|
Post Reply
Andy 2002-06-05 00:42
Ok, so far I admit I like Ultramon from what I have been trying, but what I am annoyed about is this concept of charging for a BETA?
Why am I going to pay to test your beta? Really the answer is, I'm not... I tried it for your 30 day trial and now removed it... When it goes to a full release I will give it a try again and then consider paying for it...
Beta's are just that, BETA! Make the beta expire on a certain date, fine, but pay for it.. NOT!
Just my $0.02 worth...
Later
|
Nite 2002-06-05 00:48
Well, consider it as "pre-order", you buy for the finished products, but as it is not yet available, you get the betas. (And best customer support on the face of this planet.)
\Nite - "can't rain all the time"
Multi-Monitor Gaming Web
|
Christian Studer 2002-06-05 01:34
A license purchased now covers all current versions of UltraMon (1.0, 2.0 beta) as well as future 2.x releases and 3.0 betas.
If you prefer installing a non-beta version, UltraMon 1.0 is still available for download.
Christian Studer - www.realtimesoft.com
|
Andy 2002-06-05 01:42
And who in their right mind wants to pay for the "rights" to own a product that is in beta?
Being from the programming world, it seems it is only in this realm that people actually will charge other people to "test" their software. Sorry, it just doesn't fly...
But let's go over our definitions again:
BETA - or in this case, and "open beta" is something that is useful for the DEVELOPER of the app to allow people to test out new features/new version of an application and to provide feedback. In the case of an open beta, it is coded to expire after a certain date which point the full version should be available, or at least a "better" beta is available.
Shareware - gives the USER a chance to verify a COMPLETE product before deciding to purchase.
The two are NOT the same.. I write shareware, I believe whole heartly in the practice, but I will never buy into charging a user to do me a favor of testing my software.
Again, my $0.02 worth... (And since my intent is NOT to start a flame-war, which it isn't... My last post on this subject. I just needed to get the whole thing off my chest since it is a pet peeve of mine.)
|
Andy 2002-06-05 01:48
Ok, sorry, I lied, one last post since Chris's reply came as I did my last reply.
My point has nothing to do with a previous version being available. My point is that you are mixing the lines between shareware and beta... The only time a beta should expire is at a date when another beta is made available or when the full version is to launch.
Again, this is just a pet peeve since I write shareware software also... I have run beta's on my software, and I set the software to expire on a given date when I HOPE I will have the next version finished. And the times I have missed my date (don't we all!) I publish a "new" beta that expires at the next date I can finish the version.
Again, I am not trying to flame here, but I just get a little sour when things like this happen because it reflects on the whole shareware community as a whole...
(Flame off, even though I had to intents to having flame on..)
|
Christian Studer 2002-06-05 02:03
Charging for the beta allows me to make the latest version available to the public without killing revenues.
I think this benefits both the customer and me, especially since the previous non-beta version is still available, so the customer has a choice.
UltraMon has evolved substantially since the 1.0 release almost 2 years ago, I think it would benefit no one if the beta releases were only available to registered 1.0 users.
Christian Studer - www.realtimesoft.com
|
Andy 2002-06-05 02:29
A beta is just that, you want people to test your new features. You do not use a beta to charge people to verify the software.
A beta is NOT suppose to make money, it is suppose to help weed out problems and/or to verify new features are what users want.
A beta expires because the final version that is charged for is available, or a new beta version is available.
|
Andy 2002-06-05 04:17
A beta is just that, you want people to test your new features. You do not use a beta to charge people to verify the software.
A beta is NOT suppose to make money, it is suppose to help weed out problems and/or to verify new features are what users want.
A beta expires because the final version that is charged for is available, or a new beta version is available.
|
Nite 2002-06-05 06:23
I hope you know that this is not the only kind, in fact many companies practice this method, and not only small ones. Consider for example WinZIP. This is excatly the same. You buy the software (latest released version) and you can then register the latest BETA. (Not many users use the beta, but hey, you're free to download UltraMon 1.0 as Christian said.)
Microsoft charger for their BETAs, so does many others.
tell me one commerical company which does *NOT* charge for a considerably improved software, even if its in BETA stages.
Also, keep in mind that Christian could call these UltraMon 2.0x versions and then just "update" to correct the bugs. Just like too many other companies do - release BETA-level software as "finished" product. Would you like that practice more?
\Nite - "can't rain all the time"
Multi-Monitor Gaming Web
|
Shaun 2002-06-05 16:20
Oh, come on! Most shareware is permanent beta quality anyway (if you're lucky)!
If you want to eventually own a license to use ultramon, just freaking register the beta and get the final version free of charge. If you don't want to license ultramon, that is not going to change between now and the final release, and you are probably wasting the author's time anyway.
With all of the really crappy software out there, it is nice to find a piece of beta software that doesn't lock up, crash or otherwise screw up my computer.
Just my opinion...
|
Pyro 2002-06-07 06:38
What an a**hole, is this guy for real, ultramon, even in it's beta for is the best program I've ever downloaded, it's the only thing, other than winamp, that I use everyday, the only thing in my startup items, and the only thing that I keep when I do a complete reinstall of my system. Somebody who doesn't want to take part in this revolutionary programming can go to hell. And just leave the rest of us alone
|
Geoff Nussbaum 2002-06-15 23:15
You know Andy, now that I think about it you're right! Ultramon is without a doubt the most useless, unstable, cr*ppy program I have ever...... no wait, I'm thinking of Office XP.
Ultramon is an excellent package. I for one am happy that version 2.0 has been in beta for as long as it has, since every new beta revision carries additional features with it. As has been suggested in previous posts, beta is a relative term. If V2.0 beta 7 were the last version of Ultramon ever to be released, I would still consider my registration fee well spent.
