Question on renewal...
 
Share:

[Solved] Question on renewal licence  

Page 2 / 2
  RSS

(@mabula-admin)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2081
June 14, 2017 20:45  
Posted by: Scott Rosen

 Hi Mabula -  As you know, I am a BIG supporter of APP and personally would willingly pay your current pricing model (in fact, after I post this message I'm going to do just that).  That having been said, I can assure you that I am a relative oddity.  I don't mind paying for astronomical software, as I know that the money I have spent on my software is a very small investment compared to my equipment (I own about $1,500 in AP software as compared to more than 10 times that amount in cameras, lenses, mounts, guiders, etc.).  And, I believe that my AP software probably accounts for 70% of what makes for better images.

......

 

Hope this helps - you know I'm hoping for great success with APP,

Scott

http://www.astronomersdoitinthedark.com/

 

Thank you Scott, for your appreciation 😉

I agree and fully understand your arguments.

Your proposition of giving everyone the choice of a license model, either a

  • 1 time purchase with possible future upgrade purchases (not yearly, but only for big and structural upgrades) or,
  • a yearly subscription with a fixed yearly price including all future upgrades where the price initially is the same as the other years.

is a proposition I definitely could adhere to. It's probably the most friendly of all by giving each astrophotographer the choice.

Regarding the active internet connection requirement, I will remove this in a future upgrade and will replace it with another form of application security. The internet requirement would be something that's better to be removed for both types of license model following all heard and known arguments against it.

Once againg ;-), thank you very much for your appreciation Scott, and for contributing to this matter with your thoughts.

Kind regards,

Mabula

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


ReplyQuote
(@mabula-admin)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2081
June 14, 2017 20:56  

Hi Greg,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns 😉

How would you feel If a implement both options, like Scott suggested?

In response to Scott's post:

Your proposition of giving everyone the choice of a license model, either a

  • 1 time purchase with possible future upgrade purchases (not yearly, but only for big and structural upgrades) or,
  • a yearly subscription with a fixed yearly price including all future upgrades where the price initially is the same as the other years.

is a proposition I definitely could adhere to. It's probabIly the most friendly of all by giving each astrophotographer the choice.

By giving this choice to the user, it's very likely that both licenses will be bought and it will definitely give me the incentive of further improving and expanding APP.

(Prices per license model then would be like you and Scott suggest.)

Cheers,

Mabula

 

 

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


ReplyQuote
 Dick
(@dvk)
Hydrogen Atom Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1
June 14, 2017 21:00  

Hi Mabula, 

Congrats with the launch of APP! It seems to be a nice piece of software 🙂 

I agree with the 6 points stated by Marc Theunissen. USP of APP seems to be the pre-processing tasks (calibration, registration integration) and the Mosaic function.

For now, most likely I would use APP for pre-processing and further postprocessing would still be done by me in Pixinsight. Currentlyt PI simply offers more functionality with respect to post-processing. Next to that, in general, users have invested a lot of time in finetuning their processing skills with PI and/or PS. The decision to switch to a new application will be a very tough decision. The same thing happened after the release of PI. A lot of PS users nowadays use PI for pre-processing and are still using PS for post-processing.

Given that I would opt for a competitive priced  (75,-?) Pre-processing module . My guess is that significantly more PI users would in that case instantly decide to switch to APP for preprocessing. Next to that a Mosaic module could be offered (75,-?). Meanwhile you could develop the Post-processing module to become more competitive :-). At some point it would hopefully become a nice fully functional software package and you could charge a price simular to what PI charges (230,-).

After reading the previous posts in this topic I would like to suggest to make a clear distinction between updates and upgrades. Updates should  be free of charge. They consist of bug fixing etc. Adding new functionality or changing the user interface should be handled by a paid upgrade.

 


ReplyQuote
(@mabula-admin)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2081
June 14, 2017 21:38  

Hi Dick,

Thank you for your compliments and sharing your thoughts 😉

I understand your reasoning completely. I know that post-processing workflows and patterns are difficult to replace when you make the switch between applications.

Most applications work differently in most aspects and you will usually be forced into investing considerable time to get up to speed with the new application. I have been there myself 😉

Splitting up the application into several modules is something I will need to give some further thought tough.

Regarding updates/upgrades: indeed,

  • updates will be free of charge and there will be plenty 😉
  • upgrades however, would mean new functionality and / or structural changes to the application like integration of GPU acceleration for instance or big cosmetic changes to the user interface. And yes, those would warrant extra payment possibly.

Thank you Dick for your contribution 😉

Kind regards,

Mabula

 

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


ReplyQuote
(@kinch)
Hydrogen Atom Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2
June 15, 2017 00:06  

Mabula,

 

One of my favorite pieces of 'astro' software is Sequence Generator Pro. SGP is for image capture not processing BUT two guys with a passion brought this software on the market at a very reasonable (low even) initial price. My guess is that they got plenty of people interested because it was a 'good deal' to start with. Especially on the 'capture' side of things, a 30 days trial will not cut it but still they pulled in the punters....simply because it was not too painful to PURCHASE the software. They continue to improve the package but certain parts are as 'add ons' to the base software. People who want those add-ons, purchase them separate to the main package.

Something on their model will in the long run be a safer bet for you. Better to have many paying less than a few paying more. I'll say it bluntly.....the customer will want to BUY the software package....not rent it out yearly. As you improve and add to the functionality, then you can sell 'add ons' to the base software.

That way, you, if you continue to work on and add to the overall package, you will have a means of getting paid for that work. People who do not need or want certain aspects of the software will not buy those add-ons ......but in any case (thinking of myself for one) if the cost entails paying every year just to continue using the software....then I wont buy it in the first place.

They have a registration process for that software also. It still functions if there is no internet connection to check the registration....but will do so at 1st opportunity. However, with a relatively low initial price....I don't believe they have a piracy problem (though of course I cannot know this for sure). Those of us wanting an 'astro' software package generally are not inclined to go for a dodgy pirated piece of software that may mess up our work.

Bottom line - sell the software, sell add-ons (modules) if you improve it. Do not look for a yearly fee or many will not even bother beyond the 30 day trial.

Brendan.


ReplyQuote
(@mabula-admin)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2081
June 15, 2017 09:53  

Hi Brendan,

Yes SGP is really nice, I use it myself.

I understand now that the Software As A Service model I proposed did upset some interested astrophotographers. But others don't seem to mind at all I also understand.

I will definitely change my license model having heard and read all arguments from the astrophotographers on this forum and several international fora  ;-).

I am still waiting for more reactions before I proprose the new License model(s). I will probably announce that change within a week or so.

Thank you for your thoughts and concerns Brendan, it's highly appreciated.

Kind regards,

Mabula

 

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


ReplyQuote
 Axel
(@axel)
Brown Dwarf Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 8
June 15, 2017 14:00  

Hi Mabula,

Here is my take on this topic.

You enter a niche market with a new product where some other softwares are already well established and usually based on one-off fee to get the software or simply free (think of APT where Ivo and his wife develop a hugh software for free with several updates a year).

Add to this that the community has taken time to learn the existing softwares so there might be a high psychologic cost to accept to switch to a new software (without talking about any price).

At this stage your initial pricing structure does not seem adequate at the moment with respect to the development of your product because:

  1. you have virtually no pricing power for the moment and the software is not yet fully polished even if you plan to do so,
  2. this is a one passionate man company but there is a risk that for some reasons you have to stop develloping it in the future,
  3. your customer base is not yet existing even if there is some momentum picking up because it is fundamentally a good pre-processing software

I think a model based on the following would be more suitable to get some market shares:

  1. a one-off fee (limited to the pre-processing module + unlimited acces but no access to upgrades) of let say €75 - €90 range would be a fair pricing
  2. upgrade fee for new modules (post-proc + special features...)

