My only comment after agreeing with you is, if we don't ask, we will
not be considered. As beta testers, sure I am grateful for the
ability to do it and have the technical know how, which again, I
think should be considered as yours should be. We do, as you say,
beta test all of our "special" software E.G. jfw, Window-Eyes, etc.
but do not get a consideration, I just say, if we don't ask, how can
we be considered for a little compensation. I cannot say at all
whatsoever I have not received any software for beta testing it,
"talking dictionary," "clip_cache," are two that come to mind, so
again, if we don't ask, we won't be considered.
The huge companies like MicroSoft and Adoby systems couldn't afford
thousands of beta discounts, but specialized software like this one
or window-eyes or jfw should, especially considering the ability of
the end user to "use" the computer in ways which weren't available,
by the support and availability of the beta testers.
Curt
Hi, having tested everything from numerous Microsoft applications and versions of windows, Adobe, JAWS, Sound Forge, and a bunch of software which I won't take the time to bore you with, not one of them gives a discount for beta testers. People may wish it so, but it ain't so, at least, not in my many years of experience. You don't get a discount for beta testing book port either. It is something you can do if you wish, but you are not obligated to do it. Do people get ideas from beta testers. You bet, but try telling Microsoft that if you go to the trouble to beta test something you want a discount, and they will most likely say, "No way." For that matter, people can and will always offer their opinions on the final release product so that those changes might possibly be implement in the next version. Is it a risk to beta test software? Yes. But, it's a risk you take on your own. Do software venders ask you to sign a non-disclosure agreement? Yes. So, if APH wants to give people a discount for beta testing, that is their decision, but they would most certainly be in the minority. Myself, I think we are lucky to have Studio Recorder at the price it is sold for. In fact, given other products which many of us who are blind use, the price we pay is way way out of line with reality. Not so Studio Recorder, in my opinion. Does Sound Forge do some things that SR does not do? Yes. Is Sound Forge as accessible as Studio Recorder? No. Again, it's up to APH as to how much they charge for the product, and I suspect they have taken the comments of people on this list as well as comments from their other audiences into consideration. And no, I do not work for APH and I do not own stock in Studio Recorder. I'm just a willing beta tester who asks no particular favors for my efforts on it's behalf.
Neal
-----Original Message----- From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Curtis Delzer Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 1:33 AM To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [studiorecorder] Re: New Beta Available
I truly believe those who beta test, suggest ideas which are implemented, find bugs which are fixed should get a discount on the program. After all, the facts are that Rob wouldn't find out problems or potential areas of improvement without the beta testers, in house or in the public betas, so if we signed up, agreed to beta test and subject ourselves to the potential problems of such and such a beta, we should be given a discount. We did agree not to tell anyone about what we are doing, and though it is true that practically anyone who truly wished of had the inclination could do it, not many people would take the time. We take the time, the beta testers and those on this list to suggest and check out features and functions to see if they are practical, work properly, and don't crash the program. It is a better piece of software truly because of Rob, and those of us who ran the beta to see if x y and z work while c d and e are also working.
Curtis Delzer
At 09:15 PM 8/11/2006, you wrote: >I ordinarily don't do this, but I just have to agree with you, and >that's about all I have to say. Some how it seems to me that beta >testers should be Studio Recorder owners or a family member or employee
>of someone who owns a licensed copy of SR. > >I'm not trying to slam anybody, but its' only fair that those >involved with the beta testing should be licensed users. I do >realize that the product costs $200, but that really isn't a >unreasonable price, and if a person isn't willing to pay the $200 then >I'm not sure that they should be on the beta team for that product. > > > > >David Tanner >Rehabilitation Program Specialist 3 >Assistive Technology Specialist >Assistive Technology Department >MN State Services f/t Blind >Office- 651-642-0795 Cell- 651-270-2233 >Skype name: dtat100 > > > >>> neal.ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8/11/2006 6:39 PM >>> >Michael. I think that means you need to purchase the real copy. APH >has been very good at letting people simply be beta testers >without >purchasing the full release, but I am not sure if they want this to >be >the practice of people who use the product. Of course, this is not >an >official comment, just one that suggests that we should all support >the >products that people have worked so hard to provide for us. > >Neal > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >[mailto:studiorecorder-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael >Killian >Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 6:35 PM >To: studiorecorder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [studiorecorder] New Beta Available > > >When I got the beta file, I was told that the authorization expired on >August >1,2006. Is the new beta up there yet? > >Michael Killian K4MFK >Nashville, Tn >k4mfk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > >-- >Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/360 - Release Date: 6/9/2006 > > > > > >