While we're at it, let's add a couple more definitions to the list:
FORUM: a place where people can whinge about the charging policies for software they haven't paid for, as if the free trial period had not been enough to determine its quality.
MENTAL INSTITUTION: a place where people are expected to whinge about whinge about the charging policies for software they haven't paid for. These people can then be restrained and medicated as required.
These two places are NOT the same......
----------------------------------
Athlon XP 2000+
512Mb DDR RAM
NVidia GeForce 3
NVidia Geforce 2mx
Dual 21" Monitors
Windows XP
|
jimmy 2002-06-17 09:50
WHAT??? ANDY. IF you don't want to pay for it, try using some other program. I bet you'd rather pay for a 'beta' than any other multimonitor program. I have yet to find any that can even compare to ultramon. MAD PROPS TO YOU ULTRAMON DEVELOPERS. Plus, the way the program has advanced since version 1.0 is amazing, so many more features and stability, however, i am still having some problems with XP Prof and ultramon but thats life. No one has the same computer or setup or even installation. Okay, theres my 2 cents well, 3 cents.
I'm a geek. yup, i am.
But so are you, since you are reading this!
We are geeks, be proud!
|
Andy 2002-06-27 04:41
Whinge?!?!? Ummm, obviously someone hasn't heard of a spell checker...
Well obviously the guys that have replied to my post have totally missed the point, but alias that is the point of a forum.
Who the heck said ANYTHING about me complaining about paying for the software?!?!? If you read that in my message, scroll back up and re-read my post. My point was who pays for BETA software? Software that is obviously being put out with known bugs, not enough testing on enough platforms, etc., etc.
Here I will just throw out this question. Show me another software package that the developer/company is charging for use of BETA software?
Even M$ that required payment for Windows XP beta CD's was basically charging for shipping and production costs. (However had they TRUELY wanted to make it an open beta, they would have just put a downloadable ISO image on their site, but that is besides the point.)
Anyone that believes I am unwilling to pay for software is wrong, I put out my own shareware software so I know the drill. I just will not pay or charge for BETA software.
|
Pyro 2002-07-01 03:08
You want to see who is charging for betas, search for beta software somewhere like downloads.com and see how many of them pop up without the word free-ware attached to them. oh and by the way don't correct someone elses spelling when "alias" you can't spell good neither....
To tell you the truth if Christian would just release the next version without the word beta attached then this wouldn't be a discussion, or am I wrong. Cause if it didn't say beta, Andy would just have said, "Yeah I'll buy that, it's not a beta so it can't have any bugs!!!" Which is something I think Andy would say given the previous posts he's put in this forum, by the way Andy, don't try to hide it we all know that you are under the age of 16
|
Keith 2007-08-30 17:45
For clarity, I think Ultramon rocks! Having said that, I agree with Andy; I won't pay anything for a beta product. As I understand it, a beta is pre-release - it is unsupported and, by the developers own admission, incomplete. On that basis, what am I getting for my money?
Yes, it could be released without the Beta label, but wouldn't that make the developer look bad? At best, they'd be inundated with support requests...either way, I wouldn't expect many return customers.
Again, you could say that you're 'pre-ordering' the software, but without a published release schedule, you do not know when, if ever, the product will be finished.
Like I said, I think Ultramon rocks and I'm prepared to pay $40 for it (although I reckon that $30 may encourage more sales...) but I think charging for a Beta is inadvisable.
As an aside, I'm not sure that the age of the guys posting opinions or their ability to spell has any bearing on this discussion.
|
Mustang 2007-09-05 10:09
Urm you do know this thread hasnt been replied to in 5 years?
|
gcdryden 2007-09-11 16:01
Think outside the box
Well here it is, your not paying for a beta of ultramon 3.0, your paying for ultramon 1.0 with the option to use the beta versions if you choose to do so. It's a one time fee and you get a good quality program. Trust me you will be back, you will not find a better multi monitor program out there.
besides if you think you are wasting your money, (a foolish thought) with the beta, you wont ever be truly satisfied, read previous forums, and see what everyone says about the product, i think i read one post that was negative in the past, I think 6 years maybe more when i first came across this program (i think it was 2000 when i found this)
|
gcdryden 2007-09-11 16:04
lol my bad i didn't even stop to look at the date lmao, omg I'm an idiot....lmao Christian Studer delete this damn thing will ya...haha
|
John L. Galt 2007-09-12 02:03
Actually, I think it is better that this resurrected thread be here - it is something that is probably on the minds of several people, including me, but as I use Beta software a lot (heck, I am running Vista Ultimate, and I paid for *it*!) I understand Christian's POV and think it is not a bad business model at all. There is not law saying Beta software can / cannot be charged for. WinRAR does it as well - and since their business model is pretty much the same as Christian's (one time license fee, and even the Beta release are shareware / time/use limited) I see no reason to continue to moan about it. In 2002 this may have been a more unique approach to doing business, but now, with the plethora of developers doing the same thing, it should not be an issue.
|
Bruce 2007-09-12 06:49
I have been beta testing Norton products for the past couple of years and have never been charged for the beta testing. And when one version expires another is always posted to replace it.
My complaint is I am running Vista and why would I want to purchase a product that is not compatible with Vista to try out the beta software, then when it goes final pay again for the final version. That is the way things are progressing, that there will be a final version.
|
Christian Studer 2007-09-12 09:00
Bruce, you won't need to pay again for the final 3.0 release, if you purchase now all 2.x and 3.x releases will be free upgrades.
Christian Studer - www.realtimesoft.com
|
Post Reply
|