But bear in mind that PI is charging €280 for the whole package so people will keep this in mind.

Competition is healthy and thank you for having develop this software and I wish you great success!

Best
Axel


ReplyQuote
(@mabula-admin)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2081
June 15, 2017 18:48  

Thank you Axel for your take on this 😉

Kind regards,

Mabula

 

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


ReplyQuote
(@gregwrca)
Neutron Star Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 223
June 18, 2017 06:08  
Posted by: Mabula Haverkamp

Hi Greg,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns 😉

How would you feel If a implement both options, like Scott suggested?

In response to Scott's post:

Your proposition of giving everyone the choice of a license model, either a

  • 1 time purchase with possible future upgrade purchases (not yearly, but only for big and structural upgrades) or,
  • a yearly subscription with a fixed yearly price including all future upgrades where the price initially is the same as the other years.

is a proposition I definitely could adhere to. It's probabIly the most friendly of all by giving each astrophotographer the choice.

By giving this choice to the user, it's very likely that both licenses will be bought and it will definitely give me the incentive of further improving and expanding APP.

(Prices per license model then would be like you and Scott suggest.)

Cheers,

Mabula

  Yes,I like this pricing structure best so far. It sounds really fair. 

GW


ReplyQuote
(@mabula-admin)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2081
June 18, 2017 10:37  

Thank you Greg 😉

Mabula

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


ReplyQuote
(@antimorris)
Hydrogen Atom Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1
June 19, 2017 17:08  

I am glad to see you are open to changing the pricing model based on the feedback given. I agree with the comments given that the current model is off-putting (as it was to me) since within a couple years the snowballing price just to even open the software goes well beyond other programs like PI or SGP (although that is for capture, but still related). I have a slew of programs for the calibration and integration ranging in prices, and while I am always looking to make my images better and find a better process for that, the inability to even open the program after the expiration date does not seem like a good plan.

A one-time purchase at a similar or slightly higher amount as currently offered that allows full access to the program indefinitely but after the 1-yr period is not eligible for upgrades without an upgrade fee seems like a better way to go. However, if you do want to do a subscription (although Adobe made this a thing, I think it is still not necessarily a well-regarded option by the consumers) then the initial cost should be the same as the renewal cost. This gives a much longer period for new users to spend time with the program before the price alone makes them go to another program and, by then, they will hopefully see it as an invaluable, well-tested, tool so that they are willing to continue subscribing.

Just my 2 cents, but as you said you wanted to hear from more astrophotographers before going to a new model I wanted to share it. 

Thanks!
-Annie

www.eprisephoto.com


ReplyQuote
(@mabula-admin)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2081
June 19, 2017 17:21  

Hi Annie,

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and concerns, it's highly appreciated 😉

I'll make the changes public within several days now... (more or less like you and others have proposed...).

Kind regards,

Mabula

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


Annie liked
ReplyQuote
(@ccd1024)
Hydrogen Atom Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2
June 20, 2017 08:50  

Hi Mabula

Annual fee is not a good idea for astronomy processing software. I own several ones (not free, like PixInsight, Startools... ) and I will try your software. If 150€ fee is acceptable, I would say it should be valid for major version (from 1.0 to 1.x )

Than, if you release v2.0, so it is normal you can propose a upgrade price, like 50€ for example. 

But 150€ then need to pay 50€ every year to use the software is not very nice. More if the software is blocked if licence is not renewed.

In this case, I'm not sure I will purchase your software, even if it has very nice features. 

Please think about a fair solution.

Best regards

Philippe


ReplyQuote
(@mabula-admin)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 2081
June 20, 2017 09:55  

Hi Phillipe,

Thank you for sharing your opinion about this.

I will definitely chance the license model and I will make this public soon..

Kind regards,

Mabula

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: