in order to develop it further etc.
> As I've said, the program has been beset from the start by the "one more
> push" fallacy, if only I'd do another years hard work then it would all
> be OK...
> I do believe there probably is some critical point beyond which sales
> would take off. That idea probably argues against a strategy based on
> gradually improving a program written 20 years ago.
Er, car and aircraft manufacturers take that route and so do many other
forms of technology, mostly with some success.
To unsubscribe or subscribe goto: //www.freelists.org/list/davidpilling
Other related posts:
